Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities 9780567656988, 9780567665201, 9780567656995

Citation preview

Ecclesiological Investigations Series Editor Gerard Mannion

Volume 23 Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals Challenges and Opportunities

Other titles in the series: Christian Community Now Receiving ‘The Nature and the Mission of the Church’ Comparative Ecclesiology Church and Religious ‘Other’ Ecumenical Ecclesiology Friendship Globalization and the Mission of the Church Agreeable Agreement Being Faithful John Calvin’s Ecclesiology Communion, Diversity and Salvation Denomination Dumitru Staniloe: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology Doctrine, Dynamic and Difference Democracy in the Christian Church Church, Liberation and World Religion Perpetually Reforming The Crisis of Confidence in the Catholic Church Christian Family in Contemporary Society Who Do We Think We Are More than Communion Urban Ecclesiology

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals Challenges and Opportunities

Jelle Creemers

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain in 2015 Paperback edition first published 2018 Copyright © Jelle Creemers, 2015 Jelle Creemers has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. ix constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Creemers, Jelle. Theological dialogue with classical pentecostals : challenges and opportunities / Jelle Creemers. pages cm. – (Ecclesiological investigations ; volume 23) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-567-65698-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Pentecostal churches– Relations–Catholic Church. 2. Catholic Church–Relations–Pentecostal churches. 3. Pentecostal churches–Doctrines. 4. Catholic Church–Doctrines. I. Title. BX8764.2.C74 2015 280’.042–dc23 2015017457 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-5698-8 PB: 978-0-5676-8248-2 ePDF: 978-0-5676-5699-5 ePub: 978-0-5676-5883-8 Series: Ecclesiological Investigations, volume 23 Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents Acknowledgements Abbreviations

ix

1

1

Introduction Relevance Objective Sources

x

1 5 5

Part One Classical Pentecostals in Ecumenical Dialogue

7

2

9

3

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism Classical Pentecostalism and the ‘range of Pentecostalisms’ Early American Pentecostalism and ecumenism Early Pentecostalism as a conversionist movement Early Pentecostalism as a revivalist movement Early Pentecostalism as a restorationist movement Crucial episodes in Classical Pentecostal history The internal Oneness/Trinitarian debate Classical Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism Classical Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal The Intertwined Challenges of Representation and Reception Introduction Classical Pentecostalism and the challenges of representation and reception Responsibilities in the Pentecostal dialogue team Free church ecclesiology and the mentality of a movement Description of the characteristic Responses to the challenges Assessment of effects Pentecostal critiques on ecumenism and the IRCCPD Description of the challenge Responses to the challenge Assessment of effects

9 14 15 19 24 29 29 31 33 37 37 37 39 43 43 47 57 58 58 60 72

vi

Contents Classical Pentecostalism: theological demarcations Description of the challenge Responses to the challenge Assessment of effects From the United States to the ends of the world: ‘Non-theological’ variety Description of the challenge Responses to the challenge Assessment of effects Conclusions

Part Two Ecumenical Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals 4 Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions Method Introduction Preparatory meetings First preparatory meeting Second preparatory meeting Preparatory Steering Committee meeting Phase I Phase I: Dialogue process Phase I, Session 2 (1973): Analysis of the dialogue process Conclusions Phase II Phase II: Dialogue process Phase II, Session 2 (1979): Analysis of the dialogue process Conclusions Phase III Phase III: Dialogue process Phase III, Session 2 (1986): Analysis of the dialogue process Conclusions Phase IV Phase IV: Dialogue process Phase IV, Session 2 (1991): Analysis of the dialogue process Conclusions Phase V Phase V: Dialogue process Phase V, Session 2 (1999): Analysis of the dialogue process Conclusions Concluding reflections: Development of dialogue method in the IRCCPD Pentecostal preparations The dialogue week agenda

73 73 75 81 82 82 83 92 93 97 99 99 101 102 102 103 104 104 108 118 119 120 123 133 135 136 141 150 151 152 156 167 168 168 172 184 184 185 185

Contents

5

Papers, responses and discussions The hard questions sessions Towards an Agreed Account Towards a Final Report Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together Introduction A priori considerations of theological method in the IRCCPD The 1970 preparatory meeting The 1971 preparatory meetings Conclusion Theological method in Final Report I Theological aims of FR I Theological sources in FR I Theological approach of FR I Theological method in Final Report II Theological aims of FR II Theological sources in FR II Theological approach of FR II Theological method in Final Report III Theological aims of FR III Theological sources in FR III Theological approach of FR III Theological method in Final Report IV (Theological) aims of FR IV (Theological) approach of FR IV (Theological) sources in FR IV Theological method in Final Report V Theological aims of FR V Theological sources in FR V Theological approach of FR V Theological method in the IRCCPD Final Reports: conclusions Theological aims of the IRCCPD Final Reports Theological sources in the IRCCPD Final Reports Theological approaches of the IRCCPD Final Reports

Part Three Reconsidering Ecumenical Dialogue: Conclusions 6 Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities Introduction

vii 186 187 189 190 193 193 195 195 198 200 200 200 201 203 206 206 207 211 215 215 216 221 226 228 229 233 239 240 241 249 252 253 254 258 261 263 263

viii

Contents Fair representation and diversified reception Theological dialogue permeated with spirituality IRCCPD’s five-step dialogue process The first step: Getting acquainted The second step: Confrontation The third step: Comparison The fourth step: Consideration The fifth step: Common witness The cycle: Forward and downward mobility

Appendix: Participants in Pentecostal Dialogue Team, Phases I–V Sources and Bibliography Index

264 266 269 270 270 272 274 276 280 283 296 314

Acknowledgements A book cover informs you of two basic truths, but is usually lying in both instances. First, it provides you with a title. Eight words, however, can never truly communicate the content of three hundred pages. A second lie is in the author’s name. I am listed as the single author, but this book could never have been published without the input of many others. Most of the scholars I consulted are mentioned in one or more of the 1126 footnotes. Other contributors of more significant importance would be entirely left unmentioned, if they were not named here. Again, this is only a selection. This monograph is the product of a doctoral research project at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit (ETF) in Leuven. I owe much to my supervisor, Jan Hoek, who never failed to lend me his ears when I was lost in the labyrinth of my thoughts. In addition, I received specialized advice from my co-promoters, Peter De Mey (KU Leuven), and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Fuller Theological Seminary; University of Helsinki). The input of all three resonates on every page, even if their names are not mentioned. My research has primarily been conducted in the stimulating environment of ETF in Leuven where I received ample opportunities to grow as a scholar. While many colleagues and students supported me in many ways, Maria Verhoeff and Léon van Ommen walked many miles with me. Marjorie Webber and David van Capelleveen were very helpful during the final sprint to present my text in an acceptable format. The David du Plessis Center for Christian Spirituality at Fuller Theological Seminary welcomed me in the autumn of 2011 to screen the archives on the dialogue. The director, Rev. Dr. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., allowed me to copy over 15,000 pages in his absence and sent me many helpful letters. On site, I was professionally helped and morally supported by Nancy Gower and Adam Gossmann. This research trip was enabled by a grant of the George & Nora Winston Fund and by the kind hospitality of Karen Jorgenson Murphy and her family. In July 2013, the aforementioned Rev. Robeck and Mgr. Michael F. Burbidge, Bishop of Raleigh, co-chairs of the IRCCPD, kindly allowed me to witness firsthand the dialogue session in Baltimore, MD. I thank all the dialogue members for their willingness to interact with me generously and openly. For the swift publication of this work, I owe thanks to colleagues from the Ecclesiological Investigations Network and from Societas Oecumenica. Miriam Cantwell and Rajakumari Ganessin provided professional editorial assistance for Bloomsbury/T&T Clark. Finally, this whole undertaking would not have been possible without my loving family. Ilona and our fantastic children, Lies, Joas and Lucas, offered me three support tools I could not have done without: love, patience and confidence. I owe them nothing less in return.

Abbreviations AG

Assemblies of God

BEM

F&O paper “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (1982)

CCR

Catholic Charismatic Renewal

CrArch

Creemers Archives

DPColl

Du Plessis Collection

F&O

Faith and Order

FR

Final Report

IRCCPD

International Roman Catholic-Classical Pentecostal Dialogue

IS

Information Service

JSC

Joint Steering Committee

LG

Lumen Gentium

NAE

National Alliance of Evangelicals

NIDPCM

New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements

PCPCU

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (formerly SPCU)

PSC

Pentecostal Steering Committee

PDT

Pentecostal Dialogue Team

PWF

Pentecostal World Fellowship

RC/RCC

Roman Catholic/Roman Catholic Church

RM

Redemptoris Missio

RobArch

Robeck Archives

SanColl

Sandidge Collection

SPCU

Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity

SPS

Society for Pentecostal Studies

WCC

World Council of Churches

WCFA

World’s Christian Fundamentals Association

WEA

World Evangelical Alliance (formerly WEF)

WEF

World Evangelical Fellowship

1

Introduction

Relevance In 1989, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, was the first to pronounce ‘the winter of ecumenism’.1 This expression has since become a shibboleth of disappointed ecumenical theologians and church leaders. The quest for visible Christian unity seems to have slowed to a trickle. Churches seem to be content with their separate identities and with an ecumenism that allows them to keep it that way.2 But change may be on the horizon. The growing participation of noninstitutional spiritual movements in ecumenical dialogue may be an indication that a new spring is coming. The climate in the modern ecumenical movement has dramatically changed since its inception, typically dated little over a century ago.3 Its history can be narrated easily with a seasonal picture. With seeds having been sown in the course of the nineteenth century, the ecumenical project vigorously grew during a long season of spring, 1910–1948.4 Since the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh (1910), an increasing number of churches and denominations became interested in the quest for visible Christian unity. The challenges and opportunities of living and working together as well as questions of faith and order were first taken up in separate movements but came together in the World Council of Churches (WCC), established in 1948. A short but hot summer followed (1948–1968),5 in which the WCC went through an astonishing development. The successful merger with the

1

2

3

4

5

Runcie used the expression in the 1989 Heenan Memorial Lecture at Heythrop College. See ‘The Winter of Ecumenism’, The Tablet, 13 January 1990. Ola Tjørhom, ‘An “Ecumenical Winter”? Challenges in Contemporary Catholic Ecumenism’, Heythrop Journal 49, no. 5 (2008): 841. Note that also the Pentecostal movement is currently going through a centennial crisis, as her traditional historiography is critically questioned from within. See p. 11–13. The World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910 is often pinpointed as the starting point of the modern ecumenical movement. The establishment of the World Council of Churches in 1948 in Amsterdam functions as a second historical marker. Cf. Ruth Rouse, Stephen Charles Neill, and Harold Edward Fey, eds., A History of the Ecumenical Movement: Vol. 1; 1517–1948, 4th ed. (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993). For the demarcation line of 1968, cf. Harold Edward Fey and Ruth Rouse, A History of the Ecumenical Movement: Vol. 2; 1948–1968, 4th ed. (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993).

2

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

International Missionary Council and the addition of Orthodox churches in 1961 led to high hopes, and a socially engaged ecumenism was prepared for in Uppsala in 1968. Simultaneously, the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) placed the Roman Catholic Church on the path of ecumenism. In autumn, fruits ripen and can be plucked from the tree. The period 1968–1989 was marked by dozens of new dialogues being initiated and significant reports being published and responded to. Faith and Order’s 1982 paper ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’6 is the prime example. In the current season of winter, alas, much fruit is left hanging frozen on the trees, put away in a basement or rotting on the ground. In contrast to the hibernation of traditional ecumenical dialogues, temperatures are rising in segments of Christianity that have long turned the cold shoulder to ecumenism.7 Since around 1990, interest in inter-ecclesial conversation and ecumenical projects is growing in Evangelical circles and theological dialogues are being initiated, in particular with the Roman Catholic Church. Some initiatives date back to the 1970s and 1980s, including the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission (1977–1984) and the Baptist-Roman Catholic International Conversations.8 In 1989, the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) issued a response to BEM, seven years after its publication.9 Four years later, the fellowship, renamed World Evangelical Alliance, started official consultations with the Roman Catholic Church. This led to a final report in 2002, entitled ‘Church, Evangelization, and the Bonds of Koinonia’.10 Also, in the 1990s, the most (in)famous of the Evangelical/Catholic theological dialogues was initiated, the US Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative. Its first statement was published in 1994, entitled ‘The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium’.11 As it was perceived as naïve and too friendly, this local

6

7

8

9

10 11

‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’ is unquestionably the most widely read, criticized and incorporated ecumenical document of the twentieth century. See, for the responses to BEM, M. Thurian, ed., Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’ Text, 6 vols. (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986). Cf. Kilian McDonnell, ‘Improbable Conversations: The Classical Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue’, One in Christ 31, no. 1 (1995): 20. Some South American Pentecostals denominations have been ecumenically open since decades. See, e.g. Carmelo E. Álvarez, ‘Joining the World Council of Churches. The Ecumenical Story of Pentecostalism in Chile’, in Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments, ed. Wolfgang Vondey (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 34–45. ERCDOM was a dialogue between Evangelicals from a number of churches and denominations and Catholics appointed by the SPCU. They had three dialogue sessions, in 1977 (Venice), 1982 (Cambridge) and 1984 (Landévennec). The Final Report was published in 1984. The Baptist– Catholic conversations had the first series in 1984–1988 on a variety of topics and the second series in 2006–2010 concentrating on ‘The Word of God in the Life of the Church: Scripture, Tradition and Koinonia’. This response was too late to be incorporated in the aforementioned Thurian, Churches Respond to BEM. It was published as Paul Schrotenboer, ed., ‘An Evangelical Response to Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’, Evangelical Review of Theology 13, no. 4 (October 1989): 291–313. Available at http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/e-rc/e_e-rc-info.html (accessed 1 January 2014). For the text and reflection on it, see Charles W. Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995).

Introduction

3

dialogue initially caused quite a stir in North American Evangelicalism.12 Seven statements have been issued since.13 Pentecostal participation in ecumenical dialogues grew simultaneously.14 The dialogue on which this monograph focuses, the International Roman Catholic– Classical Pentecostal Dialogue (IRCCPD), was initiated in 1972. Over two decades later, an international dialogue between Classical Pentecostals and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches was established in 1995. It resulted in a first final report in 2000 and a second report in 2011.15 In 2005, the Institute for Ecumenical Research in Strasbourg, France, initiated a six-year Lutheran–Pentecostal Study Group, which shared its conclusions in 2010.16 On that basis, the Lutheran World Fellowship Assembly approved the initiation of a bilateral dialogue.17 In 2010, an Orthodox– Pentecostal theological preparatory committee was established with the view of becoming a bilateral dialogue and conversations are ongoing.18 In addition to these concrete dialogues, formal and informal conversations are also held in view of the future establishment of official bilateral dialogues of Classical Pentecostals with other Christian families, such as the Salvation Army and the Mennonite World Conference.19 The gradual opening up of Evangelicals and Pentecostals for ecumenical dialogue has also been noticed by the WCC. Between 1994 and 1997, the Office of Church and Ecumenical Relations of the WCC organized and convened four regional consultations between Pentecostals and WCC representatives.20 Evangelical–Orthodox discussions were initiated in 1995 in the context of 12

13

14

15

16

17 18

19

20

See, for an insightful overview of the controversy, J. Daryl Charles, ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together: One Year Later’, Pro Ecclesia 5, no. 1 (Winter 1996): 73–90. There was also critique from the European continent, notably Leonardo De Chirico, ‘Christian Unity vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism: A Critique of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together dialogue’, Evangelical Review of Theology 27, no. 4 (October 2003): 337–52. The Gift of Salvation (1997), Your Word Is Truth (2002), The Communion of Saints (2003), The Call to Holiness (2005), That They May Have Life (2006), Do Whatever He Tells You (2009). All statements have been published in First Things. The difficulty of defining and differentiating between ‘Evangelicalism’ and ‘Pentecostalism’ is well acknowledged and elements of the discussion will appear throughout this work. The first report was published as ‘Word and Spirit, Church and World: The Final Report of the International Dialogue between Representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1996–2000’, Pneuma 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 9–43. The second report, entitled ‘Experience in Christian Faith and Life: Worship, Discipleship, Community, and Justice’, was published in Wolfgang Vondey, ed., Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, Volume 2: Continuing and Building Relationships (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), 217–267. Rather than a report of discussions, the 84-page document is meant to be a handbook, ‘designed to facilitate dialogue between Lutherans and Pentecostals’ (p. 1). Cecil M. Robeck Jr, Ecumenism and Ecumenical Opportunities for Pentecostals, 2010, 8. Harold D. Hunter, ‘Two Movements of the Holy Spirit in the Twentieth Century? A Closer Look at Global Pentecostalism and Ecumenism’, in Pentecostalism and Christian Unity. Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments, ed. Wolfgang Vondey (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 30. Cf. Harold Hunter to Jelle Creemers, email, 16 January 2014, CrArch. Cf. Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘Pentecostals and the Larger Church: The Current Status’, January 2014. This document was ‘prepared specifically for the members of the Executive Committee, Advisory Council, and Advisory Committee of the Pentecostal World Fellowship meeting in Jerusalem, January 2014.’ (p. 1). Robeck Jr, Ecumenism and Ecumenical Opportunities for Pentecostals, 15–18.

4

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

the WCC.21 In 1999, the Global Christian Forum was established as an initiative concretely aiming to bring ecumenically open Evangelicals and Pentecostals in dialogue with WCC-related churches, in a way compatible with their spiritual and ecclesial identity.22 This project organizes regular local and international gatherings that focus on sharing one’s personal faith journey with other Christians rather than on theological dialogue. One year later, a Joint Consultative Group WCC–Pentecostals was formed, which regularly discusses their relations in view of assuring Pentecostal contributions to WCC programmes and activities.23 Most of these (and other) new ecumenical relationships are still in a formative stage and their theological conversations are largely scratching the surface. As ecumenical methods developed for inter-ecclesial dialogues cannot simply be copied, methodological reflection is much needed in service of finding fruitful ways of interaction. In this regard, the IRCCPD has great potential. This unique dialogue between Classical Pentecostals and representatives from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity was initiated in 1972 and has gone through more than thirty-five plenary annual meetings, culminating in five Final Reports to date.24 Its long history offers valuable insights into the possibilities and limitations of dialogues with the involvement of a non-institutional movement. To date, ten dissertations have been written on this dialogue, offering historiographical and/or systematic theological insights in the dialogue’s progress, mostly focusing on one of the phases.25 But, as

21

22

23

24

25

Tim Grass, ‘Dialogue between Evangelicals and Orthodox: Past, Present and Future’, Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 27, no. 3 (July 2010): 186–98. Huibert van Beek, Revisioning Christian Unity: Journeying with Jesus Christ, the Reconciler at the Global Christian Forum, Limuru, November 2007 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009). A report of the first six meetings from 2000 to 2005 was presented at the Ninth Assembly of the WCC in Porto Alegre (2006). The second report (2007–2012) was presented at the Tenth Assembly in Busan (2013). For a short introduction on the history of the IRCCPD phases I–V, see Jelle Creemers, ‘Time Will Teach Us: Reflections on Thirty-Five Years of Pentecostal–Roman Catholic Dialogue’, Ecclesiology 5, no. 3 (2009): 322–44. Arnold Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler: Der römisch katholisch-pfingstliche Dialog und seine ökumenische Relevanz, Studien zur interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentums 16 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978); Jerry L. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982): A Study in Developing Ecumenism, vol. 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987); Paul D. Lee, ‘Pneumatological Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: A Catholic Reading of the Third Quinquennium (1982–1989)’ (PhD diss., Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1994); D. Cole, ‘Pentecostal Koinonia: An Emerging Ecumenical Ecclesiology among Pentecostals’ (PhD diss., Fuller Seminary, 1998); Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Spiritus ubi vult spirat: Pneumatology in Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1972–1989), Schriften der Luther-AgricolaGesellschaft 42 (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Society, 1998); Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Ad ultimum terrae: Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1990–1997), Studien zur interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentum 117 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999); Juan F. Usma Gómez, ‘Evangelización, proselitismo y testimonio común: un estudio crítico de la cuarta fase del diálogo internacional católico-pentecostal (1990–1997)’ (PhD diss., Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe, 2001); Constance Marie Price, ‘Pneumatology in the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 1972–1997: Areas for Further Study’ (Doctoral dissertation, University of St Michael’s College, 2008); Gabriel Tchonang, L’essor du pentecôtisme dans le monde: Une conception utilitariste du salut en Jésus-Christ, Collection Eglises d’Afrique (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2009); Karen Jorgenson Murphy, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: The Fifth Quinquennium of the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue in HistoricalTheological Perspective’ (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2013).

Introduction

5

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen already noted in 1998, to date ‘[n]o attempts have been made to analyze the ecumenical method and models of unity emerging out of this dialogue’. This would be, in his estimation, ‘a valuable contribution for the future’.26 The current work aims to fill this gap.

Objective This study analyses the history of the IRCCPD (1972–2007) in view of a systematic description of its ecumenical method. Two important challenges intrinsically connected to bilateral dialogue with (Classical) Pentecostals are addressed. First, this study seeks to define the Classical Pentecostal dialogue partner participating in the IRCCPD. Two chapters deal with this question, in two complementary ways. Chapter 2 provides an ecumenical profile of Classical Pentecostalism, the movement that the dialogue partner (cl)aims to represent. Chapter 3 offers a systematic, historical analysis of the composition and development of the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team in the IRCCPD (1972–2006). The intrinsically connected question of ecumenical reception – how has the dialogue team, in the absence of a unifying structure, sought to bring the dialogue results to the movement? – is discussed in a limited way as well. The second question centres on the ecumenical method, which has made possible the Catholic–Pentecostal theological encounter. Two complementary chapters scrutinize how the IRCCPD has allowed for (theological) results to be reached, which both dialogue partners considered valuable. While recognizing that form and content, and process and result, can never be completely separated, for the sake of convenience Chapters 4 and 5 deal with, respectively, the ‘dialogue method’ that has evolved in the course of the IRCCPD (1972–2006) and the ‘theological method’ that underlies the dialogue’s five Final Reports. Chapter 6 functions as the overall conclusion of this monograph. It discusses the opportunities and limitations of dialogue with Classical Pentecostals by discussing the ecumenical method of the IRCCPD in the context of ongoing discussions on ecumenical methodology. Promising tracks for further research are pointed to as well.

Sources As the four main chapters of this dissertation approach the IRCCPD from different angles, different sets of sources come to function as primary sources, with other sets appearing as secondary sources. Chapter 2 makes extensive use of classic and standard monographs, while articles are used to supplement and to put the information into perspective. Documents produced by the dialogue teams and archival material related to the IRCCPD are the main sources for what

26

Kärkkäinen, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, 34.

6

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

follows. Four archives are crucial to this work, of which three are located at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. The first is the collection of the first Pentecostal chairman and initiator of the dialogue, Rev. David du Plessis, which is preserved in the Archives of the David Allan Hubbard Library. This collection covers material on the dialogue from 1965 until 1987. 27 The second vital source is the collection of an influential former Pentecostal secretary of the dialogue, Jerry Sandidge. It is stored at the same place and covers material on the dialogue from 1972 until 1992.28 Third, the personal archives of Cecil M. Robeck, Jr, current Pentecostal co-chairman of the IRCCPD, were consulted. They are kept in his office at Fuller Theological Seminary and cover material on the dialogue from 1986 until 2006.29 Finally, the author, himself, has built up a significant collection of documents from and correspondences with (past and present) participants of the dialogue over the years.30 One additional source of information should be recognized in closing. The author was granted permission to attend as an observer the third session of the sixth phase, which took place in Baltimore, MD, from 13 July until 19 July 2013.31 The opportunity to witness first-hand the ecumenical method, which has been developed in the course of the IRCCPD’s existence, was very helpful. Furthermore, participants could be interviewed to verify conclusions from the archival research and to find answers that were needed due to ‘missing links’ in the archives.32

27

28

29

30 31

32

This collection is referred to as the ‘Du Plessis Collection’ (DPColl). More specifically, all documents can be found in boxes 58–60. This collection is referred to as the ‘Sandidge Collection’ (SanColl). More specifically, all documents can be found in boxes 11–13. As Jerry Sandidge made extensive use of the Du Plessis Collection for the preparation of his dissertation on phase II, there is a substantial overlap. When dealing with a document that appears in both collections, normally we will limit ourselves to a single reference. This collection will be referred to as the ‘Robeck Archives’ (RobArch). The term ‘collection’ is not used as the archives are not closed, as the previously two are, due to the death of their original owners. This collection will be referred to as the ‘Creemers Archives’ (CrArch). Special thanks are therefore due to the co-moderators of the 2013 dialogue session, Cecil Robeck and the Most Reverend Michael Burbidge, bishop of Raleigh, NC, for allowing the author this notable exception of participating as an observer, while he is not connected to one of the faith communities in dialogue. Interviews have been conducted with Cecil Robeck (totalling approximately 4:30h), David Cole, Juan Usma Gómez, Maria Ko, Marcial Maçaneiro, David Moore and Teresa Francesca Rossi. In transcription, these interviews total approximately 70 pages of original material, which have been incorporated in the Creemers Archives. In addition, David Cole provided me with two audio cassettes containing an interview by him with Jerry Sandidge, dated 6 February 1992.

Part One

Classical Pentecostals in Ecumenical Dialogue

2

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

Doing research on Pentecostalism is like chasing a rainbow. From a distance it is a bright, multicoloured and impressive phenomenon, but when one tries to approach and analyse it in detail, it resides, its colours vanish and the researcher is left with a puzzling combination of fascination and frustration. This is for a large part due to the fact that one easily speaks about ‘the Pentecostal movement’, but it is seldom clear what this designation refers to. This second chapter aims to draw an ecumenical profile of Classical Pentecostalism. Three perspectives are offered, which together allow for a good understanding of the movement’s general ecumenical potential and limitations. First, the difficulty of defining Pentecostalism(s) due to the enormous diversity within the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is discussed. Second, early North American Pentecostalism is described using three essential characteristics that still bear heavily on Classical Pentecostalism today. Third, three key struggles in later Classical Pentecostal history are discussed, which clarify the Classical Pentecostal self-image in the ecumenical scene, its potentials and limitations, and specifically its attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church. This chapter does not aim to provide ‘the’ ecumenical profile of Classical Pentecostalism, but consciously seeks to reflect the self-definition of the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team in the International Roman Catholic–Classical Pentecostal Dialogue (IRCCPD), as is argued throughout. In conclusion, an overview of this ecumenical outlook is provided.

Classical Pentecostalism and the ‘range of Pentecostalisms’ The cultural, sociological and theological diversity within the Pentecostal movement is so enormous that it has been critically questioned whether one should collect all of these currents under a common denominator. Having in mind that under the umbrella of ‘Pentecostalism’ one couples ‘Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) believers with African Zionists, Oneness Pentecostals with members of the Church of Christ on Earth by the Prophet Simon Kimbangu in Zaire, and Independent Charismatics with Spiritual Baptists in Trinidad, some of whom sacrifice animals’, the late Pentecostal

10

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

historian, Gary McGee, warns against ‘the peril of loading the terms “Pentecostal” and “Charismatic” with this much diversity and then claiming the definitions derive from convincing commonalities’.1 In an ecumenical dialogue, it is essential to have a clear view on the two dialogue partners. Yet, on the extent of the Pentecostal representation in this dialogue there has been serious ambiguity in different communications. Although the titles of the dialogue’s Final Reports emphatically state that the dialogue partner of the Roman Catholics is ‘Classical Pentecostal’,2 within these Final Reports and in other official communications on the dialogue the participants are often simply called ‘Pentecostal representatives’, who see it as their duty to speak for ‘the majority of Pentecostals’3 or ‘the fastest growing [Christian] group [in the world]’.4 Observers and researchers add to the ambiguity in their desire to emphasize the importance of this dialogue, as Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen does when he suggests that in this dialogue ‘the two largest Christian constituencies […] enter in mutual talks’.5 Such generalizing terms do not do justice to the dialogue’s set-up. Although finding a uniform understanding of ‘Pentecostalism’ is generally deemed impossible, the question of definition is of the utmost importance.6 As current co-chair of the IRCCPD Cecil Robeck acknowledges, ‘[w]hoever determines the identity for the Pentecostal movement is placed in a unique and privileged role. In this definitional act, there is power’.7 Different approaches to defining and understanding Pentecostalism have been taken. Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder and André Droogers offer in a very informative volume, Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, good insights into this quest. They list a variety of perspectives (typological, social scientific, historical, theological, cultural studies, etc.) and approaches (essentialist, analytical, discursive, genealogical, etc.) without attempting to give the final word.8 The one characteristic of global Pentecostalism that is regularly pointed to as a commonality

1

2 3 4 5

6

7

8

Gary B. McGee, ‘Pentecostal Missiology: Moving Beyond Triumphalism to Face the Issues’, Pneuma 16, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 277. For a careful overview, see p. 73–82. FR IV, 4. Information Service 92 (1996/III), 105. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘An Exercise on the Frontiers of Ecumenism: Almost Thirty Years of Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue’, Exchange 29, no. 2 (2000): 156; cf. Peter Hocken, ‘Dialogue Extraordinary’, One in Christ 24, no. 3 (1988): 212–13; McDonnell, ‘Improbable Conversations’, 21; Kilian McDonnell, ‘Five Defining Issues: The International Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue’, One in Christ 31, no. 2 (1995): 121; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘Pentecostalism and the Claim for Apostolicity: An Essay in Ecumenical Ecclesiology’, Evangelical Review of Theology 25, no. 4 (2001): 329. See Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 1–27. Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘Pentecostal Origins from a Global Perspective’, in All Together in One Place: Theological Papers from the Brighton Conference on World Evangelism, ed. Harold D. Hunter and Peter Hocken (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 169. See, especially, Chapters 1–3 of Allan Anderson et al., Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, The Anthropology of Christianity 10 (Berkeley : University of California Press, 2010); cf. Michael Bergunder, ‘Constructing Pentecostalism: On Issues of Methodology and Representation’, Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 27, no. 1 (2007): 52–71.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

11

in both theological and sociological studies is its strong experiential spirituality.9 Yet this characteristic is so general that at least in theological perspective it is probably wiser to dismiss the term ‘Pentecostalism’ and rather to speak of a ‘range of Pentecostalisms’, as is suggested by Cecil Robeck.10 Introductions on Pentecostalism(s) often start from a genealogical approach, seeking to identify the historical origins of global Pentecostalism and explaining the subsequent developments in order to understand from that viewpoint the movement’s identity, inner diversity and (theological) profiles. 11 It is a helpful approach for both historical and theological purposes as it shows continuities and discontinuities, internally and in relation to other churches/movements. On the other hand, it obviously rules out other definitional approaches with their concomitant foci and perspectives on internal diversity. As is argued in Chapter 4, the genealogical approach has been fundamental to the Pentecostal dialogue team’s theological self-understanding, for which reason this approach is the focus of this chapter. Two main discourses on the genealogy of Pentecostalisms have emerged in the latter half of the twentieth century and superseded the first phase in Pentecostal historiography, which based the origin of the movement in a unique divine action at the beginning of the twentieth century.12 According to Augustus Cerillo, the first ‘new Pentecostal historiography’ originated in the 1960s. It related the emergence of the Pentecostal movement to shifts in the nineteenth-century Evangelical theology in North America, focusing on developments in the Wesleyan, Reformed and Higher Life holiness groups. In this reconstruction, the strong continuity of early Pentecostalism with the earlier Evangelical/Holiness movements was emphasized. Donald Dayton, an important proponent of this perspective, explains that around the turn of the twentieth century in the Holiness movement, the ‘fourfold Gospel’ confessing Jesus Christ as Saviour, Sanctifier, Healer and Coming King was already

9

10

11

12

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen states that “[s]pirituality, rather than theology/creeds or sociology of religion, is the key to understanding Pentecostalism.” See his ‘Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology’, in Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, ed. Allan Anderson et al., The Anthropology of Christianity 10 (Berkeley : University of California Press, 2010), 224; cf. Warrington, Pentecostal Theology; Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995); Sturla J. Stålsett, ed., Spirits of Globalisation: The Growth of Pentecostalism and Experiential Spiritualities in a Global Age (London: SCM Press, 2006). Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘Making Sense of Pentecostalism in a Global Context’ (presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society of Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, MI, 13 March 1999); cf. David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, ‘Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 2004’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 28, no. 1 (January 2004): 24–25. See, e.g. Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997); S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas, eds., The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), xvii–xxi. On the history of Pentecostal historiography, see Augustus Cerillo, ‘The Beginnings of American Pentecostalism: A Historiographical Overview’, in Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism, ed. Edith L. Blumhofer, Russell P. Spittler and Grant A. Wacker (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 229–59.

12

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

in place, with its consequential emphasis on a life of entire sanctification. Early Pentecostal discourse added to these foci the practice of speaking in tongues and the theological identification thereof as biblical evidence of the baptism in the Spirit. The consequent rupture in the Holiness movement marked the beginning of what was later termed ‘Pentecostalism’.13 In this historiographical reconstruction, the cradle of Pentecostalism is placed firmly in North America, usually in Topeka or the Azusa street revival.14 On this basis, the diversity within the range of Pentecostalisms is classically divided into three subcategories15 with distinct forms in the global context and which generally have followed one upon and out of the other historically: (a) the Classical Pentecostals, a revival movement that remains faithful to the aforementioned roots in the beginning of the twentieth century; (b) the Charismatic Movement, which has brought the Pentecostal spirituality to the mainstream churches since the 1960s; and (c) Neo-charismatics, who are defined as a ‘catch-all category that comprises 18,810 independent, indigenous, post-denominational denominations and groups that cannot be classified as either pentecostal or charismatic but share a common emphasis on the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, pentecostal-like experiences (not pentecostal terminology), signs and wonders, and power encounters’.16 The threefold distinction shows the specific place of Classical Pentecostalism within the range of Pentecostalisms: it is, in general terms, considered as its trunk. In recent years, the exclusive focus on North America as the cradle of Pentecostalism has been heavily criticized. The concomitant question of whether (North American) early Pentecostalism can be considered the root of the range of Pentecostalisms is also a matter of debate. While historians such as Dale Irvin continue to emphasize that ‘one can trace some form of historical lines of apostolic succession from virtually every Pentecostal and Charismatic church or community in the world today to Azusa Street’, others, like Allan Anderson, state that ‘despite the significance of the Azusa Street revival […], when this is assumed to be the “Jerusalem” from which the “full gospel” reached out to the nations of the earth, the truth is distorted and smacks of cultural imperialism.’17 The sole affirmation of American roots did not seem to do justice to the multifaceted and global nature of the Pentecostal phenomenon from its origins and a new historiographical discourse was sought that allowed for multiple sources around the world without denying

13

14

15

16 17

This is argued extensively in Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, 1987). Cf. Dale T. Irvin, ‘Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity: Rethinking the Question of Origins’, Pneuma 27, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 35–50. See Burgess and Van der Maas, NIDPCM, xvii–xxi. This division in three phases is taken over in overview articles, also outside of the US context. See, e.g. Albert-Peter Rethmann, ‘Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Pfingstbewegung und ihre Praxis’, in Pentekostalismus: die Pfingstbewegung als Anfrage an Theologie und Kirche, ed. Tobias Keßler and Albert-Peter Rethmann, Weltkirche und Mission 1 (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2012), 17–24. Burgess and Van der Maas, NIDPCM, xix. See, respectively, Irvin, ‘Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity’, 44; Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 171.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

13

their interconnectedness. This was found by Bergunder in an additional historical root: the missionary movement. Allan Anderson supports this thesis and argues for a ‘polycentric approach to the question of Pentecostal origins’.18 By consequence, considering early North American Pentecostalism as the historical root of all Pentecostalisms is currently disputable, but it is generally considered the root of what today is called ‘Classical Pentecostalism’.19 The genealogical approach focusing on the North American origins of Pentecostalism is essential to the self-definition of Classical Pentecostals in the IRCCPD (see Chapter 3). Consequently, the theological particularity that marks the rupture with the Holiness movement is deemed essential for Classical Pentecostal theological self-understanding. In his landmark interpretation of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson defines Classical Pentecostals as Pentecostals who have a tendency to define themselves theologically in terms of the doctrine of Spirit Baptism and the concomitant ‘initial evidence’.20‘ The other Pentecostal streams, according to Anderson, are concerned primarily with the experience of the working of the Holy Spirit and the practice of spiritual gifts and care little about this theological peculiarity.21 Having introduced the importance of Classical Pentecostalism within the range of Pentecostalisms, the numerical realities are worth mentioning. There were worldwide over 115 million Classical Pentecostal believers in the year 2000, according to the estimations of Johnstone and Mandryk.22 The broader category, named by Barrett and Johnson ‘Pentecostals/Charismatics/Neocharismatics’, numbered in the same year almost 533 million individuals and is growing fast.23 Even when working with two different research statistics, it is safe to say that Classical Pentecostalism accounts for less than one-fourth of ‘the range of Pentecostalisms’ today, which strongly argues against too easily coining the younger dialogue team ‘Pentecostal’ without further qualification.24

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

Allan Anderson, ‘Varieties, Taxonomies, and Definitions’, in Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, ed. Allan Anderson et al., The Anthropology of Christianity 10 (Berkely : University of California Press, 2010), 25; cf. Spreading Fires: The Missionary Nature of Early Pentecostalism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007). The term ‘Classical Pentecostalism’ was, according to Gary McGee, first used by Kilian McDonnell in order to differentiate it from the Charismatic Movement, i.e. the arrival of Pentecostal spirituality within the established churches. Gary B. McGee, Miracles, Missions and American Pentecostalism, American Society of Missiology Series 45 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010), 90. ‘ Initial evidence’ points to the Classical Pentecostal ‘expectation that all who receive baptism in the Holy Spirit would be able to give some evidence of that fact other than a personal testimony’ (FR V, 256). Robert Mapes Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 4. Interpreted in Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, 14. Cf. p. 21–22. Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk, Operation World: Twenty-First-Century Edition, rev. ed. (Milton Keynes: Authentic Lifestyle, 2006), 3. Barrett and Johnson, ‘Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission’, 25. The main differences between the statistics of Johnstone and Barrett & Johnson are explained in Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, 10–13.

14

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Early American Pentecostalism and ecumenism Since long, strong reservations exist within the Classical Pentecostal movement against involvement in conciliar ecumenism.25 This does not mean that the movement has no interest at all in the quest for Christian unity. Some historians and theologians such as Walter Hollenweger and Cecil Robeck even argue that Pentecostalism actually is ‘inherently ecumenical’.26 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen agrees and characterizes Pentecostals as ‘anonymous ecumenists’.27 Hollenweger and Robeck base their claim mainly on Pentecostalism’s earliest beginnings in North America and they evaluate consequent developments on this basis. In their historical overviews, Hollenweger, Robeck and Kärkkäinen all note (a) the movement’s ecumenical beginnings around the turn of the twentieth century; (b) confrontations with other churches resulting largely in a defensive withdrawal to their own/familiar territory; and (c) the return to their ecumenical roots of (some) Pentecostals, resulting in ecumenical dialogues and organized ecumenism.28 These stages can, without difficulty, be identified in the history of twentieth-century Classical Pentecostalism, but it is incorrect to see the second group as ‘off track’ and to put the third group simply in line with the first. The ecumenical vision of early Pentecostalism is not the same as the ecumenical vision of David du Plessis and of those sitting at a theological dialogue table today.29 Yet, while positing Classical Pentecostal views on church unity today in direct continuity with early Pentecostal perspectives is unwarranted, characteristics of early (North American) Pentecostalism are fundamental to the current Classical Pentecostal self-understanding. The current subchapter argues for three intertwined characteristics of early Pentecostalism, which are deemed essential to understanding the ecumenical potential and limits of early Pentecostalism: Pentecostalism started as a conversionist, revivalist and restorationist movement.

25

26

27

28

29

See Harold D. Hunter, ‘Two Movements of the Holy Spirit in the Twentieth Century? A Closer Look at Global Pentecostalism and Ecumenism’, One in Christ 38, no. 1 (January 2003): 31–39; Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge’, Pneuma 26, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 307–38; ‘Lessons from the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’, in Pentecostalism and Christian Unity. Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments, ed. Wolfgang Vondey (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 82–98. Peter Hocken and Patrick Granfield can be added to the list. Hunter, ‘Two Movements of the Holy Spirit’, 2010, 21. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen Jr, ‘ “Anonymous Ecumenists”? Pentecostals and the Struggle for Christian Identity’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 13–27. Ibid., 14; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide, 355; Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘Taking Stock of Pentecostalism: The Personal Reflections of a Retiring Editor’, Pneuma 15, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 35–60; ‘Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith: Implications for Ecumenism’, Pneuma 8, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 61–84. The authors in notes 27 and 28 do not fail to mention this, e.g. in differentiating between ‘spiritual unity’ on the one hand and ‘formal/official ecumenism’ (Kärkkäinen) or ‘conciliar ecumenism’ (Robeck) on the other. See also Cox, Fire from Heaven, 74ff. Cf. Douglas Jacobsen, ‘The Ambivalent Ecumenical Impulse in Early Pentecostal Theology in North America’, in Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments, ed. Wolfgang Vondey (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 3–19.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

15

The three elements of this cluster are discussed in more detail in three sections, but it is easily seen that they are very compatible and that they strongly influence one another. Pentecostalism is not the only ecclesial movement that combines these three characteristics.30 Therefore, the particular colours of these characteristics in early Pentecostalism are discussed after short historical introductions and followed by insights in their implications for ecumenical relations in view of a balanced understanding of the ecumenical palette of Classical Pentecostalism today.

Early Pentecostalism as a conversionist movement Early Pentecostal understandings of conversion seriously impact views on Christian unity in Classical Pentecostalism today. The term ‘conversionism’ has been forged by David Bebbington in his now classic Evangelicalism in Modern Britain as the first characteristic of Evangelicalism, the others being ‘activism’, ‘biblicism’ and ‘crucicentrism’.31 Bebbington defines conversionism as ‘the belief that lives need to be changed’.32 Conversionism points to the conviction in Evangelical Christianity that each Christian must have had a personal experience in which she has turned away from her sinful life and towards Christ in faith. Conversion is intrinsically linked to justification, but differs in telling not the juridical but the relational and emotional side of the story of salvation as experienced by the believer. The importance of this story-telling within the emerging Evangelical movement in early modern England is evidenced in numerous autobiographical conversion narratives.33 The focus on a personal conversion experience was transported to North America by the thousands of immigrants searching for a better life in the New World. Early Pentecostalism, being a direct descent of nineteenth-century (North American) Evangelicalism, shares in this emphasis.34 As the conversion experience is considered to be the moment in which one receives justification and salvation, in ecumenical theology inevitably difficult questions follow. Three questions are central: (1) what is the relationship of this experience to the sacraments – most specifically to the sacrament of baptism? (2) What are the consequences of such a soteriological emphasis on ecclesiology? (3) What to think of the concomitant evangelistic fervour?

30

31

32 33

34

Movements such as Evangelicalism, the Mennonite Movement and Seventh Day Adventism can be argued to share in these same characteristics. D. W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1988), on the four characteristics, 1–17. For a critical re-examination of Bebbington’s definition after twenty years, see Michael A. G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart, eds., The Emergence of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities (Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2008). Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 5–10. See D. Bruce Hindmarsh, The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Autobiography in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Both ‘Evangelicalism’ and ‘Pentecostalism’ have been defined in very different ways, and there is no consensus at all on their interrelation. The simple, historical connection that is indicated here is, however, generally accepted. Fragments of the discussion on the relation between Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism appear throughout this work.

16

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Conversionism and sacramentology As the Evangelical movement has important tenets in the historic Anglican and Reformed churches as well as a large Baptist segment, it cannot but struggle with the issue of sacraments/ordinances, notably the sacrament of baptism.35 Due to their conversionist emphasis, early Evangelical preachers strongly criticized all understandings of Christian life that are limited to ‘going to church and sacrament’ and ‘doing no harm’.36 Like Charles Wesley, Bruce Hindmarsh contends, they considered all who naïvely trusted in the salvific power of the sacraments and had little outward religion but lacked what they termed ‘genuine, personal conversion’ simply as ‘baptised heathens’. Although they shared this anti-sacramentist view, their baptismal practices and theologies were very diverse, as still is the case in Evangelicalism today.37 Being rooted in nineteenth-century Evangelicalism, early Pentecostals took over both the critical attitude towards sacramentalism and the diversity of opinions on the sacraments. In 1988, Classical Pentecostal historians Cecil Robeck and Jerry Sandidge jointly prepared a paper for the IRCCPD explaining the vast diversity of opinions on baptism within (early) Pentecostalism.38 Their examples show that immersion, affusion and aspersion were all considered legitimate ways of baptism in different early Pentecostal streams. This diversity does not deny, however, that some leaders strongly upheld their own manner of baptism (in casu, baptism of adults after personal conversion) as being the only ‘real’ baptism. Varied as the modes of baptism may have been, it was generally agreed by early Pentecostals that baptism is not essential to salvation.39 William J. Seymour, considered by many to be the father of Pentecostalism, stated in so many words: ‘Baptism is not a saving ordinance.’40 Robeck and Sandidge argue that this position can be described as anti-sacramental insofar as Pentecostals understand the sacrament of baptism to function in other traditions salvifically, efficaciously or ‘magically’. Although baptism was considered non-essential to salvation by early Pentecostals, it was not considered unimportant. There was agreement that all believers are called to be baptized, as it is a clear commandment (ordinance) of Jesus.41 Yet the exact goal or content of baptism was not often explained, further than it being a public affirmation of one’s faith and a clear depiction of the believer’s participation in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the head of the church. Early Pentecostal teaching on baptism was not so much about what baptism was or conveyed but focused on what it was not: it was not a magical way to receive salvation apart from personal conversion. 35 36 37

38

39

40 41

Cf. Schrotenboer, ‘An Evangelical Response’, 291–313. Cf. Hindmarsh, The Evangelical Conversion Narrative, 137. See, e.g. Anthony R. Cross, ‘The Evangelical Sacrament: Baptisma semper reformandum’, Evangelical Quarterly, July 2008. Published as Cecil M. Robeck Jr and Jerry L. Sandidge, ‘The Ecclesiology of Koinōnia and Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 27, no. 3 (Summer 1990): 504–34. With the important exception of the Oneness Pentecostal stream after the 1914 doctrinal disputes. See p. 29–31. Robeck Jr and Sandidge, ‘The Ecclesiology of Koinōnia and Baptism’, 516. Ibid., 520f.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

17

The lack of sacramental meaning attached to baptism explains the openness of early and contemporary (Classical) Pentecostals towards (re-)baptism.42 Generally, (re-)baptism was offered to those who deem it important for themselves to mark their (re-)conversion. On the other hand, according to Robeck and Sandidge, there appears to have been a general consensus in early Pentecostalism ‘that people who are satisfied with their own baptism need not be re-baptized’,43 which again underlines the very low sacramental understanding of baptism.

Conversionism and ecclesiology When a personal conversion experience rather than the sacrament of baptism is considered as the moment of salvation and hence of incorporation of the believer into the Body of Christ, it heavily influences the view one has on the church. Ecclesiology was not a central theme in early Pentecostal thinking.44 As nineteenth-century Evangelicals, the early Pentecostals stressed that the one church of Christ is composed of all who are regenerate through repentance and faith in Jesus. Conversion makes one a member of the invisible church and all are called to be active members of a visible, local church.45 There is no need for a community of believers to be connected to a bishop in apostolic succession or to have an ordained pastor to be truly church: a local, visible church is simply a gathering of believers, and Christ has promised to be in their midst (cf. Mat 18:30). This distinction between the visible and invisible church is typically Protestant (corpus permixtum) and has a clear experiential-conversionist ring in Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. Early Pentecostalism grew mainly in communities that had a conversionist and restorationist perspective on the church. In case the introduction of the Pentecostal messages caused frictions and those who had received Spirit baptism left the church or were thrown out, they formed a new ‘Pentecostal’ community to come together regularly for Christian worship and Bible teaching. These groups slowly evolved into local church communities with leadership, membership, fixed regulations on sacraments and order and with relations to other such churches, forming new denominations.46 42

43 44

45

46

Ibid., 513. It is inappropriate to simply speak of re-baptism when the earlier ritual is explicitly not accepted as genuine baptism by the community involved. Yet, in some instances within the Classical Pentecostal movement, it was and is possible for a baptized believer to be re-baptized in the literal meaning of the word. Ibid., 514. See, e.g. Peter Hocken, ‘Church, Theology of the’, in NIDPCM, ed. S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 544–51; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Toward a Pneumatological Theology: Pentecostal and Ecumenical Perspectives on Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Theology of Mission, ed. Amos Yong (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002), 110; Robeck Jr, ‘Pentecostals and Christian Unity’, 320. This is nuanced in the ecclesiology of early Pentecostals R. G. Spurling and A. J. Tomlinson. See Dale M. Coulter, ‘The Development of Ecclesiology in the Church of God (Cleveland, TN): A Forgotten Contribution?’, Pneuma 29, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 73. Edith Blumhofer tells the whole story of the birth and development of the largest Classical Pentecostal denomination worldwide, the Assemblies of God, in Edith L. Blumhofer, Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1993). On sensitivities regarding denominationalism, see also p. 44–46.

18

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Conversionism and missions In his aforementioned classic on British Evangelicalism, Bebbington quotes Jonathan Edwards who states that ‘persons after their own conversion have commonly expressed an exceeding great desire for the conversion of others. Some have thought that they should be willing to die for the conversion of any soul […].’47 This activist zeal has led to enormous missionary activity of Evangelical Protestants in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. This was further fuelled by the early Evangelical and Pentecostal premillennial eschatology.48 Standing firmly in the revivalist tradition, the early Pentecostal movement has from its very beginning been characterized by an enormous evangelistic zeal as well. Even more than the personal experience of conversion was the Pentecostal experience of Spirit baptism with the concomitant gifts an incentive to bring the ‘full gospel’ to other churches and into the whole world before the end would come.49 In his historical monograph Miracles, Missions, and American Pentecostalism, Gary McGee gives numerous examples of Pentecostals who, individually or in group, more untrained than trained, left their home towns and went out to unknown territories to spread the ‘full gospel’, which had turned their lives upside down.50 Allan Anderson also notes the remarkable speed at which the Pentecostal fire spread throughout the world as a result of migrant missionaries: ‘By 1926, only two decades after the revivals that gave birth to the movement, Pentecostal missionaries were found in at least forty-two countries outside North America and Europe.’51 The grand success of missionary activities has made Pentecostalism(s) of such importance in global Christianity today and has put the movements on the ecumenical agenda. The conversionist nature of early Pentecostal soteriology had important ramifications on its missionary targeting. It started from the presupposition that all who had not been converted – according to their conversionist understanding – were utterly lost. The added experience of Spirit baptism gave Pentecostal missionaries the assurance that they, more than other missionaries, were spreading the ‘full gospel’ for which the world was in dire need. The possible ecclesial allegiance of those whom local evangelists or the missionaries met was of limited importance.

Implications for ecumenism today The conversionist soteriology of Classical Pentecostalism has important consequences for its theology of ecumenism and its appreciation by ecumenical relations. Four will be listed in conclusion.

47

48 49

50 51

Jonathan Edwards, ‘A Narrative of Surprising Conversions’, in The Select Works of Jonathan Edwards; With an Account of His Life, vol. 1 (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 40. See Anderson, Spreading Fires, 25. On the importance of the gifts of miracles and especially tongues in early Pentecostal mission, see McGee, Miracles, Missions and American Pentecostalism. Cf. p. 26–27. Ibid., 3–20. Anderson, Spreading Fires, 289.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

19

First, it is essential to the Classical Pentecostal theology of ecumenism that Christian unity is primarily considered a spiritual matter that is already present in the invisible body of Christ. The ecumenical default position of the conversionist Pentecostal can thus be optimistic and start with the acceptance that the dialogue partner who stands in another tradition is truly part of Christ’s Church if only he or she is ‘converted’. Second, the dialogue partner in conversionist perspective is primarily the individual rather than the church as the spiritual unity it starts from is inter-individual rather than inter-ecclesial. Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are by definition multidenominational movements52 and consider this a richness rather than a weakness. Visible unity among churches is not the primary aim of ecumenism for conversionist movements. If conciliar ecumenism is valued at all, it is in pragmatic terms. Third, one of the key struggles in the contraposition of ‘evangelicals versus ecumenicals’ concerns the differing appreciation of sacraments. While mutual acceptance of baptism is one of the key ‘objective’ elements in conciliar ecumenism, Evangelicals strongly oppose the sacramental definition of being a Christian and ask for other bases to build inter-individual and inter-ecclesial unity on, as, e.g. a recognisable faith story.53 The unwillingness of many Evangelicals and Pentecostals even to accept infant baptism as genuine baptism and the openness of some churches to truly offer ‘re-baptism’ to those who deem it useful even worsen the case. Finally, the emphasis on the necessity of a personal conversion urges Evangelicals/ Pentecostals to evangelize all who have not personally experienced such a conversion, independent of their baptismal or ecclesial status. Such evangelization of members of other churches is often interpreted as ‘proselytism’ and has led to tense relations of Evangelicals/Pentecostals with churches that refuse to question the salvific status of their baptized members.54

Early Pentecostalism as a revivalist movement The ecumenical outlook of Classical Pentecostalism is also strongly determined by its revivalist identity.55 The rise of Pentecostalism has all the signs that are typically connected to a Christian revival movement: prophetic criticism regarding the state of Christendom and the denominations, an emphasis on God’s kingdom, a trans-

52

53

54

55

See, e.g. Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 1–16; John G. Stackhouse Jr, ed., Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003). See Schrotenboer, ‘An Evangelical Response’; Klaus Fiedler, ‘Edinburgh 2010 and the Evangelicals’, Evangelical Review of Theology 34, no. 4 (October 2010): 319–34; cf. the ecumenical method of the Global Christian Forum. See Beek, Revisioning Christian Unity. See, in this dialogue, the Final Report of phase IV: ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness’ (1997). Surprisingly little has been written on the relation between revivalism and ecumenism: Stefan Höschele, ‘On the Ecumenical and Separating Potential of Revivals: A Case Study of the Millerite Movement’, in Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, ed. Peter De Mey, Jr, Andrew Pierce and Oliver Schuegraf, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 337–55.

20

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

denominational outlook, the prominence of personal faith and spirituality, and the organization of associations.56 These five characteristics of revival movements listed by Ulrich Gäbler can easily be reorganized to show the logical connection between conversionism and revivalism: the personal faith experience acts as an important impetus for criticizing the religious establishment of the non-reborn, for an expectation of divine interference in today’s world (often resulting in strong eschatological expectations), for ignoring historically defined boundaries between now reborn individuals and for creating new bodies of believers, intentionally in a ‘non-denominational’ way.57 In what follows, first the term ‘revivalism’ is defined by its place in North American religious history. Next, the essential relation of revivalism to theological novelty and the consequences for perspectives on mission are considered. Finally, an overview of the consequences for ecumenism today is presented.

Revivals and awakenings in North American history Defining ‘revivals’ or ‘awakenings’ is a tricky matter, as the definition and value attached to these peculiar occurrences are often ideologically loaded. The late William McLoughlin, specialist in American religious history, endeavours in his essay on Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform to work out neutral conceptions. He makes an important distinction between an ‘awakening’ and a ‘revival’.58 McLoughlin sees awakenings as periods of cultural revitalization that begin in a general crisis of beliefs and values and extend over a period of a generation or so, during which time a profound reorientation in beliefs and values takes place. Revivalism is, in his viewpoint, the Protestant ritual (at first spontaneous but since 1830 routinized) that accompanies the awakenings and in which charismatic evangelists convey ‘the Word of God’ to large masses of people who, under this influence, experience what Protestants call conversion, salvation, regeneration or spiritual rebirth. Although the differentiation between an awakening and a revival is not without problems,59 it explains that a revival is not just a religious affair but, being intrinsically linked to an awakening, it accounts for important cultural and societal changes. The sociological definition of McLoughlin emphasizes the religious experience of large masses of individuals as central to a revival, and this is largely in line with Michael McClymond, who defines a revival as a particular period in time when large groups of Christians went through intense religious experiences.60

56

57

58

59 60

Ulrich Gäbler, ‘Erweckung im europäischen und amerikanischen Protestantismus’, Pietismus und Neuzeit 15 (1989): 24–39. Cf. also Bebbington’s link between conversionism and activism in describing Evangelicalism. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 10. William G. McLoughlin, Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform: An Essay on Religion and Social Change in America, 1607–1977, Chicago History of American Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), viii. See Höschele, ‘On the Ecumenical and Separating Potential of Revivals’, 337. Michael J. McClymond, ‘Revivals and Revivalism, Definitions and Theories of ’, in Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, ed. Michael J. McClymond, vol. 1 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 366–70.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

21

The theological definition from within, however, sees not the intensified personal-experience-in-group but a special work of God as the defining element of a revival.61 Grant Wacker argues that the early Pentecostals saw their revival as an authentic reform movement and they rarely considered the possibility that someday another renewal would displace them.62 Wacker sees two reasons for this high esteem of their own revival: first, the strong eschatological expectation that characterized the movement and second, the conviction that the present revival had nearly become a perfect replication of the beginning of the Christian era. This second, restorationist characteristic of early Pentecostalism will be taken up in the next section.

Revivalism and theological novelty A theological characteristic of revivalism that is of utter importance for ecumenism is highlighted by missiologist Klaus Fiedler in his study on ‘faith missions’. Fiedler argues that faith missions are essentially linked to the spread of revivalist movements and he has keenly observed that revivals are typically characterized by new theological emphases.63 This is very clear in the revival out of which the early Pentecostal movement emerged. The theological peculiarity of early Pentecostalism is the explication of the earlier mentioned doctrine of ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ with the concomitant ‘initial evidence’ of tongues. The Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism was prepared in the decades preceding the Azusa Street revival of 1906, mainly in the Wesleyan and Holiness movements. Donald Dayton argues that John Wesley himself understood the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be necessarily associated with conversion, as was classical in Protestant thinking.64 However, Methodist teachers such as John Fletcher and Joseph Benson emphasized a connection between baptism in the Spirit and perfection or endowment of power, the spiritual and theological foci of their movement. Yet ‘the broader and more obvious shift toward the “Pentecostal” formulation of entire sanctification seems to have taken place in the wake of the revival of 1857–1858 […],’ says Dayton.65 This developing ‘Pentecostal’ teaching within the Holiness movement took the focus away from the discussions concerning the way to ‘entire sanctification or Christian perfection’ and called the listeners instead to cry out to God for the baptism of the Spirit, which would bring sanctification and power from above. Although this change

61 62

63

64

65

This is recognized by McLoughlin in Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform, 8. Grant Wacker, ‘Are the Golden Oldies Still Worth Playing? Reflections on History Writing among Early Pentecostals’, Pneuma 8, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 84. Klaus Fiedler, The Story of Faith Missions: From Hudson Taylor to Present Day Africa (Oxford: Regnum Books, 1994), 113. Cf. Ethel Goss: ‘A preacher, who did not dig up some new slant on a Scripture, or get some new revelation to his own heart every so often […] was considered slow, stupid, unspiritual.’ Ethel E. Goss, The Winds of God: The Story of the Early Pentecostal Movement (1901–1914) in the Life of Howard A. Goss (New York: Comet Press, 1958), 155. Donald W. Dayton, ‘Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: Its Emergence and Significance’, Wesleyan Theological Journal 13 (Spring 1978): 114–26. Ibid., 118.

22

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

of emphasis did not resolve the different teachings on Christian perfection – differing in opinion on the moment of sanctification and empowerment66 – it did lead to two important new focal points. First, when sanctification and empowerment were considered under the denominator ‘baptism of the Spirit’, the concepts carried a strong momentary ring, overshadowing the process side that was present in early Methodist teaching on Christian perfection. Second, the teaching of the end-time ‘baptism of the Spirit’ contributed to an important shift from a dominant post-millennial eschatology to the rise of a pre-millennial eschatology, in which the outpouring of the Spirit in this new baptism was considered the beginning of the end. At the turn of the twentieth century, the theological particularities of the Pentecostal teaching were almost all present in late Holiness teaching. According to Donald Dayton, only one element was still missing: the practice of speaking in tongues, and the theological identification of these tongues as the biblical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that is associated with sanctification, i.e. the ‘initial evidence’ doctrine.67 This doctrine was first developed by Charles Parham just before the turn of the century. In Parham’s thinking tongues serve a crucial role as evidence and also as a utilitarian missions tool.68 It was taken over by William J. Seymour and his Azusa Street Mission at the beginning of the twentieth century and provided these early Pentecostals with a proverbial line in the sand, clearly distinguishing their movement from the historic Wesleyan-holiness movement.69 Today, it is clear that the ‘initial evidence’ is interpreted in various ways within Pentecostalism and that it is not even present in every denomination that sees itself as Classical Pentecostal. Still, the discussion on the theology of Holy Spirit baptism is typical for Classical Pentecostals and a distinguishing theological mark inherited from the early American Pentecostal revival.70

Revivalism and mission In the monograph The Story of Faith Missions, Klaus Fiedler discusses the modern Protestant missions as ‘children’ of the revivals in line with German missiological

66

67 68

69

70

Dayton summarizes three variations in Pentecostal/holiness formulations on this Spirit baptism: (1) The dominant holiness position, which views sanctification as the negative aspect and empowering for service as the positive aspect of the one event of the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’; (2) the more ‘Reformed’ or ‘Keswick’ variation, which deemphasizes the theme of ‘purity’ for the theme of ‘power’ while keeping the basic structure of the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ as a second, definite experience subsequent to conversion; and (3) the ‘third blessing’ variation, which splits the holiness baptism of the Spirit into two events, sanctification and the ‘baptism with the Holy Spirit’ or the ‘baptism with fire’. Ibid., 122. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. On Charles Parham’s perspective of initial evidence, see James R. Goff, ‘The Theology of Charles Fox Parham’, in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 57–71. Cf. Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘William J. Seymour and “the Bible Evidence” ’, in Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, ed. Gary McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 77. The way this doctrine is dealt with in the IRCCPD indicates that the Pentecostal side indeed is Classical Pentecostal. See, especially, FR V, 256–59.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

23

thinking.71 Fiedler’s overview of the history of faith missions worldwide shows that the causative link between revivals and waves in missionary activity is not limited to the German-speaking classical missions. This is also evidenced by the strong missionary zeal of Classical Pentecostalism, which has been touched upon earlier. The current focus on the revivalist characteristic of early Pentecostalism and the concomitant doctrine of Spirit baptism brings in new elements for understanding early Pentecostal missions. In his monograph on Miracles, Missions, and American Pentecostalism, Gary McGee concurs with Fiedler’s assertion that the modern Protestant missionary movement has developed in waves that naturally followed the variety of revivals. He explains how, by the middle of the nineteenth century, a feeling of ‘great failure’ grew in this movement. Both on the home front and on the missionary fields it was recognized that the projected evangelistic success had not materialized. Still, hopes were kept high because of the growing expectation of the quick return of Jesus Christ. This return would be preceded by a ‘full harvest’ and the scriptural promise was remembered that the followers of Jesus would do ‘greater things than these’ (cf. Jn 14.12). A great outpouring of the Spirit in this last age was longed and prayed for, in the expectation that it ‘would bring about the fulfilment of the Great Commission and cure virtually all the ailments of the mission enterprise’.72 When the Pentecostal revival broke out, it seemed to bring the expectations to fulfilment. In the Pentecostal message, the baptism of the Spirit brought empowerment for mission and the concomitant gift of tongues was expected to provide a shortcut for language studies, facilitating missions in an unseen way.73 As ‘faith missionaries’, the early Pentecostal missionaries expected all needs to be divinely provided for if they showed enough faith by going when they were commissioned. More than once, their hopes turned into horror and even death, as McGee evidences with many examples.74 Yet looking at the ever growing activities and successes of the Pentecostal missions in the decades following, a triumphalist reading of Classical Pentecostal history of missions can easily be understood. Although the newly achieved gift of tongues turned out not to be useful in the mission field in the way expected, its arrival did boost the Pentecostal revival as it was seen as the sign that the last days actually had begun.

Implications for ecumenism today Concluding this section, the implications of Classical Pentecostalism’s origin as a revival movement are highlighted. First, typical of all revivals and clearly recognizable in early Pentecostalism is the tendency to focus entirely on the own movement as the epicentre of God’s activities in the world. Coupled with the earlier mentioned interindividual understanding of Christian unity and the distrust of institutional unity,

71 72 73

74

See Fiedler, The Story of Faith Missions, 112. McGee, Miracles, Missions and American Pentecostalism, 25–27. For a historical account of the growing interest in the ‘gift of tongues’ as a tool for missionary work in the nineteenth century, see Ibid., 61–76. Ibid., 92–97.

24

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

which often characterizes conversionist movements, strong separatist tendencies can be expected. History shows that an ever-growing fragmentation is indeed a characteristic of Pentecostal Christianity, which is valued negatively by ecumenists. Second, the strong separatist tendencies are logically connected to the theological particularity that characterizes a new revival. A newly (re)found theological emphasis usually appeals to only a segment of a church or Christian community and often causes internal struggles that frequently result in splits. Hence, as Fiedler reports, ‘each revival decreases the uniformity of the church and, inevitably, increases its pluralism’.75 From the inside perspective, however, the theological peculiarity of a revival is typically seen as ecumenically essential, offering Christians of all backgrounds the one basis of true Christian unity.76 This is clearly evidenced in the early Pentecostal belief. The theological peculiarity of a revival movement receives so much emphasis that it needs to be explicitly and very carefully dealt with in all ecumenical conversations, as the dialogue under consideration proves in the Classical Pentecostal doctrine on Spirit baptism.77 Third, the missiological consequences of revivalism have been discussed and the enormous evangelistic zeal of early Pentecostals has been explained by the explosive connection of their eschatological expectations and the retrieval of tongues. Amazing as it might have been to experience, McGee soberly relates how the perceived direct dependence on the Spirit and the urgency of the Great Commandment also resulted in individualistic approaches to mission, seriously hampering the missionary success and often directly harming inter-ecclesial relations.

Early Pentecostalism as a restorationist movement ‘The present revival had nearly become a perfect replication of the beginning of the Christian era, and when that process was complete, when the present became a mirror of the beginning, history would come to an end.’78 Such was, according to historian Grant Wacker, the view of early Pentecostals on their place in church history. Both the pivotal role the movement was expected to play in the eschatological scheme and its restorationist character resound in this quotation. The latter is a third essential characteristic of early Pentecostalism still bearing heavily on the ecumenical outlook of Classical Pentecostalism today. The restorationist ideal, also known as ‘Christian primitivism’, is an old and venerable theme in the history of Christianity. At its core, this vision seeks to correct faults or deficiencies by appealing to the primitive church as normative model.79

75

76

77 78 79

Fiedler, The Story of Faith Missions, 113. Note that Fiedler’s terminology differs from McLoughlin’s, as his focus is less on the North American scene and as for him a revival is not affecting an individual but rather denotes an eruption of religious enthusiasm in a segment of the Christian church. Cf. the Millerite movement’s Advent teaching, Höschele, ‘On the Ecumenical and Separating Potential of Revivals’, 9. See, especially, FR I and FR V. Wacker, ‘Are the Golden Oldies Still Worth Playing?’, 84–85. Richard Hughes, ‘Restoration, Historical Models of ’, in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, eds. Douglas A. Foster et al. (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), 635–38.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

25

While historical precedents can be given for different forms of restorationism, the restorationist ideal is characteristic of virtually all North American Protestant revivals after the American Revolution. Randall Balmer, specialist of American religious history, couples the American Independence with the American embrace of the restorationist ideal. After the Revolution, he says, the Old Continent was deemed obsolete as source of American self-identification. Consequently, American Evangelicals ‘looked for theological guidance not from the centuries immediately preceding their migration to America, but, leapfrogging history, they sought theological legitimation directly from the first century and the example of NT Christianity’.80 In the restorationist perspective, the Christian church must constantly strive to recover and continue the life and teaching of the early church. This has serious theological ramifications relevant to ecumenism in at least three ways. It is essentially linked to specific views on Biblical hermeneutics, on history and tradition and on the church.

Restorationism and Biblical hermeneutics In his analysis of American Evangelicalism’s change of perspective, Randall Balmer notes that ‘[p]aradoxically, one of the ideologies that would facilitate this transformation was an interpretive device imported from Great Britain, something called Scottish Common Sense Realism.”81 This philosophical method was built on the presupposition that the human mind can perceive the real world directly. Wed to a Baconian scientific method, it gave the nineteenth-century conservative Protestants, who considered Scripture as a source of knowledge comparable to the book of Nature, the confidence that one could discover the facts of Scripture as clearly as one could discover the facts of science. Pentecostal theologian, Kenneth J. Archer, explains that ‘[t]his “enlightened” Common Sense approach reinforced the Protestant doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture” and the traditional Western ideas of the perspicuity and immutability of truth. […] Furthermore, Common Sense Baconianism was viewed as a practical and anti-elitist philosophy that enabled the common person to know the truth, and as a method, it brought together Science and Scripture, faith and morality.’82 When in the late nineteenth century German Higher Criticism and the ‘new science’ starting from evolutionary principles arrived, the theological foundations for religious epistemology were shaken. Archer describes American Protestants splitting up and moving in one of three directions. Modernists and Liberals would move towards experiential foundationalism (à la Schleiermacher) while conservative

80

81 82

Randall Herbert Balmer, ‘Willful Naïveté: American Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Tradition’, Stone-Campbell Journal 7, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 211. Ibid., 215. Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture, and Community, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 28 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 38–39. Quotation comes from p. 39.

26

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

intellectuals (the Fundamentalists) would move to Scriptural foundationalism. According to Archer, the Wesleyan Holiness movement with the Pentecostals forged a third, middle path prior to and during the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the early twentieth century – be it in a less intellectual and less modernistic way. Like the Liberals, early Pentecostals were very concerned about religious experience authenticating Christianity. Like the Fundamentalists, they relied on Common Sense reasoning and argued for the divine inspiration of Scripture. Again according to Archer, ‘the Pentecostals said yes to both the authority of Scripture and the authority of experience. This put Scripture and lived experience into a creative dialectical tension.’83 The early Pentecostal affirmation of the necessity of religious experience for religious knowledge and spiritual formation was however taken over not from German liberal theology but from the Holiness communities out of which they emerged. Different from both liberal and fundamentalist theology, for Holiness folks and early Pentecostals Biblical hermeneutics had not as primary purpose to critically argue for or against the historicity of the stories or the truthfulness of certain teachings. The explicit purpose was to apply it directly in their immediate context.84 Archer states that Scripture was being read from a transhistorical and transcultural perspective. The direct confrontation of the early Pentecostals’ own interests, expectations and experiences with the book of Acts brought them to the insight to have restored the ‘full gospel’. He concludes that ‘the [early] Pentecostal reading was a popularistic pre-critical text centered approach from a restorational Biblicist perspective. From a modernistically critical perspective (both liberal and conservative), the Pentecostals were blurring the boundaries of the past and present as they exegeted Scripture.’85

Restorationism, history and tradition In the restorationist perspective, one period in church history should define the life of the church of all times: the apostolic era as described in the New Testament. Steven Ware explains that nineteenth-century restorationists would consider the restoration of the church, which had sunk into corruption soon after ‘the apostolic era of the first century’, to have begun in the sixteenth-century Reformation. Early Protestantism still carried traces of the said corruption. Only in the (own) restoration movement, true New Testament Christianity was being restored.86 83 84

85 86

Ibid., 63. Cf. Ibid., 69. This approach is coined a ‘this is that’ hermeneutic. Early Pentecostal usage is evident in Aimee Semple McPherson, This Is That: Personal Experiences, Sermons and Writings of Aimee Semple McPherson, Evangelist (Los Angeles, CA: Bridal Call Publishing House, 1919). Baptist theologian, James Wm. McClendon, Jr, sees it as part of a hermeneutic approach according to the ‘baptistic vision’ – after the sixteenth-century radical reformers. See James Wm. McClendon, Jr, Doctrine: Systematic Theology, Volume II (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994), 44–45. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 92. Steven L. Ware, ‘Restoring the New Testament Church: Varieties of Restorationism in the Radical Holiness Movement of the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries’, Pneuma 21, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 233–50.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

27

The early Pentecostals generally shared this basic view on church history,87 and considered even the Holiness movement, crucial to the formation of their own movement, to fall short of the apostolic norm.88 The element that proved the Pentecostal movement to be the true heir of the apostolic era was the divine initiative of the restoration of spiritual gifts, notably the gift of tongues. This restoration of the ‘full gospel’ was considered a mirroring of the apostolic era, heralding the end of the church era. In Grant Wacker’s words, the early Pentecostal view of history was ‘simultaneously providential, cyclical, and restorationist’.89 The generally negative appreciation of church history obviously influences the restorationist appreciation of ecclesial tradition. While historical churches emphasize the importance of tradition for the passing on of divine revelation, the development and enrichment of theology and its relevance for daily Christian living, the restorationist impulse is rather the opposite. Revering tradition holds in a restorationist perspective the danger of losing grip of the pure gospel and replacing it with the dogma’s of the church. The early Pentecostal movement was no exception, so Cecil Robeck observes: ‘According to their reading of history, tradition had […] clouded the real issues. What they were experiencing – the power of the Holy Spirit – was something fresh that had come not by tradition but from their personal quest for spiritual power. […] They wanted to be bound only to that which was truly apostolic, not to that which was merely tradition-al.’90

Restorationism and ecclesiology The limited attention for ecclesiology in the early Pentecostal movement is explained by Catholic Charismatic theologian, Peter Hocken, from the fact that the exciting message of Azusa Street was understood primarily as an individual blessing on a large scale.91 Some early Pentecostal views on the church and its organization can also be easily derived from its restorationist identity. As restorationists turn to the book of Acts and the Pauline epistles with the use of the Common Sense hermeneutic to find there the blueprint for the church in their own days, they dismiss all historically developed categories in ecclesiological thinking, including the institutionalized ministries, rituals and creeds that in historical Christianity are essential for framing Christian and ecclesial unity. The restorationist alternative would be a conversion-based inter-individual spiritual Christian unity, standing in an undefined relationship to the local community of believers. Prevailing customs

87

88 89 90

91

Even if the long history of the church is not considered evil, many Pentecostals would basically consider it simply irrelevant. Grant Wacker, ‘Playing for Keeps: The Primitivist Impulse in Early Pentecostalism’, in The American Quest for the Primitive Church, ed. Richard T. Hughes (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 200–1. Wacker, ‘Are the Golden Oldies Still Worth Playing?’, 87. Ibid., 85. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr, ‘An Emerging Magisterium? The Case of the Assemblies of God’, Pneuma 25, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 166. Italics his. Hocken, ‘Church, Theology of the’, 545.

28

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

that are considered unbiblical are broken, as is strongly exemplified in the abolition of a number of cultural and ecclesial limitations.92 In early Pentecostal perspective, the church was to be restored as it originally was vivified: by a return to Pentecost, divinely sanctioned by a restoration of the spiritual gifts. First and foremost was the gift of tongues, but also the other gifts mentioned in Acts and the Pauline epistles for the edification of the church were reinstalled.93 Prophets and apostles stood up to redirect the church to its proper destination. The priesthood of all believers was interpreted to mean that all believers were personally gifted and were called upon to take their place in the body of Christ. Hence, charism rather than ordination became key to ministerial theology and the ecclesiological starting point came to be placed on the local gatherings of Spirit-filled believers who were in no need (or desire) for a supra-local authoritative hierarchy.94

Implications for ecumenism today The New Testament and teachings of the early church have always been instrumental to the cause of ecumenism. NT citations and allusions to the life of the early church abound in ecumenical documents as they are foundational for Christian tradition, theology and praxis. However, when traditional ecumenical dialogue draws from the New Testament example, not the restoration of the NT church is sought but its continuity throughout history, not the rejection of tradition but its full retrieval. The restorationist character of early Pentecostalism, which finds in the NT the blueprint for contemporary ecclesial life, is in this way at odds with classical ecumenical theology. First, the restorationist Common Sense hermeneutic, which has continued to characterize Pentecostal hermeneutics for decades, works as long as the people with whom you read Scripture share the same presuppositions. An ecumenical ‘common sense’ reading of the New Testament is simply impossible as hermeneutical and theological presuppositions are different. Ecumenical dialogue partners often read Scripture with a critical hermeneutical method that is suspicious of authorship and authority claims, focuses on frictions rather than on harmonization, and yields very different understandings of the life and exemplary function of the early church. Second, the restorationist view on church history implies a strong negative sentiment towards ecclesial communities that are identified with the corruption of the church. When early Pentecostals saw Roman Catholicism as ‘Christopaganism’ or ‘baptised paganism’,95 it left them with little desire to enter into ecumenical contact with them. The same goes for the Protestant churches that were unwilling to read the signs of the time and to accept the cosmic relevance of the Pentecostal baptism. The enthusiasm for their own revival left early Pentecostals with little interest for

92

93 94

95

Balmer, ‘Willful Naïveté’; Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). Wacker, ‘Playing for Keeps’, 204–5. Cf. Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity, Sacra Doctrina (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998). Anderson, Spreading Fires, 191.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

29

what the Spirit might be doing elsewhere in Christianity. Such an anti-ecumenical sentiment is still prevalent in many Classical Pentecostal circles. Third, the consequences for ecumenism of the anti-traditionalism that characterizes restorationist Christianity are enormous. Appeals to creeds or confessions, positive examples or commonalities that are shared by different traditions lose most of their ecumenical value because of a strict interpretation and application of the Protestant sola scriptura principle. The dogmatic struggles through which the church has gone in the course of history can, however, not be negated. They will simply pop up again, as they did in the history of Pentecostalism. Cecil Robeck states firmly that ‘during the first century of its existence the Pentecostal movement has divided over virtually every issue that it took 1,900 years to divide the rest of the church’.96 The consequent theological diversity in the movement makes it very difficult to enter in theological dialogue with even part of it.

Crucial episodes in Classical Pentecostal history After having looked at three characteristics of early Pentecostalism that still heavily influence the ecumenical outlook of Classical Pentecostalism today, attention goes to three key struggles in Classical Pentecostalism’s development in the twentieth century in view of a good understanding of the movement’s relation to the ecumenical movement and to the Roman Catholic Church. One internal struggle and two struggles related to other Christian faith communities will pass in review. First, the deep rift between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals caused by a heated debate within early Pentecostalism over the baptismal formula and consequently over the Trinity is discussed. Second, attention goes to the struggle of the emerging Classical Pentecostalism in the first decennia of its existence in relation to Evangelical Fundamentalism. Third, the outbreak of the Charismatic movement and more specifically of the Charismatic Renewal within the Roman Catholic Church is discussed, as it has strongly influenced the attitudes within the Classical Pentecostal movement vis-à-vis other ecclesial communities.

The internal Oneness/Trinitarian debate The most dramatic and ecumenically sensitive split within early Pentecostalism took place in 1916, when, based on a strict reading and application of Acts 2.38 and a hyperchristocentric view on God, a large section of the emerging Pentecostal movement distanced itself from the classical Trinitarian confession: Oneness Pentecostalism. A fair presentation of the history of Oneness Pentecostalism or its global presence is seriously impeded by the lack of academic sources.97 David A. Reed’s comprehensive

96 97

Robeck Jr, ‘Pentecostals and Christian Unity’, 309. David Bundy, ‘Documenting “Oneness” Pentecostalism: A Case Study in the Ethical Dilemmas Posed by the Creation of Documentation’, ATLA Summary of Proceedings 53 (1999): 155–75.

30

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

monograph In Jesus’ Name: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals (2008) is a valuable exception. In this volume, Reed places the development and theology of Oneness Pentecostalism in the framework of contemporary Evangelical and Pentecostal thinking and argues for the movement to be considered ‘heterodox’ rather than ‘heretical’.98 Reed traces the Oneness movement to Pietist and Evangelical roots that emphasize salvation through faith in Christ alone and ‘the power of his Name’.99 The Finished Work teaching of William Durham is pointed to as the precursor of the Oneness doctrine. Contrary to earlier Pentecostal leaders, who had emphasized the (Holiness) distinction between conversion and entire sanctification as two necessary works of grace,100 Durham stated in 1910 that conversion and sanctification constitute only one work of grace based on an identification of the believer with Jesus Christ built on Rom. 6.4-6. This text also brought him to put emphasis on water baptism, which was quite uncharacteristic of evangelical revivalism at the time. Durham insisted that baptism was part of the biblical pattern for receiving Spirit baptism and pointed to Acts 2.38 as a proof-text.101 According to Reed, Durham’s teaching took root in the emerging Pentecostal movement as it combined impulses that had been strengthening in radical Holiness circles for decades: a strong christocentric soteriology, concentration on the ‘power of the Name’ and an abolition of the distinction between conversion and sanctification.102 In 1914, Frank Ewart radicalized Durham’s thinking and insisted on the necessity of baptism in the name of Jesus. His bold and deliberate action of rebaptism and the theological paradigm shift that was behind it credit him as the founder of Oneness Pentecostalism. In the years following, the ‘New Issue’ developed into a new doctrine of God, which is, in Reed’s words, ‘in essence a form of Modalism’.103 It concentrates heavily on Christ, the ‘one person who was the full manifestation of the one God’104 and whose name, Jesus, is considered the proper name for God in this era. The name of Jesus is also considered indispensable in the baptismal formula because of the spiritual power it delivers. This resulted in, according to Reed, ‘a theology of salvation that, in its exclusivity, accorded all other Christians second-class status’.105 In the following decades, Oneness Pentecostals organized themselves in ways comparable to the Trinitarian Pentecostals. Although they have remained isolated from the larger Pentecostal movement and their umbrella organizations, they have

98

David A. Reed, In Jesus’ Name: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 31 (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2008), 346. 99 Ibid., 9–73. 100 Cf. Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 106. 101 Reed, In Jesus’ Name, 91. 102 Ibid., 137ff. 103 Ibid., 179. 104 Ibid., 184. 105 Ibid., 205.

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

31

continued to grow and mature over the generations. This makes a reconsideration inevitable on both sides, says Reed.106 Although the rift between the Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals is deep, both belong to what was later labelled ‘Classical Pentecostalism’. The emergence of Oneness Pentecostalism as an important section of Classical Pentecostalism has consequences for the inter-ecclesial relations of the latter movement and for the dialogue under consideration. First, the negative experiences of Oneness Pentecostals in their relations to Trinitarian Pentecostals have caused the Oneness movement to become quite self-centred. Oneness Pentecostalism, though a globally growing movement, has little interest in inter-ecclesial relations or ecumenism as their theology differentiates substantially from quasi all other Christian traditions. Second, this distancing is mutual. As the Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity, other Christian traditions are very hesitant to search for or express any kind of unity with them.107 The Roman Catholic Church, for example, considers baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as essential for entry into Christ and the Church. Its Ecumenical Directory insists on clarity in this regard in ecumenical dialogue.108 Hence, in the course of the dialogue under consideration, the Oneness teaching needed to be dealt with in a careful way (see below).

Classical Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism In the second half of the nineteenth century, Evangelicals in North American theological institutes and churches had to deal with the growing importance of two European tenets of modernism: Darwinian evolutionism and the so-called German Higher Criticism. As Modernist theology was deemed disastrous by conservative American Christianity, it needed to be fought fiercely and effectively. The combatants of this ideological battle came to be known in the beginning of the twentieth century as the Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism developed in North America roughly simultaneously with the Pentecostal movement. This section discusses their historical relations and explains the consequences for Pentecostal ecumenical engagement. The origins and characteristics of Fundamentalism have been discussed in some major publications of the 1970s and 1980s.109 Crucial and synthesizing is George Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture, first published in

106

Ibid., 223. The rapprochement is indirectly facilitated by the IRCCPD (see p. 75–78). The only theological ecumenical dialogue in which Oneness Pentecostals were explicitly involved was with Trinitarian Pentecostals. Initiated in 2002, it led to a Final Report in 2007. ‘OnenessTrinitarian Pentecostal Final Report, 2002–2007’, Pneuma 30, no. 2 (2008): 203–24. 108 Cf. Lumen Gentium, §7, 15–17, 50; Unitatis Redintegratio §1, §12. See the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism §92–95, 99. 109 James Barr, Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978); George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1973); David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986); George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991); Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930 (1970; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008). 107

32

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

1980 and updated in 2006. As a sympathetic observer, Marsden explains that Fundamentalism was not simply reactionary to Modernism but had deep roots in nineteenth-century American Protestantism. For its philosophical backbone, the movement relied heavily on the earlier mentioned Scottish Common Sense realism. Marsden states that it is a mistake to regard the Fundamentalist controversies as essentially a conflict between science and religion. Fundamentalists ‘were not opposed to science as such. Rather, they were judging the standards of the later scientific revolution by the standards of the first – the revolution of Bacon and Newton. In their view, science depended on fact and demonstration. Darwinism, so far as they could see, was based on neither.’110 The outbreak and severity of World War I in Europe demonstrated to the growing Fundamentalist movement that giving room to Modernism led to chaos and destruction. Fundamentalists started to organize themselves and in 1919 the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) was founded. Their common aim was to counter the theological liberalization of the American denominations. Fundamentalism/Modernism became a clash of two worlds, which both were located in the United States but ideologically were light years apart. Their perspectives on their battles over Scripture, American education and denominations were completely different. ‘While the fundamentalists argued that the acceptance or rejection of truth was at issue, the modernists insisted that the perception of truth was inevitably shaped by cultural circumstances. By modernist definition fundamentalists were those who for sociological reasons held on to the past in stubborn and irrational resistance to inevitable changes in culture.’111 The 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, smashed to pieces all dignity the Fundamentalists had left, in the face of a closely watching world. Anger and shame brought them to even more activity in the years following, but the movement had lost an important battle and moderate conservatives turned away from the movement en masse. Fundamentalism and early Pentecostalism both grew out of nineteenth-century Evangelicalism, but the relation between the movements has been conceived in different ways.112 Gerald W. King historically analysed the relationship between Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism in America between 1906 and 1943.113 110

Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 214. Ibid., 185. 112 Historians of Pentecostalism as Russ Spittler, Walter Hollenweger, Vinson Synan and Kenneth Archer have a tendency to differentiate strongly between the two early movements: Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition, 209. See also Russell P. Spittler, ‘Are Pentecostals and Charismatics Fundamentalists? A Review of American Uses of These Categories’, in Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, ed. Karla Poewe, Studies in Comparative Religion (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 103–16; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 1997, 190–92; Burgess and Van der Maas, NIDPCM, 655–58; Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 63; Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 94. American historian Matthew Sutton claims, however, that early Pentecostals were just one of the various groups that constituted the broad Fundamentalist movement. Matthew A. Sutton, ‘ “Between the Refrigerator and the Wildfire”: Aimee Semple McPherson, Pentecostalism, and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy’, Church History 72, no. 1 (March 2003): 163. The strong distancing of Pentecostals from the Fundamentalists can clearly be found in the dialogue under consideration. See FR IV, 86. 113 Gerald Wayne King, ‘Disfellowshiped: Pentecostal Responses to Fundamentalism in the United States, 1906–1943’ (PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2009). 111

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

33

King differentiates between the movements but agrees to mutual influence. He distinguishes three phases in their relationship. In the time of the ‘genesis’ of Pentecostalism (1906–1909), King notices at first a negative reaction of the rationalistically minded (proto-)Fundamentalists to the emotional excesses of the new movement. The early Pentecostals defended their authenticity by appeals to historical precedents and the overwhelming nature of their experience.114 Next came a period of ‘adaptation’ (1910–1924). When Pentecostalism began its explosive growth, it was seen as a threat by the (proto-)Fundamentalists who reacted aggressively. Pentecostals would not distance themselves from the Fundamentalists, as they considered themselves as ‘ “fundamentalists plus,” meaning they possessed both the wisdom of the Word and the power of the Spirit’.115 According to King, the third period of ‘retention’ started in 1925. The Pentecostals had long ignored the Fundamentalist battle against evolutionary teachings in public education. When it found its way in the curriculum of the second generation Pentecostal children, however, the Pentecostals took over the creationist discourse and a more cerebral study of the Bible. They distinguished themselves from the Fundamentalists with a greater emphasis on spiritual applications of the texts. The Fundamentalists, on the other hand, persisted in their hostility towards the Pentecostals, and in 1928 ‘Modern Pentecostalism’ was publicly rebuked by the WCFA. Yet, certain Fundamentalists such as John R. Straton began to see the benefits of cooperation with Pentecostals.116 In the early 1930s, King argues, Pentecostals further consolidated the grip that Fundamentalism had on them by not only taking over their content but also writing on Fundamentalist themes themselves.117 The fact that early Pentecostals spoke the Fundamentalist language had consequences for their relation to Roman Catholicism, as ‘Romanism’ was considered one of the enemies of the Fundamentalists. Catholics and Pentecostals, however, shared an important theological connection in their belief in miracles. They were both attacked for that by the Fundamentalists, whose dispensationalist theology denied the possibility of miracles today. A modern-day miracle did happen, according to many Pentecostals and Catholics, when the Charismatic Renewal broke out in the Catholic Church.

Classical Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal Pentecostalism kept a fair distance from historical churches for decades, but the growth of the movement and its explicit spirituality did not remain unnoticed.118

114

Ibid., 63–95. Ibid., 172. 116 Ibid., 186–228. 117 Ibid., 229. 118 Note that Pentecostals first met comfortably with Christians from other traditions in the context of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International, an organization founded in 1953 by Demos Shakarian in Los Angeles, California, now operating worldwide. More early stirrings of the Charismatic Movement are described in Peter Hocken, ‘Charismatic Movement’, in New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2002), 477–79. 115

34

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Protestants first became interested in the so-called ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’. The first Episcopalian clergyman who publicly announced he had received Spirit baptism but saw no need to leave his church consequentially has been taken up in the annals of Pentecostal/Charismatic church history. Dennis Bennett, rector at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California, spoke in tongues in 1959 and considered it wholly compatible with Episcopalian spirituality.119 He fired a shot that was heard around the country, and by the early 1960s in virtually every major Protestant tradition people were receiving Spirit baptism.120 The major catalyst for ecclesial renewal in twentieth-century Catholicism was of course the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965.121 It dramatically changed the outlook of the Roman Catholic Church and her perspective on non-Catholic Christianity. At the council, the diverse rivulets of change that had been meandering their way towards the heart of the church in the preceding decades came together and formed a mighty stream of renewal. This implied a new emphasis on the work of the Spirit, a shift from the clerical focus to more attention for the entire people of God, and a plea for a charismatic reconfiguration of the church’s internal and external ministries. Soon after Vatican II, the Roman Catholic openness to other churches and their spiritualities resulted in the emergence and explosive growth of the Charismatic movement within the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR). It began at what was later named ‘the Duquesne Weekend’ in February 1967. During a retreat about twenty professors, graduate students and their wives from Duquesne University experienced manifestations of the Spirit in diverse ways.122 The movement quickly expanded to other Midwestern university campuses and to the rest of the United States. The structure of the Roman Catholic Church combined with the flexibility of the movement made it possible to channelize the growth and work towards a general reception within the church.123 119

Hocken, ‘Charismatic Movement’, 479–81; Benjamin A. Wagner, ‘Cautious Embrace: The Assemblies of God and the Charismatic Renewal’, Assemblies of God Heritage, 2009. Bennett wrote down his personal testimony on this life-changing experience in Dennis J. Bennett, Nine O’Clock in the Morning (Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1970). 120 Hocken, ‘Charismatic Movement’, 480; Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition, 230–33. 121 Peter Hocken also points to different developments in the Catholic Church before the sixties, which helped prepare the way for the renewal. Peter Hocken, ‘The Catholic Charismatic Renewal’, in Century of the Holy Spirit: Hundred Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001, ed. Vinson Synan (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 212–13. See also Edward O’Connor, ‘The Hidden Roots of the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church’, in Aspects of PentecostalCharismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan (Plainfield, NJ: Bridge Logos, 1975), 169–92. 122 Details on the Duquesne Weekend with eyewitness accounts have been described by Patti Gallagher Mansfield, As by a New Pentecost: The Dramatic Beginning of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University Press, 1992). 123 On the reactions of the official Church, see Hocken, ‘The Catholic Charismatic Renewal’, 215–16. For a short historical introduction to the CCR organization, see T. P. Thigpen, ‘Catholic Charismatic Renewal’, in NIDPCM, ed. S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2002), 462–64. Serious theological differences with the Pentecostal movement on the shared doctrine of Spirit baptism ensure that the CCR is genuinely Catholic. Cf. Kilian McDonnell, ‘Catholic Charismatic Renewal and Classical Pentecostalism: Growth and the Critique of a Systemic Suspicion’, One in Christ 23, no. 1–2 (1987): 36–61; Frans Berkelmans, ed., Katolieke charismatiese vernieuwing: Teologiese verklaring en pastorele toelichting ‘Verklaring van Mechelen 1974’,

An Ecumenical Profile of Classical Pentecostalism

35

The development and speedy growth of CCR has bewildered the Classical Pentecostals for quite some time. As it was difficult to deny that the Catholic Charismatics were sharing in the experience the Pentecostals called their own, doors had to be opened for communication and communion.124 Jerry Sandidge sees the arrival of the Charismatic Renewal in the Roman Catholic Church as one of the key historical antecedents to the possibility of the Roman Catholic–Classical Pentecostal dialogue under consideration, which started with the mutual recognition of shared experiences.125 Classical Pentecostal theology strongly influenced the theology of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, but was in turn affected by the CCR as well. Frank Macchia notes that the confrontation with the CCR urged Classical Pentecostals to reformulate their Pentecostal theologies in a more ecumenical way.126

Spiritualiteit 8 (Nijmegen: Gottmer, 1976); Heribert Mühlen, A Charismatic Theology: Initiation in the Spirit, trans. Edward Quinn and Thomas Linton (London: Burns & Oates/Paulist Press, 1978); Francis A. Sullivan, Charisms and Charismatic Renewal (Ann Arbor, IL: Servant Books, 1982); Donald L. Gelpi, ‘Discerning the Spirit among Catholic Charismatics’, Dialog: A Journal of Theology 41, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 26–34. 124 Wagner, ‘Cautious Embrace’. 125 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:24. 126 Frank D. Macchia, ‘God Present in a Confused Situation: The Mixed Influence of the Charismatic Movement on Classical Pentecostalism in the United States’, Pneuma 18, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 33–54.

3

The Intertwined Challenges of Representation and Reception

Introduction ‘If one were to ask the participants in the dialogue whether or not it has been a success, one would receive a resounding “yes”. But success is not measured by the benefit to the members of the delegation, but by the reception of the churches.’1 With this firm statement, Kilian McDonnell points to a significant tension within the International Roman Catholic–Classical Pentecostal Dialogue (IRCCPD). Ecumenical dialogue strives to bring closer together not just the people directly involved, but the ecclesial families that they are representing. Ultimately, the dialogue aims at what has been termed ‘ecumenical reception’. Lutheran ecumenical theologian, William Rusch, defines it as an ongoing process or trajectory in which the churches themselves are the agents that take up the task to measure dialogue results against standards valuable in their own tradition.2 The relation between representation and reception in ecumenical dialogue is obvious: only if the ecclesial family is represented in a good way will it be receptive to accept and integrate the results in its ecclesial life. The two interrelated challenges of representation and reception with which the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team in the IRCCPD has struggled throughout are demonstrated and reflected upon in this chapter.

Classical Pentecostalism and the challenges of representation and reception Representation and reception are dependent upon the internal structures of the ecclesial family involved. A highly centralized church with clear authoritative, juridical and administrative structures will be able to use these both for selection and appointment of its representatives at the dialogue table and for

1

2

Kilian McDonnell, ‘The Pros and Cons of Dialogue with Roman Catholics’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8, no. 16 (April 2000): 90. William G. Rusch, Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007). Ecumenical reception is discussed extensively in ecumenical theology since the 1970s. It was fast discovered that the concept is very difficult to define and utilize. Cf. Thomas Ryan, ‘Reception: Unpacking the New Holy Word’, Ecumenism 70 (1983): 27–34; Pieter De Witte, ‘La recepción ecumenica y la tensión entre la tradición y la renovación’, Mayéutica 37 (2011): 105–37.

38

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

evaluation, distribution and implementation of dialogue results.3 In contrast, a cluster-movement that lacks such structures and supra-local authority or has an amalgam thereof, not only lacks credibility at the dialogue table. As Rusch notes, ‘[c]hurches that are strongly congregational in nature will in all likelihood have more difficulty with [ecumenical reception] than will those with a highly centralized structure’.4 Notwithstanding, he upholds that reception may take place without official unifying structures: ‘we can exclude neither route to ecumenical reception’.5 Specifics as to how it can and should take place are, however, not afforded. Wolfgang Vondey points to this same problem with particular attention to Pentecostal ecumenical involvement and states that ‘the dissemination and reception of ecumenical documents has become the greatest obstacle to the full realization of Pentecostal contributions to the ecumenical movement’.6 The Classical Pentecostal team in the IRCCPD has always acknowledged the impossibility to claim any official representation of their movement, along with the concomitant difficulties to bring the results of their dialogue to their constituency and have them received. Yet, these challenges did not nullify the hopes and expectations, which convinced the Pentecostal pioneers to start the dialogue and their heirs to maintain it.7 As no simple solution existed, the challenges were taken at face value and mechanisms were sought along the way to obtain a representation that was as fair as possible and to present the results of the dialogue to the constituencies as clearly as possible. While representation and reception are intrinsically intertwined, it is not an easy task to lay bare both of their mechanisms. In fact, according to Rusch, measuring the impact of any ecumenical dialogue, i.e. its ecumenical reception, is virtually impossible.8 Therefore, this chapter focuses explicitly on the Pentecostal challenge of fair representation at the dialogue table. Elements pertaining to reception will be added when possible and relevant, and will receive special attention at the end of the chapter. FR V:16 states that, ‘[w]hen the Pentecostal participants speak as a single voice, they do so by gathering together what they believe to be the common consensus held by the vast majority of Pentecostals worldwide’. This leads to the obvious question of how the dialogue team has been composed as to fairly represent the unity and diversity of the movement. This chapter argues that throughout the decades, parameters for participation were formulated and adjusted. While they were never listed by the dialogue participants themselves, a list of seven ‘selection variables’ was used to bring a 3

4 5 6

7 8

The meaning and working of ecumenical reception also poses serious questions to the Roman Catholic Church, be it in very different ways. See, e.g. Frederick M. Bliss, Understanding Reception: A Backdrop to Its Ecumenical Use, Marquette Studies in Theology 1 (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1993); Margaret O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 63–91. Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 64. Ibid. Wolfgang Vondey, ed., Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), Volume 2, 24. Cf. Report of the Steering Committee Meeting, 25–26 October 1971, DPColl. Cf. Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, 72–76.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

39

rich variety of Pentecostal voices to the dialogue table. In addition, the characteristics of the Pentecostal movement necessitated a differentiation regarding modes of participation in the dialogue. These amounted to five key ‘participation variables’. Additional elements that have been taken into account or actions that have been taken to enhance the claim of representation are also featured in this chapter. The twelve variables and other initiatives are discussed under the headings of the four characteristics of (Classical) Pentecostalism that have provoked their appointment and implementation: Pentecostalism’s ecclesial existence in congregations and denominations and as a movement, the internal controversy regarding the very existence of the dialogue, the theological diversity of the movement and its global spread. For each of these characteristics, first the consequential challenges regarding representation in ecumenical dialogue are described. Next, an analysis is offered of how the Pentecostal dialogue teams have dealt with these issues. Participation and selection variables figure here as opted responses and their effects are assessed. In the conclusion, a cumulative overview of the discussions regarding representation will be brought in relation with the question of reception, aiming to provide, to the extent possible, answers to the overall question of how the Pentecostal dialogue teams have dealt with the intertwined problems of representation and reception.

Responsibilities in the Pentecostal dialogue team Before the four main challenges of the Pentecostal dialogue teams can be discussed, it must be clarified which individuals and instances have borne most of the responsibility throughout the dialogue for decisions and actions taken. The creation of procedures and mechanisms to obtain a fair representation has obviously not evolved spontaneously. Some participants had a stronger voice than others to decide who was in and who was not. This section offers an overview of the development of authority structures within the dialogue team, providing a fine example of a democratization process.

Participation variable 1: Pentecostal Steering Committee and other participants Even before the start of the dialogue, Pentecostal initiator, David du Plessis, played an essential role in the Pentecostal team. He solely extended invitations for the preparatory meetings in 1970 and 1971. He was also the person in communication with the Vatican officials.9 The influence of du Plessis on the composition of the early Pentecostal dialogue teams cannot be overestimated. In the preparatory meetings it was decided to establish a Steering Committee that would prepare and organize the dialogue meetings, consisting of a Pentecostal and a Roman Catholic wing.10 Apart from organizing the dialogue with its Roman Catholic counterpart, the Pentecostal Steering Committee (PSC) would arrange the

9 10

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:66. Minutes of the Catholic/Pentecostal Meeting, 22–23 June 1971, DPColl.

40

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

internal affairs of the Pentecostal dialogue team, select and invite paper presenters and participants, and represent the dialogue to the constituencies.11 From the eleven Classical Pentecostals and Charismatic Protestants who participated in the preliminary meetings, David du Plessis appointed the first PSC, which consisted of four members.12

Growing influence of the Pentecostal Steering Committee The first Pentecostal Steering Committee was installed before the dialogue officially started, but during the David du Plessis era, its actual functioning seems to have remained limited and twofold: to support its chair in his deliberations with the Roman Catholic dialogue partner and to ensure continuity in the Pentecostal dialogue team. David du Plessis had the full confidence of Rome to select the persons suitable for the dialogue, and he did so without much help. In an interview with Arnold Bittlinger he later explained his initial method of selecting participants.13 Potential invitees met two qualifications: (1) they were interested people who were known to him and (2) they could afford to attend. Du Plessis aimed to have a variety of leading Pentecostals and Charismatics and he purposely did not invite converts, in his words ‘anybody “ex” ’. To Bittlinger he later acknowledged candidly: ‘It was extremely difficult for me, but in this case I just had to act like a Pope […], use my own initiative to go on.’14 The archives show that du Plessis was open to suggestions by other team members and also by his Roman Catholic pendant Kilian McDonnell.15 In the end, however, his personal estimation whether a person would benefit or harm the Dialogue was decisive. During the final session of Phase I in May 1976, the Joint Steering Committee discussed at length the future of the dialogue and the structure of the dialogue team. It was suggested that in the future the invitation of ‘pioneers, leaders and representatives of Pentecostal Churches’ would be in the hands of a Pentecostal team.16 In the subsequent PSC meeting, however, it was added that ‘[a]ll invitations should be cleared with David du Plessis’.17 Consequently, in phase

11 12

13

14 15

16

17

The PSC usually met a day before and/or after the dialogue week. See pp. 136–137. David du Plessis to J. Rodman Williams, 1 September 1971, SanColl and David du Plessis to the Pentecostal Steering Committee, 10 November 1971, DPColl. Cf. Appendix 1. For more details, see Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:63–67. Throughout the dialogue, the PSC has been referred to by a variety of names. For clarity sake, we will consistently use the term ‘Pentecostal Steering Committee’ (PSC). Together with the Catholic Steering Committee they formed the ‘Joint Steering Committee’ (JSC). Interview by Arnold Bittlinger with David du Plessis, Craheim 1974. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 347. Interview by Arnold Bittlinger with David du Plessis, Craheim 1974 in ibid., 347. Kilian McDonnell to David du Plessis, 15 February 1972, SanColl. Cf. David du Plessis to Russell Spittler, 10 March 1972, SanColl; John Meares to Eugene Scott, 13 February 1973, SanColl. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:83. ‘A Proposal’ by the Steering Committee, May 1976, DPColl. Cf. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 141–142; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:116. Memo of the Pentecostal Core Committee Meeting, 28 May 1976, SanColl.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

41

II the PSC became more actively involved in the listing and invitation of new Pentecostal participants and paper presenters/consultants, but David du Plessis’ voice remained decisive.18 By the middle of the second phase, members of the PSC ventilated dissatisfaction with David du Plessis’ selection policy and the selected Pentecostal participants and pleaded for a more radical change of structure.19 In the years between Phase II and Phase III (1982–1985) this change was prepared. While earlier the composition of the PSC was at times not entirely clear, in 1984 the members of the PSC were officially listed.20 Since then the team of three to four members grew in coherence and strength and its structure changed. David du Plessis resigned from his position as chairman in 1985, following the example of Kilian McDonnell.21 He appointed his brother, Justus du Plessis (RSA, Apostolic Faith Mission), to succeed him.22 A new position of ‘treasurer’ was created as well, which was soon filled by Cecil M. Robeck, Jr (USA, Assemblies of God).23 Sandidge summarizes the rationale for this new position: ‘if Pentecostals are going to be invited from the Third World and if news of the Dialogue is going to be shared with the Pentecostals at large, then special funds will be needed to cover such costs’.24 The creation of the position of treasurer thus was directly linked to the PSC’s desire for fair representation of their constituency and their desire for a good reception of the dialogue results. Throughout phase III, the PSC was in charge of selecting and inviting participants for the IRCCPD and wrote out some general guidelines for this purpose.25 In phase IV, during the Pentecostal caucuses of the 1991 dialogue session, Justus du Plessis announced unexpectedly that he would retire from the Dialogue in 1992 and

18 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

See, e.g. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:231. Cf. Robert McAlister to William Carmichael, 16 October 1979, SanColl; William Carmichael to Robert McAlister, 9 September 1980, SanColl; Robert McAlister to William Carmichael, 30 December 1980, SanColl. Clear lines were drawn in the Minutes of the Pentecostal Dialogue Steering Committee, 11–12 September 1984, SanColl. Kilian McDonnell stepped down in the hope that du Plessis would follow and that this might lead to official involvement of the Assemblies of God in the dialogue (cf. pp. 49–52). This, however, did not happen. McDonnell’s resignation was not accepted by the SPCU and he remained the Roman Catholic chairman until 2000. See William Carmichael to Jerry Sandidge, 30 June 1982, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to William Carmichael, 12 July 1982, SanColl; William Carmichael to Jerry Sandidge, 4 August 1982, SanColl; Pierre Duprey to David du Plessis, 6 October 1984, DPColl; Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, 5 March 1985, SanColl. Minutes of the Executive Core Committee, 8 November 1983, DPColl. David du Plessis remained member of the PSC as ‘chairman emeritus’ until his passing in 1987. Minutes of the Pentecostal Dialogue Steering Committee, 11–12 September 1984, DPColl. Originally William Carmichael (USA, Assemblies of God) was made treasurer, but as he was not able to participate in Phase III, Cecil M. Robeck was asked to replace him. This question came prior to any involvement of Robeck in the IRCCPD. He was approached because of his earlier public open stance towards ecumenism in the 1984 SPS inaugural lecture. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:381. On finances and Third World representation, see p. 83–86. See ‘Notes for Pentecostal Steering Committee, 30 October 1985’, SanColl.

42

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

he subsequently appointed Cecil Robeck as his successor.26 The Pentecostal dialogue team reacted vehemently to this simple announcement, questioning this decision and the lack of procedure. At the proposal of Robeck an Agreement of Procedure for the Pentecostal Dialogue Team engaged in the International Dialogue between the Pentecostals and the Roman Catholic Church was written out.27 This document defined the purpose of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team (PDT): ‘to engage in dialogue with the designated Roman Catholic Team in order to develop a climate of mutual understanding between Pentecostal denominations and the Roman Catholic Church’. In line with the original intentions of the dialogue (see Chapter 5), it was explicitly added that organic or structural union was not the goal. The duties of the Steering Committees were written out as well and can be summarized as leading and organizing the Pentecostal Dialogue Team. The future PSC would consist of a Chairperson, a Secretary-Treasurer and a Member-at-Large. For each position the duties were specified and the PSC would meet informally at the call of the chair. The tenure of the committee members was projected to be quinquennial, with all incumbents eligible for re-election. The committee was to include officers of a variety of denominations whenever possible. Elections for the steering committee by secret ballot of present participants were to be held at the last plenary session of each quinquennium. Final decision on the composition of the PSC thus came to be in the hands of the plenary, which was to be composed of ‘Participants and Observers invited by the Steering Committee, and, where possible, appointed by the leadership of Pentecostal bodies’ and should be ‘as representative as possible of Pentecostalism’. Apart from electing its members, the plenary could also advice the PSC. The plenary was to meet annually for discussing the ongoing dialogue, receiving minutes and financial statements, and electing the Steering Committee when appropriate. Amendment of this agreement needed a 2/3 vote of participants. With the effectuation of this document the roles of the PSC and its members were delineated and made transparent and the power of the PSC came to be balanced with the plenary PDT. The agreement of procedure proved very useful in the 1992 session, when the PSC was reorganized completely. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr, who had been functioning as treasurer and co-secretary28 of the PSC for several years, was elected by the plenary as the new chairman.29 In 1996, he was reelected for the fifth phase.30 Apart from being considered a helpful limitation of the PSC’s powers, the agreement of procedure served also as a beacon and protection for the officially elected members, in casu the chairman.31

26

27

28 29 30

31

Few circumstances leading to the withdrawal of Justus du Plessis as chairman can be found in the archives. Again tensions within the PSC can be tracked in correspondences. See, esp. Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, 26 April 1990, SanColl; Cecil Robeck to Cheryl Bridges Johns, 25 February 2000, RobArch. Cf. Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch. ‘An Agreement of Procedure for the Pentecostal Dialogue Team engaged in the International Dialogue between the Pentecostals and the Roman Catholic Church’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. Justus du Plessis to Jerry Sandidge and Cecil Robeck, 21 February 1991, SanColl. Minutes of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team Caucus, 18 July 1992, RobArch. Minutes of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team Caucus, 17 July 1996, RobArch. Robeck currently also serves as chairman of the PSC and co-moderator of the IRCCPD in its sixth phase. Cecil Robeck to Cheryl Bridges Johns, 25 February 2000, RobArch.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

43

Free church ecclesiology and the mentality of a movement The most obvious characteristic of the (Classical) Pentecostal movement that impedes official participation in ecumenical dialogues and structural receptions of the results in its communal life is intrinsically connected to its largely congregational ecclesiology. As a result the movement’s mode of existence is strongly characterized by a bottom-up development with a growing diversification yet not insusceptible to structuralizing tendencies. This translates into a problem for ecumenical dialogue that is first described in ecclesiological categories. The following section describes how the Pentecostal dialogue team has responded to this challenge. The effects are assessed in conclusion.

Description of the characteristic Ecclesial existence within the Classical Pentecostal movement starts from below and supra-local hierarchical structures or even cooperation is seen as desirable yet optional rather than essential to full ecclesiality. This bottom-up ecclesiological perspective is introduced in the following subsection after which the consequences for inter-ecclesial life are described. In a third subsection implications regarding views on ministry, structures and authority are presented. Each of these subsections starts from general theological descriptions and argues for its applicability for the Classical Pentecostal movement based on references from the IRCCPD Final Reports. Finally, consequent problems related to representation and reception in ecumenical dialogue are listed.

Ecclesiology based on local gathering Free church ecclesiology defines church essentially as a voluntary association of believers.32 The ecclesiality of a local community of believers is not determined by sacramental acts that are performed in her centre nor by her participation in a larger body from which she would derive her ecclesial status. Free church ecclesiologists state, with a reference to Mat 18:20, that each gathering of believers in the name of Christ is a church. Miroslav Volf´s respected ecumenical communio ecclesiology is a strong example in case.33 Free church ecclesiology builds directly on soteriology and is intrinsically linked with conversionism, as discussed earlier.34 Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the church includes more than the local and contemporary

32

33

34

Although they often go together, free church ecclesiology should be distinguished from a sociological definition of a ‘free church’ contrasting her with the so-called ‘state church’ and emphasizing her independence from the government. Cf. Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity, Sacra Doctrina (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), 136. Miroslav Volf ’s ecclesiology has been critically assessed in Kevin J. Bidwell, ‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’: A Critical Evaluation of Miroslav Volf ’s Ecclesial Model, WEST Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011). Cf. pp. 15–19.

44

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

visible expression.35 Counterbalance for the local congregation is found in the universal gathering of all believers, which, in Volf´s words, is the eschatological people of God being ‘a heavenly and simultaneously eschatological entity’.36 The local church is described by Volf as a proleptic realization of this eschatological gathering, being fully church because of the full presence of Christ. Having the full ecclesiality of the local church as starting point, free church ecclesiology does not usually suffer from the typical problems of ecclesiologies that start at the supra-local level. The latter have a tendency to equate the universal church with their own church body and to limit the space for the local churches to manoeuvre. Free churches have their own weaknesses. A free church ecclesiology needs to continually stress that the local church, although being fully church, is not the full church.37 Consequently, Volf puts major focus on the notion of catholicity as an antidote to the free church diseases of self-complacency and sectarianism. In the Final Reports of the IRCCPD, Classical Pentecostal ecclesiology is fundamentally described as a free church perspective and so obviously contrasts with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Important ecclesiological notions surface especially in FR III (Perspectives on Koinonia), in the composition of which Miroslav Volf had a strong hand (see Chapter 4). The priority of soteriology over ecclesiology is stated, but consciously put in an ecclesial context: ‘For Pentecostals, the central element of worship is the preaching of the Word. As persons respond to the proclamation of the Word, the Spirit gives them a new birth, which is a pre-sacramental experience, thereby making them Christians and in this sense creating the Church’ (§96). In reaction to the Roman Catholic conviction that certain ecclesiastical structures, notably the episcopal office, belong to the very essence of church order, the Pentecostals express their inner diversity and tolerance in this regard: ‘While Pentecostals disagree among themselves concerning how the Church should best be ordered (the views range from congregational to episcopal), they accept the full ecclesial status of the churches ordered in various ways’ (§84). Accepting another local community of Christians truly and fully as ‘church’ is thus not difficult for Classical Pentecostals, but visibly expressing unity with it is.

Denominations and movements as expressions of unity In free church thinking, not only a local church but also inter-ecclesial unity is fundamentally understood as voluntary associating. Baptist theologian Nigel Wright emphasizes on the one hand that such associating is a free decision, but on the other hand argues for its necessity by pointing to the theological incentive of expressing catholicity and by bringing in the consequential benefit of associating for the mission of the church.38 Volf explains that catholicity requires, as a minimum, openness 35

36 37 38

Note that ‘local church’ in free church ecclesiology is not the church under one bishop or in one area, but a local community of believers, i.e. the equivalent of a Roman Catholic ‘parish’. Volf, After Our Likeness, 140f. Italics his. Ibid., 157. Nigel G. Wright, Free Church, Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision (Waynesboro, VA: Paternoster Press, 2006), 186.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

45

towards other churches of God, which ‘should lead to a free networking with those churches, and […] these mutual relations should be expressed in corresponding ecclesial institutions’.39 Association, be it voluntary, is considered a necessity for the bene esse of the church. Although variations of all kinds are possible, free churches in North America (and their relatives and offspring elsewhere) usually have come to opt for ‘denominations’ as primary expressions of inter-ecclesial unity and for the ‘movement’ as a broader category of self-identification.40 Early Pentecostals fiercely rejected denominational patterns as they understood their own identity to be in radical opposition to the historical consciousness of the established churches. Yet by the second decade of the twentieth century, the movement that had swept across the existing denominations turned to the visible structures of denominations in search for coherence and unity.41 Pentecostal theologian Wolfgang Vondey laments this evolution but recognizes that Pentecostals can understand denominations as concretization of the eschatological church in history, being aware that they are of transitory/liminal character and that they function in particular ecumenical contexts.42 The IRCCPD Final Reports contain similar perspectives on denominations. FR III holds a conditional appreciation of denominations: ‘Pentecostals tend to view denominations as more or less legitimate manifestations of the one, universal Church. Their legitimacy depends on the degree of their faithfulness to the fundamental doctrines of the Scripture’ (FR III:34). Contrasting Pentecostal to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, FR IV emphasizes the soteriological irrelevance of denominational boundaries in the Pentecostal perspective: ‘Pentecostals believe that all Christians of whatever denomination, can have a living personal relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior’ (FR IV:112). Therefore, the different faith communities should search for ways of common witness without seeking ‘narrow, strategic denominational benefit’ (FR IV:118; cf. FR IV:128). Classical Pentecostal bodies are also connected and interconnected on the supra-denominational level. The rationale for an association usually lies in its consequential benefits for world evangelization. For instance, the Pentecostal World Fellowship (PWF) describes its mission as ‘to unite and mobilize the global Spirit-filled family in completing the Great Commission of Jesus Christ’.43 As supradenominational associations have little to no doctrinal authority, they are not keen 39 40

41

42 43

Volf, After Our Likeness, 275. Since Niebuhr’s Social Sources of Denominationalism (1929), denominationalism has been looked at with suspicion if not disdain by ecumenists. In 2011, ecumenists were challenged to re-evaluate the concept and its role in ecumenism. See Paul M. Collins and Barry A. Ensign-George, eds., Denomination: Assessing an Ecclesiological Category, Ecclesiological Investigations 11 (London: T&T Clark, 2011). Wolfgang Vondey, ‘The Denomination in Classical and Global Pentecostal Ecclesiology: A Historical and Theological Contribution’, in Denomination: Assessing an Ecclesiological Category, ed. Paul M. Collins and Barry A Ensign-George, Ecclesiological Investigations 11 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 106. Ibid., 110f. See http://www.pentecostalworldfellowship.org/our-mission, accessed on 1 January 2015.

46

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

on participation in theological dialogue.44 Being part of a worldwide Pentecostal movement is of central importance to Classical Pentecostal self-understanding. As has been earlier argued, however, it is disputable as to whether one can call Pentecostalism a singular movement and it is difficult to say in what way Classical Pentecostalism relates to this broad category.45

Ministry, structures and authority The development of denominations in Classical Pentecostalism may have followed typical patterns, as Vondey argues, still the movement is pluriform in its ecclesial reality. Following restorationist impulses, denominational architects typically look back in history to the New Testament descriptions of the early church in search for patterns and structures of ecclesial organization using a prima facie hermeneutic.46 Consequently, the Classical Pentecostals at the dialogue table can say no other than that they emphasize the priesthood of all believers (FR I:84 e.a.) and that ‘the views [on church order] range from congregational to episcopal’ (FR III:84).47 Classical Pentecostal churches and denominations make use of a broad variety of ministries and structures. The ministries are usually, and certainly locally, charismatically determined, with references to Pauline texts as Rom. 12, Eph. 4 and 1 Cor. 12, but are understood in various ways.48 As FR II:79 states: ‘Within the variety of polity found in Pentecostal circles, biblical terms such as elder, deacon, bishop and pastor are used to designate a variety of offices and ministries, and are not always given the same meaning.’ Denominational structures often use biblical terms to indicate supra-local ministries of oversight (as ‘overseer’, ‘apostle’ and ‘bishop’) while using democratic processes and corporative governmental forms in their decision making.49 Ordination is based on charisms and is limited by denominational boundaries, as is explicated in FR III: 86: ‘Ordination of one who has received appropriate gifts provides denominational authority for his continuing function in the ministry to which he has been called.’ This may mean for one denomination that there is a strong authoritative hierarchy while another denomination is more loosely connected.50

Consequent challenges regarding representation and reception From the ecclesiological characteristics of the Classical Pentecostal movement, the following structural challenges regarding representation and reception in the IRCCPD can be listed. 44 45 46 47

48 49

50

cf. pp. 49–52. cf. pp. 9–13. cf. pp. 25–26. Note that Classical Pentecostal denominations, which are structurally ordered using episcopal categories, differ from classical episcopal ecclesiology. Cf. Elieser Valentin, ‘The Episcopacy in the Pentecostal Tradition’ (presented at the Assisi 2012 Gathering, Assisi, 20 April 2012). See FR III: 83–85, 102–106; cf. Volf, After Our Likeness, 221f. See, for a descriptive analysis in the context of Great Britain William K. Kay, Apostolic Networks in Britain: New Ways of Being Church, Studies in Evangelical History and Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2007). See, e.g. Robeck, Jr, ‘An Emerging Magisterium?’.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

47

First, it must be noted that at the start of the dialogue not only Classical Pentecostals but also Charismatic Protestants from a variety of traditions were involved.51 Consequently, the teams struggled with the lack of ecclesiological common ground in this broad definition of ‘Pentecostalism’.52 Second, free churches primarily associate for pragmatic purposes, such as joint evangelization, but claims of authority from higher levels of association are generally looked at with suspicion. While in theory a supra-local initiative of cooperation involving major Classical Pentecostal denominations for the purpose of ecumenical dialogue, serving the higher goal of evangelization, would be possible, the theological nature of ecumenical dialogue argues against this supposition.53 The teams needed to find ways to deal with the multi-denominational reality of the movement in view of fair representation. Third, the emphasis on the local congregation and its freedom to connect relationally and theologically accounts for an ever-growing diversification in the (Classical) Pentecostal movement, theologically and otherwise. The full range of diversity of ‘the Pentecostal movement’ or even of ‘the Classical Pentecostal movement’ cannot be overseen, let alone fairly represented. These challenges are discussed in more detail later.

Responses to the challenges The lack of unifying structures and hierarchy that follow from Pentecostalism’s free church ecclesiology can only be answered pragmatically while participating in ecumenical dialogue. In the course of its history, the PDT responded to the given challenges in four ways. First, after phase I a second participation variable came to delimit the Pentecostal dialogue partner to ‘Classical Pentecostalism’. Second, the team sought to benefit from existing Classical Pentecostal (inter)denominational structures. Although this proved to be rather difficult, it led to a first selection criterion which targeted denominational leaders. Third, an alternative way to get fair representation entailed a focus on theologians and other scholars who could broadly speak for the movement. Finally, during a certain time frame fairness in representation was aimed at through a deliberate enlargement of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team during the dialogue sessions.

Participation variable 2: Classical Pentecostals–Charismatic Protestants At the outset of the dialogue, the Pentecostal Movement was not defined in ecclesiological terms but primarily by a spirituality that also characterized the Charismatic movement in non-Classical Pentecostal churches. David du Plessis clearly advocated a broad definition of Pentecostalism incorporating

51 52 53

This is extensively discussed in Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987. Cf. pp. 58–73. Note that the critical stance of the Classical Pentecostal constituency is discussed as a separate challenge on pp. 58–73.

48

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Charismatics. He was of the opinion ‘that Neo-Pentecostals in the Protestant world were NO LESS Pentecostal than the Classics’.54 Two reasons can be added for the involvement of Charismatic participants in the IRCCPD. First, their incorporation was unsurprising as initial contact with the Vatican came from both groups: both David du Plessis and Charismatic Protestant Ray Bringham were vital to the establishment of the dialogue.55 Second, David du Plessis saw that his Classical Pentecostal friends were not on a theological par with the Roman Catholic theologians and preferred the Charismatic Protestants to function as buffer and aid in the dialogue.56 Thus, Charismatic participants were ‘invited by the Pentecostals’ (FR I:8) and integrated in the Pentecostal team (FR I:1–4), notwithstanding their concurrent membership in Anglican, Protestant and Orthodox churches. The consequent diversity in ecclesial allegiance is mentioned in the introduction of FR I, but at the same time its importance is denied: ‘[i]t is as participants in the charismatic movement and not primarily as members of their own Churches that they share in the dialogue’ (FR I:8). By the end of the first phase, it was agreed that future participation of Charismatic Protestants was not desired. At the close of the 1975 dialogue session, the Catholics expressed their opinion that a continuation should only be between the Roman Catholic Church and Classical Pentecostal churches.57 While they had valued the presence of participants from the Charismatic movement in the first phase, it also had ‘a certain ambiguity’. Jerry Sandidge agreed and adds that ‘[a]t times […], the Dialogue took the form of a multilateral dialogue, rather than a bilateral dialogue.’58 Since phase II the ‘Pentecostal’ team was to be ‘Classical Pentecostal’, although some non-Classical Pentecostals have participated in later dialogue rounds.59 The exclusion of Charismatic Protestants from the dialogue led to a new use of the term ‘Pentecostal’ in its official communications. While in phase I ‘Pentecostals’ was used as an umbrella term that covered both Classical Pentecostals and participants in the Charismatic movement, in Final Report II and thereafter, the term ‘Pentecostal’ came to be used as a synonym for ‘Classical Pentecostal’. Only the introductory and closing paragraphs were always clear in defining the younger dialogue as ‘Classical Pentecostal’.60

54

55

56

57 58 59

60

David du Plessis to Percy Brewster, 4 September 1975, SanColl. Capitalization his. His brother and successor Justus had a similar view: Justus du Plessis to Cecil Robeck, 11 November 1985, SanColl. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 17–22; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:60–62 Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 50. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:122. Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Steering Committee Meeting, 23 May 1975, DPColl. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:122. Most notable was the continued participation of charismatic Baptist Howard Ervin, who was present at every dialogue session between 1979 and 1990 (ten sessions). FR II:1–17, 94; FR III:1, 109; FR IV:1–2, 120; FR V:1–22, 220f.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

49

The use of (inter)denominational structures The theological and ecclesial diversity of the Classical Pentecostal movement and particularly its lack of a unified and authoritative hierarchy have the obvious disadvantages that official representatives for the movement cannot be appointed and that reception of dialogue results cannot be easily canalized. In two major ways, the Pentecostal dialogue team has tried to counter this problem. First, they have sought official recognition from ‘mainline Pentecostal denominations’ and even a takeover by two large unifying bodies: the extended denominational family of the Assemblies of God revolving around its North American fountainhead (Assemblies of God, USA) and the supra-denominational Pentecostal World Fellowship. Second, a selection variable for participants has been used in the form of a constant yet developing search for ‘high-level’ officials from major Pentecostal denominations.

PWF, AG and General Superintendants The Pentecostal dialogue team focused most on two organizations in the search for official recognition: the Assemblies of God (AG) and the Pentecostal World Fellowship (PWF).61 They are on the global level respectively the largest Classical Pentecostal denominational family and the broadest supra-denominational partnership, and their decisions and positions are often directive for other denominations and groupings. From the start of the dialogue and throughout, key members of the dialogue have been members of the Assemblies of God (USA)62 and/ or of the PWF. Getting official support of the AG and the PWF for an ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church was a hazardous undertaking in the early 1970s. In the preceding decades, the AG and the PWF had grown very critical to ecumenical cooperation outside the Evangelical sphere. In a historical overview, Cecil Robeck suggests that ‘the break between the Assemblies of God and the larger church world was complete by 1965’.63 The consequences thereof directly affected the IRCCPD. Because of his ecumenical activities, David du Plessis lost not only his ministerial

61 The Pentecostal World Fellowship is a fellowship of Pentecostal believers and denominations (among which the AG), which organizes triennially the Pentecostal World Conference. The first conference was held in 1947 and David du Plessis was one of the organizers. Since 1961, these gatherings are officially named the Pentecostal World Conference. The Pentecostal World Fellowship today includes the following denominations of which members have participated in the IRCCPD: International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (USA), Church of God (Cleveland, TN – USA), Assemblies of God (USA), Swedish Pentecostal Movement (SWE), Apostolic Faith Mission (RSA), Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (CND), International Pentecostal Holiness Church (USA), Church of God in Christ (USA), Assemblies of God (UK). 62 Over fifteen dialogue participants came from the Assemblies of God (USA). Many more came from denominations worldwide that affiliate with her. 63 Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation: 1920–1965’, in Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, ed. Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 11 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997), 148.

50

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

credentials in the AG in 1962 but also his influence in the PWF, even though he had been involved in its establishment and had served as its secretary for nine years.64 All throughout the period of his chairmanship in the dialogue the AG and the PWF were radically unwilling to identify with the IRCCPD although du Plessis repeatedly sought their help and support.65 Efforts to reach the AG leadership were also made in phase II by the Pentecostal secretary, William L. Carmichael, but to no avail.66 It became obvious that an important reason for the AG’s negative attitude was the very presence of David du Plessis as chair of the dialogue. By the end of the second phase key figures in the Pentecostal dialogue team sought a way out of this stalemate without his knowledge. It was first suggested that the Assemblies of God (USA) would take over the dialogue completely or that this dialogue would be ended and an RC–AG dialogue would be initiated.67 Both options were, however, dropped for lack of trust in the AG leadership. As an alternative, it was hoped that taking David du Plessis out of the chairmanship would remove the sting and make the AG more open to official recognition of and representation in the IRCCPD.68 David du Plessis’ successor, his brother Justus, approached the AG General Presbytery again but the result was disappointing: the brothers ‘[did] not feel [to be] in a position to accept this invitation at this time’.69 Zimmerman’s successor, G. Raymond Carlson, was briefed soon on the dialogue by Justus du Plessis but a change of policy did not come.70 As Thomas Zimmerman was also chairman of the PWF, Justus du Plessis continued to approach him for support of the dialogue.71 His suggestion that the PWF would establish a forum for theological discussion that could partly take over the responsibility of the PSC did not give any result.72 This was regretted

64

65

66

67

68 69

70

71

72

The historical struggle between David du Plessis and the AG has been meticulously researched and analysed in Joshua R. Ziefle, David Du Plessis and the Assemblies of God: The Struggle for the Soul of a Movement, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 13 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 34, 513; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:63–65 Cf. David du Plessis to Percy Brewster, 4 September 1975, SanColl. The archives reveal an intensive correspondence with the Assemblies of God headquarters in Springfield, Missouri, between January 1981 and Summer 1982. William Carmichael to Jerry Sandidge, 22 April 1982, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to William Carmichael, 16 June 1982, SanColl; William Carmichael to Jerry Sandidge, 30 June 1982, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to William Carmichael, 12 July 1982, SanColl. See pp. 41. Thomas F. Zimmerman to Justus du Plessis, 18 April 1985, SanColl. Justus du Plessis summarizes the discussion in a letter to Zimmerman dated 19 June 1985, SanColl. The negative reply came in a letter by Thomas F. Zimmerman to Justus du Plessis, 17 June 1985, SanColl. Justus du Plessis to G. Raymond Carlson, 4 January 1986, SanColl; Minutes of the Pentecostal Steering Committee, 29 May 1986, SanColl; William Carmichael to Jerry Sandidge, 17 March 1987, SanColl. E.g. Justus du Plessis to Thomas Zimmerman, 24 September 1985, SanColl; Thomas Zimmerman to Justus du Plessis, 27 September 1985, SanColl. Justus du Plessis to Thomas F. Zimmerman, 7 August 1989, SanColl. Justus du Plessis to Jerry Sandidge, 5 August 1989, SanColl. The response was a motion by the PWC Advisory Committee saying: ‘Inasmuch as the Pentecostal Conference is a fellowship and not a legislative organization as such, it is the opinion of the Advisory Committee that any decision about official participation of Pentecostals in the Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue does not come under ou[r] purview as a fellowship.’ Jacob Zopfi to Justus du Plessis, 20 November 1989, SanColl.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

51

by the Roman Catholic dialogue partners, who ‘did not understand why the World Pentecostal Fellowship could not function as the international body to pastor the documents which would come out of the dialogue’.73 When Justus du Plessis stepped down as chairman in favour of AG minister Cecil M. Robeck, Jr, he pleaded in a critical letter with the AG General Presbytery ‘to review their stand and to become officially involved so that the new co-chairman could at least claim the backing of his own denomination’.74 Again, this was to no avail. Even before he was chairman, Cecil Robeck showed an open attitude towards the Assemblies of God leadership. He informed his General Superintendent of his plans to participate in the dialogue, giving him the option to disallow his involvement.75 Robeck continued to write long letters to his District and General Superintendents,76 to superiors of other Pentecostal participants77 and to critics,78 carefully and accurately explaining his activities and the dialogue. As his District Superintendents supported his ecumenical ministry, Robeck had more credit with his higher denominational superiors.79 Hope flared up when in 1993 Thomas Trask became General Superintendent. Robeck invited the General Presbytery to participate in the upcoming Dialogue, but his invitation was not accepted.80 The AG policy towards the dialogue did not change in phases IV and V. After more than thirty years of struggle, a positive breakthrough came at the end of phase V in 2005. The bylaws of the AG were changed to allow ecumenical involvement of ministers and churches in case ‘opportunity may arise to support biblical values in the culture or provide opportunity to bear witness to our evangelical and Pentecostal faith and experience’.81 Just as his predecessors, Cecil Robeck acknowledged the importance of the PWF as ‘the only world organization of significance which represents the larger part of the Pentecostal Movement (Trinitarian)’82 but he could not bring the leadership to

73 74

75

76

77 78 79

80

81

82

Kilian McDonnell to Justus du Plessis, 21 August 1989, SanColl. Justus du Plessis to Cecil Robeck, 28 December 1991, RobArch. According to Jerry Sandidge, Justus tried to do the same as his brother ‘with a little more force’, but with no more success. Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch. Cecil Robeck to Justus du Plessis, 27 November 1985, SanColl. It was Robeck’s Regional Superintendent who first discussed Robeck’s involvement in the dialogue with the General Superintendent. Three conditions were set for his involvement: (a) never represent yourself as if you speak for the AG, (b) never surprise us (keep your Regional Superintended updated) and (c) never have meetings in a specific building. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. E.g. Cecil Robeck to Thomas Trask, 14 December 1993, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to George Wood, 29 January 1994, RobArch. E.g. Cecil Robeck to Lamar Vest, 23 February 1993, RobArch. E.g. Cecil Robeck to Francesco Toppi, 30 October 1992, RobArch. Jerry Sandidge to Pentecostal Steering Committee, Memorandum, 15 February 1985, SanColl; James Braddy to Cecil Robeck, 9 May 2005, RobArch. Cecil Robeck to Thomas Trask, 14 December 1993, RobArch; George Wood to Cecil Robeck, 22 January 1994, RobArch. Bylaws of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, Article IX, Section 11. Online available at http://ag.org/top/about/constitution_bylaws.cfm (accessed 1 January 2015). See, especially, Cecil Robeck to Kilian McDonnell, 30 December 1994, RobArch.

52

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

officially support the IRCCPD either. The negative responses led the team at times to the frustrating conclusion that they were ‘not officially representative of the mainline Pentecostal Churches’.83

Selection variable 1: Denominational executives The largely denominational structuring of the Classical Pentecostal movement has led to a first variable by which dialogue participants were selected. Notwithstanding the difficulties mentioned above, the Pentecostal dialogue team consciously sought to involve denominational leaders from the ‘mainline Pentecostal denominations’.84 The multi-denominational character of Classical Pentecostalism and of the dialogue team is gradually accentuated in the successive Final Reports. While FR I and II simply state that the Roman Catholic Church is in dialogue with ‘some Pentecostal Churches’ (FR I:7) and with ‘some members of the classical Pentecostal churches’ (FR II:1), FR III speaks of ‘some classical Pentecostal churches and leaders’ (FR III:1) and consequently lists the denominations that were officially involved (FR III:4). In the fourth and fifth Final Report, the Pentecostal dialogue partner is described as ‘some classical Pentecostal denominations [churches (FR V:1)] and leaders’ (FR IV:1) and the denominational affiliation of each participant is spelled out in an appendix.85 Denominational ‘high-level’ leaders were targeted especially in the first three phases. The desire for the participation of Pentecostal leaders in good standing is an often reoccurring theme in the Pentecostal Steering Committee minutes and in correspondences.86 High value was given to the early participation of Vinson Synan (USA: International Pentecostal Holiness Church) who was at the time ‘the

83

84

85

86

Justus du Plessis to Cecil Robeck, 11 November 1985, SanColl. Cf. Cecil Robeck to John Radano, 5 July 1996, RobArch. In the opinion of Justus du Plessis, this totalled six or seven denominations. Justus du Plessis to Pierre Duprey, 3 April 1985, SanColl; William Carmichael to Jerry Sandidge, 28 October 1985, SanColl; Minutes Pentecostal Steering Committee, 30 October 1985, SanColl; Justus du Plessis to Jerry Sandidge, 4 January 1986, SanColl. A large majority of Classical Pentecostal participants and observers in the dialogue were ordained within one of the larger Pentecostal denominations (see Appendix 1). Serious involvement of a layperson only began in the third phase of the dialogue, notably with the participation of Miroslav Volf. Most other non-ordained participants were female academicians: Edith Blumhofer (1991: paper); Cheryl Bridges-Johns (1993–1995; 1998–1999); Karen Mundy (1993: paper-1994). The appendices of FR IV and V differ as the former differentiates between official and non-official attendees, which the latter does not. For the first two phases, see Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:327ff. Thereafter, see, e.g. Jerry Sandidge to William Carmichael, 12 July 1982, SanColl; Minutes of the Pentecostal Core Committee Meeting, 4 May 1984, DPColl; Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis et al., memorandum, 29 June 1984, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to Basil Meeking, 29 September 1984, SanColl; Justus du Plessis to Pierre Duprey, 3 April 1985, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to basil Meeking, 28 January 1986, SanColl; Justus du Plessis to Vinson Synan, 8 December 1987, SanColl; Justus du Plessis to Jacob Zopfi, 7 July 1988, SanColl. Cf. Cecil Robeck to Daniel Crotty, 7 October 1990, RobArch. Cecil Robeck confirms David du Plessis’ preference for getting leaders involved in the dialogue. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

53

highest ranking official from North America to participate’ and later of Cees van der Laan (NL: Broederschap van Pinkstergemeenten) as General Secretary of his denomination.87 Dialogical abilities and theological expertise were no preconditions for invited denominational officials. Their presence was not desired for the substantive contributions they could make to the theological exchange but for their influence in their denomination.88 Even if they were not present in an official capacity, it was expected that their positive experience of the dialogue would serve representation and reception of the dialogue results.89

Selection variable 2: Theologians and other scholars Under the leadership of David du Plessis and Justus du Plessis, participants were usually pastors and church officials. Under the leadership of Dr Cecil M. Robeck, the emphasis shifted to participants with advanced theological training. New participants usually still had ministerial credentials, but the portion of Pentecostals with a doctorate in theology and often involved in (post-)graduate education grew. The shift in focus from pastoral to theological expertise is demonstrated in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Classical Pentecostal voices with PhD

Classical Pentecostal voices with PhD

Ph I

Ph II

Ph III

Ph IV

Ph V

20%

9.8%

39.7%

74.2%

78.2%

In the first phase of the dialogue (1972–1976), all participants in the Pentecostal dialogue team were acquaintances of David du Plessis, himself a man of limited theological training.90 Du Plessis realized that the Roman Catholic team would be theologically well equipped, but Pentecostal scholarship was virtually non-existent. Therefore, Charismatic Protestants were invited to strengthen the Pentecostal team and to function as mediators.91 Jerry Sandidge states that even with the Charismatic Protestants ‘the Catholic side outweighed the Pentecostal side in scholarship and theological expertise […]’.92 In the first phase, seventeen

87

88 89 90 91

92

See, respectively, Justus du Plessis to Vinson Synan, 7 January 1988, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to Cees van der Laan, 21 November 1991, SanColl. Synan was also highly appreciated for his expertise on the movement, cf. Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971). See, e.g. Cecil Robeck to Miroslav Volf, 12 August 1994, RobArch. See pp. 60–62. See pp. 40–41. On the development of Pentecostal scholarship, see Amos Yong, ‘Pentecostalism and the Theological Academy’, Theology Today 64 (July 2007): 244–250. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:122–123.

54

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

voices out of fifty-four held a PhD – about 31.5 per cent.93 The percentage of paper presenters holding a PhD was the same (31.8%). Classical Pentecostals who had earned a PhD were limited to 20 per cent of the voices. After phase I, du Plessis approached the Society for Pentecostal Studies (SPS, est. 1970) via Vinson Synan in a quest for trained theologians. As the SPS was not willing to fully identify with the dialogue, Synan advised du Plessis to invite individuals directly rather than via this platform.94 Notwithstanding du Plessis’ efforts, in the second phase (1977–1982) the total number of PhD-holding voices in the Pentecostal team was substantially lower than in the first phase. Only ten out of forty-eight voices had earned this academic title (20.8%), which was approximately the same as the percentage of promoted Classical Pentecostals in phase I. Now, however, only four out of forty-one Classical Pentecostal voices held a PhD (9.8%). Four out of eight papers were written by an expert with a PhD degree, of which two by Charismatic Baptist Howard Ervin.95 Before the start of phase III, Kilian McDonnell made it very clear that the Catholic team expected that ‘good (and respected within their own church) Pentecostal theologians’ would be selected for the dialogue.96 During the three-year break between phases II and III, the PSC directed invitations specifically to attendants of the 1984 Conference on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe97 and SPS members.98 The PSC managed to turn the tide: in phase III, almost half of the voices (30/63) held a PhD, out of which twenty-five were Classical Pentecostal (39.7%) and only one out of six paper presenters did not yet hold a PhD. This exception was Miroslav Volf (1985), who was finishing his doctorate at Tübingen University at the time. Despite his own status as a doctoral student, Miroslav Volf was very critical of the Pentecostal team, which he voiced in a letter to the Pentecostal Steering Committee.99 His fivefold critique made quite an impression and one could argue that in broad strokes it set the direction the team would move in the future.100 One, Volf argued that there needed to be stronger continuity in the team. Second, the Dialogue sessions

93

As individuals participated between one and twenty-one sessions in the dialogue, their relative voice in the discussions differed substantially. Therefore, in indicating the relative importance of individuals and/or groups in the dialogue, we will speak of ‘voices’ rather than persons. A ‘voice’ is the contribution of a participant or observer to one single session. A participant thus can have more than one voice when we measure his/her influence over a longer period of time. As the participation of observers in the discussions was restricted from phase IV on (see pp. 62–65), they are counted as half voices for phases IV and V. See, for details, the Appendix. 94 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:105–108. 95 Jerry Sandidge opined that until phase III ‘Howard was absolutely essential to the Dialogue, because there were not Pentecostal scholars that could keep up with the Roman Catholics.’ Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, 26 April 1990, SanColl. 96 Notes for Pentecostal Steering Committee, 30 October 1985, SanColl. 97 Jerry Sandidge to participants at the Conference on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe, 26 April 1984, SanColl. 98 The society was opening up to the ecumenical enterprise under the influence of Cecil M. Robeck. Cecil Robeck to John Radano, 4 February 2002, RobArch. See his Presidential Address of the 13th Annual Meeting of SPS, 4 November 1983, Cleveland, TN: ‘Name and Glory, the ecumenical challenge.’ 99 Miroslav Volf to Jerry Sandidge, 16 May 1987, SanColl. 100 The importance of Volf ’s letter is also recognized by David Cole and Jerry Sandidge: Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

55

needed to be seen as working sessions by specialists rather than ‘getting-to-knowone-another sessions’. Third, the Pentecostal team needed to be more clear in their beliefs and honest in their biblical critiques. Fourth, the team needed a renewed strong leadership. And fifth, more participants should come from Second and Third World countries. The first three all pointed in the same direction: the dialogue team should be made up of dedicated scholars rather than influential leaders.101 Under Robeck’s chairmanship (phases IV–V), the relative number of scholars in the Pentecostal dialogue team continued to grow. At the time of his installation in 1992, Robeck voiced his conviction to Justus du Plessis that ‘the success that we want with our Dialogue partners […] demands that they exhibit a high level of academic integrity and that they must be in touch with the forefront of the discussions in which we are engaged’.102 The concurrent maturation of the Pentecostal academy allowed this intention to bear fruit. In phase IV, 59 out of 79.5 Classical Pentecostal voices were holders of a PhD – about 74 per cent – and in phase V this grew to 78 per cent (46.5/59.5). Out of thirteen papers presented in phases IV and V, only one was written by a PhD candidate (Huibert Zegwaart, 2001). All other paper presenters held a doctorate in theology or in the humanities. Robeck invested in academicians rather than denominational leaders and not only because it would serve the theological quality of the discussions and dialogue reports. His ideal was that the dialogue would be officially supported by the denominational leaders, who would select their own theologians for the team.103 As long as this was not materialized, Robeck saw his investment in scholars as looking ahead: ‘I may not be able to influence the current leadership […] so I will invest in the leaders to the next generation.’104 He hoped that his focus on Pentecostal scholars would serve the opening of the movement for ecumenism in the long run.

Pentecostal team size The Classical Pentecostal desire to have a fair representation of their theologically broad and denominationally diverse movement in the IRCCPD conflicts with a small and constant dialogue team. Consequently, the total sum of participants in the Pentecostal team in phases I–V is more than twice the number of Roman Catholic participants.105 This ratio is, however, not constant throughout. There is a clear development in the number of attendees per phase. The focal change in the selection 101

Cecil Robeck agreed with these criticisms but also saw complications. Cecil Robeck, personal journal entry of 1 June 1987, SanColl. 102 Cecil Robeck to Justus du Plessis, 19 May 1992, RobArch. See also Ron Kydd to Murray Cornelius, email, 5 January 1998, RobArch: ‘Whoever we would invite would have to be a Pentecostal who is credible among her/his peers. S/he should also have as much formal theological training as possible.’ Cf. Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, email, 8 January 1998, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to VeliMatti Kärkkäinen, 3 February 2000, RobArch. Robeck’s stress on theological astuteness as essential for fruitful outcomes of the dialogue was conformed in the interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. 103 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 16 July 2013, CrArch. 104 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. 105 In total over phases I–V 101 individuals were present on the Pentecostal side. The Catholic participants in this period total only 64.

56

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

of participants can be exemplified in two ways. First, this average number of attendees increases until the third phase and thereafter declines again. Second, a change in priority can be argued even more convincingly when the ‘exposure rate’ is evaluated, dividing the total number of individuals participating in a phase by the number of sessions. Both developments are shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Attendance and exposure of Classical Pentecostal participants Ph I*

Ph II

Ph III

Ph IV

Ph V

Average # Class. Pent. Attendees/session

7.4

8.2

11.6

10.9

6.9

Total Number of CP individuals

18

20

30

29

20

Sessions Exposure (#CP individuals/#sessions)

5

5

5

8

9

3.6

4.0

6.0

3.6

2.2

*Note that in Ph. I, Charismatic Protestants also participated in the Pentecostal team.

The changing priorities can be traced throughout the dialogue’s history. In preparation of the first phase, it was decided that in each session the Pentecostal team should count nine individuals while the Catholic team should count seven.106 On the average, however, there were eleven participants at the Pentecostal/Charismatic side of the dialogue table in each session, averaging 7.4 Classical Pentecostals.107 In total twenty-six individuals participated in the Pentecostal dialogue team. Nineteen came only to one or two dialogue sessions, while seven participated in three or more and thus guaranteed continuity in the discussions.108 In phase II (1977–1982), the Pentecostal team’s struggle to get the adequate amount of qualified Classical Pentecostal participants and observers is evidenced in a lower number of total attendees (23). Yet, as Charismatic Protestants were almost absent, the exposure of Classical Pentecostals to the dialogue was higher than in the first phase. As seven individuals participated in three or more sessions, also the continuity grew slightly. Before the start of phase III (1985–1989), the Classical Pentecostal team requested that the number of Classical Pentecostals who could be invited and exposed to the dialogue would be increased.109 This led to an unbalance in 1986, when the Pentecostal team consisted of eighteen individuals (participants and observers) against eight Catholics. Largely because of this session, in phase III the exposure rate grew again heavily (to 6.0). As ten out of the thirty Pentecostal team members came three times or more, the continuity was also stronger. In phase IV the focus on continuity became more apparent. This phase lasted eight years rather than five, yet again thirty Pentecostals were exposed to the dialogue, leading to a drop in the exposure to 3.6. At any given session, between

106

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:73. See, for exact data, the Appendix. In Phase I there were 54 voices active in five sessions. 108 A.k.a. the ‘Core Group’. Steering Committee Meeting Report, October 25–26, 1971, DPColl., 3. 109 Minutes of the Executive Steering Committee, 5 May 1984, DPColl. 107

Challenges of Representation and Reception

57

seven (1997) and sixteen (1991) Pentecostals were present, averaging eleven.110 Fourteen participants were present at three to eight sessions, ensuring again a stronger continuity in the team. This evolution continued in phase V (1998–2006). Although this phase lasted nine years, no more than twenty individuals participated in the Pentecostal team. Nine were present in three sessions or more. The total number of attendees in each session decreased to 6.9 and the exposure rate reached a minimum of 2.2. The evolution described here underlines what was argued in the previous section: the priority of the Pentecostal dialogue team shifted from a high number of attendees in view of strong exposure of Pentecostal leaders to the dialogue to a theologically wellequipped team with stronger continuity.

Assessment of effects The Classical Pentecostal movement is a multi-denominational movement generally characterized by free church ecclesiology, which has important ramifications on its mode of participation in ecumenical dialogue. The Classical Pentecostal team in the dialogue under consideration was well aware of this and sought fair representation of the movement in different ways. The development of this quest can be summarized in three points. First, after the first phase and prodded by the Roman Catholics, the Pentecostal team decided that the dialogue was not served well with the broad definition of Pentecostalism involving also the Charismatic movement in the Protestant churches. From phase II on, the team’s constituency and theological definition was limited to Classical Pentecostalism.111 As a result, ecclesiological issues could be taken up in the dialogue in a way previously impossible (see, esp. FR III). Second, throughout the dialogue, but most explicitly in the first three phases, the PSC aimed to get official backing from what they considered ‘mainline Pentecostal’ denominations and supra-denominational organizations. From the Pentecostal ecclesiological self-definition, it could be expected that this would not be an easy task.112 The Assemblies of God and the Pentecostal World Fellowship were especially targeted, but to no avail. The appurtenant selection variable of ‘denominational executives’ has played a role throughout the five phases but has not yielded the desired result. Third, a change of priority in the PSC’s understanding of ‘good representation’ could be demonstrated, shifting from high exposure of leaders to theological quality. In the first three phases, the PSC continuously strived for an enlargement of its team in the dialogue meetings, which reached a peak in 1986. Around 1987, the emphasis came to be laid on theological strength and continuity in the team. This is clearly confirmed by the growing importance of the second selection variable, aiming at participation

110

Most came as full participant, twenty-one out of sixty-three voices were observers. See also pp. 73–82. 112 Cf. pp. 43–47. 111

58

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

of Pentecostal theologians and other scholars. The dialogue team could profit from the maturation of Pentecostal academia in the last decades of the twentieth century.113

Pentecostal critiques on ecumenism and the IRCCPD Although some historiographers of Pentecostalism tend to emphasize the ecumenical beginnings of the movement,114 when the ecumenical dialogue under consideration was initiated it was not received with much enthusiasm by the Pentecostal constituency. This posed a major challenge to the dialogue team as it undermined the dialogue’s credibility. This subchapter first describes the main Pentecostal critiques against involvement in ecumenism and against dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, and the consequences for the Pentecostal dialogue team. Next, the three ways in which the Pentecostal dialogue team sought to counter this issue are described. Finally, the effects of the Pentecostal response are assessed.

Description of the challenge The ecumenical profile of Classical Pentecostalism (Chapter 2) implies not only a challenge for theological dialogue, but also at times a hesitance or even refusal to enter in any sort of ecumenical relation with other churches, specifically with the Roman Catholic Church. The main arguments against the dialogue under consideration can be summarized as follows. First, as members of a conversionist movement, Classical Pentecostals tend to focus on the individual and her experience of God’s saving grace,115 which has two relevant consequences. First, it is emphasized that all who are in Christ are already one. Therefore, seeking ‘visible unity’ through a slow dialogue process is not a priority. Second, ecumenical dialogue with individuals or communities who do not emphasize personal conversion to Christ or which are conceived as ‘sacramentalist’ is often considered useless. To say it bluntly, such groups are to be evangelized rather than treated as equal dialogue partners. In a letter of one of Cecil Robeck’s critics, we can recognize both sentiments. The author is ‘not interested in any form of ecumenicalism, believing that the Church of Jesus Christ is already united […]’. He rather aims ‘to reach catholic, protestant, or atheistic people, that need to find the reality of the faith in the living Christ’.116

113

The growing academic quality of the PDT is not recognized by Gabriel Tchonang, a Catholic researcher of the IRCCPD. Mentioning only the fact that early in the dialogue few Pentecostal participants were theologically trained, he suggests a consequent profound methodological disparity and doctrinal incoherence in the Pentecostal team. Gabriel Tchonang, ‘Les impasses du dialogue catholique-pentecôtiste’, Revue des sciences religieuses 86, no. 1 (2012): 77. 114 See pp. 14–15. 115 See pp. 15–19. 116 Francesco Toppi to Cecil Robeck, 8 February 1993, RobArch. The ecclesiological consequences of a conversionist soteriology and the concomitant challenge regarding fair representation have been discussed earlier (pp. 43–47).

Challenges of Representation and Reception

59

Second, as members of a revivalist movement, Classical Pentecostals tend to see their movement as the epicentre of God’s activities in the world and to have limited interest in churches in which they do not recognize that the Spirit is moving.117 Also, their theological peculiarity, Spirit baptism with the concomitant sign of tongues, needs to be handled with care in ecumenical dialogue. Moreover, dialogue partners need to find a way to deal with zealous evangelization often perceived as proselytism. These particularities can even be recognized in communications of Pentecostal participants of the dialogue. In an enthusiastic mail to a fellow-Pentecostal, one participant states: ‘You would be interested to know that on the permanent Catholic team, there are a number of them who have been saved and filled with the Holy Spirit and operate the gifts of the Spirit since having become part of this dialogue! Nobody from the Pentecostal side has become a Roman Catholic!’118 Third, as members of a restorationist movement, Classical Pentecostals typically consider the early church as described in the book of Acts the exemplary model for the church in every age.119 This usually implies that a high historical value is attached to the accounts of Scripture and that a historical critical hermeneutic is distrusted. Consequently, the movement tends to be critical towards appeal to tradition and history as basis for doctrine and ecclesial practice. In the finesses and development of Roman Catholic theology and in its ecclesiological self-understanding as being the superior expression of Christian unity, Classical Pentecostals see a perversion of the earliest church and her original teaching. They aim at a restoration of the church according to New Testament guidelines enabled by a renewed effusion of the Spirit in the last days. In Pentecostal end time scenario’s, the Roman Catholic Church or the ecumenical movement were and still are at times portrayed as the grand opponent of true Christianity or the apocalyptic whore ‘Babylon’.120 Opal Reddin, one of the critical respondents to Final Report IV, is reminiscent of such restorationist concerns when he states: ‘The goal of Catholics is to gather all who claim to be Christians into the Catholic Church. The goal of Pentecostals is to evangelize the world in New Testament Christianity. These are, in my opinion, radically antithetical goals, based on irreconcilable differences in doctrines and practices.’121 Along with such theological positions, and probably partly as a consequence of them, Classical Pentecostals who refuse to enter in theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church often defend their stance with historical arguments. In

117

See pp. 19–24. Del Tarr to Louie Carlos Pinto, 13 December 1990, SanColl. This peculiar quote was also mused on by Cecil Robeck in an editorial to Pneuma: Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘Specks and Logs, Catholics and Pentecostals’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 77. 119 See pp. 24–29. 120 Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 2–4. E.g. Resolution 24 on Ecumenism, adopted by the 1995 General Council of the Assemblies of God, argued against participation in ecumenism because ‘c. We believe that the combination of many religious organizations into a world superchurch will culminate in the religious Babylon of Revelations 17 and 18.’ The AG constitution today does not hold any such references. 121 Opal Reddin, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 84. Italics hers. 118

60

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

some areas in the world, Classical Pentecostals have had very negative experiences with Roman Catholics.122 In countries where the Roman Catholic Church has (long had) a monopoly position and strong ties with the political authorities, tensions have arisen in which the Pentecostals were typically the weak party. This is acknowledged in the dialogue’s fourth Final Report §68–79. It is quite understandable that victims of discrimination and persecution require that the past be dealt with before they are willing to engage in a dialogue based on trust. Evidently, not all segments of Classical Pentecostalism and not all Classical Pentecostals share this critical attitude towards ecumenism. Yet, as some do, and did so vehemently during the first dialogue phases, the Pentecostal dialogue team needed to deal with the internal criticisms in such a way that their claim for representation would remain genuine, that the dialogue was transparent and inviting to critiques, and that reception of the Final Reports was not impeded.

Responses to the challenge The challenge of the uneven views within the Classical Pentecostal denominations regarding their ecumenical task was responded to in three ways by the PDT. First, a differentiation was made between participants representing their denomination in an official manner and non-official participants. Second, the status of ‘observer’ was introduced to allow someone to be present at the dialogue without fully identifying with it. Both participation variables knew a development in use and popularity. Third, the dialogue teams sought to inform fellow-Pentecostals about the dialogue and counter their critiques via three channels of communication: press releases for the general public, academic articles and lectures for Pentecostal scholars, and personal letters to denominational leaders.

Participation variable 3: Official/non-official representatives Official representation is considered evident and a conditio sine qua non for fruitful interaction in many ecumenical dialogues, but is simply impossible in a dialogue with an ecclesial movement. At the beginning of the dialogue, the Roman Catholic partner understood well that official Pentecostal representation was not evident. It was acknowledged that ‘while in no way speaking officially, [the Pentecostal representatives] do reflect Pentecostal beliefs and the attitudes of at least some Pentecostalists in an important way’.123 Still, the dialogue team has constantly attempted to acquire as much official representation as possible,124 which essentially meant that someone was participating with explicit recognition thereof by his/her denominational executives (see Table 3.3). In a number of instances, official representation also implied that the financial burden for participation was carried by the denomination. 122

Painful experiences are discussed in FR IV:68–79. See Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 345. Bittlinger refers to the protocol of the first preliminary meeting in October 1970. 124 Cf. pp. 49–53. 123

Challenges of Representation and Reception

61

Table 3.3 Official representation of Classical Pentecostal denominations

# Officially represented CP denominations

Ph I*

Ph II

Ph III

Ph IV

Ph V

3

3

11

4

7

*Note that in phase I, Charismatic Protestants also participated in the Pentecostal team.

In phases I and II, David du Plessis aimed to get as many influential Pentecostals to participate as possible. It was not important to David du Plessis ‘whether the participants came as official delegates or in their personal capacities’.125 Official recognition of the dialogue was, however, not entirely absent.126 Eight participants in phase I (out of twenty-six) could count on official backing by three denominations: the Elim Fellowship (UK), the International Evangelical Church and the Apostolic Faith Mission (RSA). All three were small denominations with limited influence, but their recognition of the dialogue was much appreciated. In the second phase, the dialogue team the official participation of the Elim Fellowship (UK) was replaced by official involvement of the Apostolic Church of New Zealand. In total, five out of twenty Classical Pentecostals attending the dialogue in phase II came from denominations supporting the dialogue. In phase III, the willingness of Classical Pentecostal denominations to be affiliated with the dialogue grew tremendously. Nineteen out of thirty Classical Pentecostal participants or observers in this phase came from eleven denominations that officially supported the dialogue. In addition to the Elim Pentecostal Church (UK), the International Evangelical Church127 and the Apostolic Faith Mission (RSA), official representation came from the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, the Pentecostal Church in Poland, the Church of God of Prophecy (USA), the Apostolic Church of Mexico, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, the Independent Assemblies of God (USA), the Dutch Broederschap van Pinkstergemeenten and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN). This development was proudly communicated to the Roman Catholic dialogue partner, and in 1985 Kilian McDonnell encouraged the Pentecostal team to bring up to ten Pentecostal observers, ‘especially if they are officially appointed by their denomination’.128 It was decided in 1986 to specifically mention in the annual press releases as to which participants and observers came as official representatives of their churches, and churches officially sending delegates were summed up in the Final Report (III:4). When by the end of phase III the sensitive subject of proselytism was suggested by Jerry Sandidge as a focus for the next phase, this worried Kilian McDonnell and he asserted that in that case ‘most members of the classical Pentecostal dialogue should

125

Justus du Plessis to Vinson Synan, 7 January 1988, SanColl. Note that sources often contradict in indicating official or non-official representation, e.g. in a comparison of the Press Releases and the Final Reports. 127 In the course of phase III, the denomination was renamed as the International Communion of Charismatic Churches. 128 Justus du Plessis to Pierre Duprey, 3 April 1985, SanColl; Minutes of the Pentecostal Steering Committee, 30 October 1985, SanColl. 126

62

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

be appointed or named by a classical Pentecostal church’.129 This suggestion did not materialize. On the contrary, official Classical Pentecostal support of the dialogue decreased seriously in phase IV. Of the twenty-nine participants and observers, only eleven could claim official support by four loyal denominations, the Apostolic Faith Mission (RSA), the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, the Church of God of Prophecy and the Dutch Broederschap van Pinkstergemeenten. The Church of God (Cleveland, TN) denied official representation in the dialogue in 1993, despite earlier signals indicating the opposite.130 Probably as a consequence, from 1992 onwards the differentiation between official and non-official representatives of Classical Pentecostal denominations was left out of the press releases and is absent in Final Reports IV and V as well. The decrease in official representation was disturbing in the eyes of Kilian McDonnell.131 In Phase V, the Pentecostal dialogue team held the continued support of the four denominations previously mentioned, to which was added a renewed official involvement of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and official representatives from the Open Bible Standard Churches (USA) and BewegungPlus (CH). Ten out of twenty Classical Pentecostals participating in the fifth phase came from these seven supporting denominations. Thus, in phase V official participation again grew slightly.

Participation variable 4: Participants/observers The participation variable of participants and observers was introduced in the dialogue at the initiative of David du Plessis. The number of participants in each team was limited by the JSC, but du Plessis was convinced of the benefits of exposing fellow-Pentecostals to the dialogue sessions. He therefore requested the Roman Catholic partners to allow the presence of observers to eyewitness the dialogue process. After some hesitation, the observer-status was accepted and it evolved into a fixed format. Its popularity was highest in the third phase (see Table 3.4 and attachment 1). Table 3.4 The presence of observers in the Classical Pentecostal team Ph I*

Ph II

Ph III

Ph IV

Ph V

Classical Pentecostal attendees

18

20

30

29

20

Classical Pentecostal observers

?

9

19

12

4

(?)

45%

63%

41%

# CP observers/total # CP attendees

20%

*In phase I, the differentiation between participants and observers was not yet clear.

129

Kilian McDonnell to Cecil Robeck, 25 July 1989, RobArch. See Lamar Vest to Jerry Sandidge, 12 February 1992, SanColl and Cecil Robeck to Lamar Vest, 23 February 1993, RobArch. 131 Kilian McDonnell to Cecil Robeck, 6 September 1991, RobArch. 130

Challenges of Representation and Reception

63

Shortly prior to the first dialogue session (1972), David du Plessis wrote to Basil Meeking asking if Pentecostal or Charismatic ‘observers’ could attend.132 When Basil Meeking replied that he was not in favour, du Plessis did not insist and communicated to his team that observers or consultants would not be welcome.133 The following year the question returned and again met with a negative reply, yet with the remark that each team would be allowed to bring along two guests who would not participate in the discussions.134 For the fourth session, Basil Meeking reluctantly allowed the presence of observers without prejudice to what would be decided for future meetings.135 As a consequence, instead of the agreed nine, fifteen attendees were present on the Pentecostal side in 1975 and twelve in 1976. Neither in the official documents nor in correspondence between Pentecostal team members is it indicated who were full participants and who were observers, and no clear rules were laid down for their different roles in the dialogue process. In phase II (1977–1982), observers were frequently distinguished from participants in official and non-official communications, but not always.136 Disregarding the Charismatic Protestants, probably about 45 per cent of the Classical Pentecostal attendees came at least once as observer. In 1980, Pentecostal Steering Committee members William Carmichael and Robert McAlister shared the hope that the observer status would be more clearly defined, to which a first step was made in the October dialogue session.137 Observers were given specific times to speak, which was positively evaluated afterwards and recommended for future dialogues.138 At the beginning of the 1981 session, however, Kilian McDonnell explicitly said that ‘the Pentecostal observers would be admitted to the Dialogue with the full right to participate’.139 The distinction appears to have been mainly useful for political reasons. Some invitees thought it wiser to be an ‘observer’ rather than a ‘participant’ of this controversial dialogue.140 Between the end of the second phase and the start of the third phase, engagements to the dialogue were renewed and projections for the future were made.141 The maximum number of dialogue participants per session was to be nine with up

132

David du Plessis to Basil Meeking, 15 April 1972, SanColl. Basil Meeking to David du Plessis, 8 May 1972, SanColl. David du Plessis to Basil Meeking, 25 May 1972, SanColl. 134 Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting, 3–4 October 1972, DPColl. Analysed in Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 68. 135 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:96. 136 See, for clear differentiation, e.g. Pentecostal Executive Meeting, 15 October 1980, SanColl and the Press Releases and reports in IS 35 (1977/III–IV), 17; 47 (1981/III–IV), 127f. There is however no differentiation in the 1982 press release: IS 50 (1982/IV), 128. 137 William Carmichael to Robert McAlister, 9 September 1980, SanColl. 138 Minutes of the Joint Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Executive Committee, October 1981, SanColl. 139 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:236. 140 Cf. Ibid., 1:175. 141 See Ibid., 1:377–381. 133

64

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

to four additional observers on each side.142 In the third phase, the total number of Classical Pentecostals who took part in the team totalled thirty, and probably nineteen came at least once in the capacity of observer, i.e. 63 per cent.143 Again, it is not entirely clear who came as observer and who was a full participant.144 The 1986 session taking place in Sierra Madre, CA, necessitated a thorough reflection on the role of observers. Since then, the difference between an observer and a full participant was defined as follows: A participant is someone who has been in a previous session and is considered one of the […] spokespersons. These are free (in fact, expected) to engage in all dialogue sessions with interaction with the Roman Catholic side. An observer, on the other hand, is a part of the dialogue process but has a restriction on when comments may be made. Usually, twice during a working day, a time is set aside in which observers may comment or ask questions on the discussion. Observers are expected, however, to attend all the plenary sessions. They are free, of course, to question and discuss matters at meals, coffee breaks, etc. The reason for this simple rule is twofold: 1) it keeps the number of persons on each side more balanced; and 2) some Pentecostal denominations would prefer to send an observation the first time, rather than an official participant.145

Such clear communication notwithstanding, in the 1986 and 1987 sessions the groups were not clearly distinguished and observers again fully participated in the discussions.146 But a change was initiated and in 1988 again the differentiation between participants and observers was clearly communicated.147 Thus, the rules became quite explicit in phase III, even if they were not followed strictly during the sessions.148 In phases IV and V the rules and habits regarding observers and participants came to be followed in practice. The observer status allowed church leaders to be exposed to the dialogue for one session while keeping the discussions up to speed

142

Minutes of the Executive Core Committee, 8 November 1983, DPColl. David Cole mentions the presence of an additional anonymous observer in 1987. Cole, ‘Pentecostal Koinonia’, 133. 144 The distinction between observers and participants in phase III is clear until 1986, the last session summarized by Jerry Sandidge. See Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:384–386. 145 Memo from Jerry Sandidge to the Pentecostal delegation to the 1987 RCP dialogue, 15 June 1987, SanColl. 146 Jerry Sandidge to Basil Meeking, 14 July 1986, SanColl; T. Gordon Hills to Jerry Sandidge, ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue – Venice’, 7 September 1987, SanColl. 147 E.g. Jerry Sandidge to the Delegates invited to the 1988 RC/P Dialogue, 25 January 1988, SanColl; Memo from Jerry Sandidge to the Pentecostal delegation to the 1988 RCP dialogue, 10 June 1989, SanColl. From the archives it is not possible to decide on their involvement in this particular session. See the detailed Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, 20–24 August 1988, SanColl. In the final session of phase III (1989), there were no observers present. 148 For this reason, in the calculation of ‘voices’ in the dialogue, only since phase IV have observers been attributed merely a half voice. 143

Challenges of Representation and Reception

65

by a team of loyal participants.149 Moreover, the observer status turned into a first step of participation, especially when seeking denominational support.150 Observers with official backing were hoped to come as full participants to the dialogue the next year.151 This development concurs with the growing emphasis on academic excellence and the concomitant rejection of too much turnover in the dialogue team.152

Communications on the dialogue A third response to the uneven views regarding Pentecostal involvement in ecumenism and in this dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church can be found in the clear and diverse communications on the dialogue’s development. In addition to the Final Reports, such communications were a key means to promote reception of the dialogue results. It took place on three levels: in annual press releases for the general public, in articles and lectures for the academic public, and in personal correspondences with denominational executives.

Annual press releases Since the first dialogue session, press releases were jointly written out at the end of each plenary session for publication in both Roman Catholic and Pentecostal newspapers and periodicals. The structure and length of the press releases developed over the decades, but a number of elements were common. All press releases start with specifics regarding the dialogue session’s location and dates. Next, a very short indication of the specific nature of the dialogue is given. This includes a concise introduction to the general subjects of the dialogue phase as a whole and specifics on the session under consideration. The names and titles of the two chairmen/moderators, the paper presenters and their subjects, and the other participants are provided as well. Denominational allegiances are noted for the Pentecostal participants and the orders are indicated for Catholic participants, if applicable. Official representatives were singled out only in the press releases between 1985 and 1992. Full participants and observers are distinguished in about half of the press releases.153

149

Inviting church leaders for one week remained to be seen as an important means to enhance understanding and support for the dialogue. As David Cole explains: ‘[T]here’s value in sort of bringing the high powered leaders in as observers, to give them opportunities to meet Catholic leaders from the Vatican […] and to go back to their place of leadership with a new perspective. […] It’s difficult to get them around. It’s not realistic to get very many of them to make a five to seven year commitment. But I think it is realistic to get them present for a one week of observation.’ Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. 150 E.g. Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis et al., memorandum, 19 March 1986, SanColl. See also citation above. As an exception, paper presenters, who were invited as experts, could fully participate in their first encounter with the dialogue (see pp. 80–81). 151 Cornelis van der Laan to Justus du Plessis, 20 November 1990, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to Cees van der Laan, 21 November 1991, SanColl. 152 Cf. pp. 53–55. 153 Observer status is mentioned or suggested in the Press Releases of 1977, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1989, 1991–1999, 2001, 2002.

66

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

All press releases were published in the PCPCU Information Service, but Pentecostal magazines and newspapers were long hesitant to publish on the dialogue.154 In phase I, apart from the regular updates in the Information Service, the progress of the dialogue received little press attention.155 In the course of phase II, the press releases were more readily received in Pentecostal circles.156 Especially in North America and Italy, however, the suspicion towards the dialogue remained, as is most clearly evidenced in the turmoil following the 1981 meeting on Mariology. Jerry Sandidge describes how secular newspapers around the world picked up the press release and published short articles under provocative headlines. Pentecostal denominations around the world reacted fiercely, distancing themselves from the dialogue team and writing sharp articles attacking Roman Catholic teachings on Mary.157 Press releases after 1981 were written more carefully and limited their information on the content of dialogue discussions. In phase III, the attitude of some Classical Pentecostal denominations towards the dialogue changed for the better. Press releases were published in several (Pentecostal) periodicals, which was no doubt due to Jerry Sandidge’s untiring efforts.158 In 1986, the editor of a Pentecostal journal was present in the meeting but what he could publish was very restricted.159 In phases IV and V, press releases continued to be sent out annually.160 Articles related to the dialogue appeared at the least in the Pentecostal Evangel,161 Advance,162 Church of God Evangel163 and the Nederlands Dagblad.164

Academic publications Throughout the decades academic interest in the IRCCPD grew substantially. While in the first phases the main academic articles related to the dialogue were publications of the presented papers during the plenary sessions, in later phases less was published from the dialogue and more was published about it.

154

What follows is a general description based on academic publications and the archives at our disposal. A complete overview of the publications of the Press Releases falls outside the scope of this work. 155 All Press Releases were collected and published in Arnold Bittlinger’s dissertation. See Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 65–67, 88–90, 108–110, 134–136, 171–172. 156 The Press Releases have been collected in Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:II: 94–95, 186–188, 269–271, 361–364, 433–435. Sandidge also affords information on press attention for the dialogue in Pentecostal circles (phases I and II). 157 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:335–341. 158 E.g. after the 1985 dialogue session, Jerry Sandidge sent out over one hundred press releases. Memorandum from Jerry Sandidge to the Pentecostal Steering Committee members, 10 September 1986, SanColl. All Press Releases were again published in Information Service: 57 (1985/I), 14–15; 62 (1986/IV), 199–200; 64 (1987/II), 68; 68 (1988/III–IV), 162–163; 72 (1990/I), 1–2. 159 See, esp. Kilian McDonnell to Jerry Sandidge, 15 March 1986, SanColl. 160 See, for phase IV, Information Service 75 (1990/IV), 168; 78 (1991/III–IV), 204–205; 82 (1993/I), 28–29; 84 (1993/III–IV), 153–154; 86 (1994/III–IV), 126–127; 89 (1995/II–III), 94–95; 92 (1996/III), 105. For phase V, see Information Service 98 (1998/III), 161; 102 (1999/IV), 246f; 104 (2000/III), 147; 107 (2001/II–III), 88f; 110 (2002/III), 179f; 113 (2003/II–III), 79; 119 (2005/III), 142f; 122 (2006/II), 67f. 161 Edition of 21 October 1990, 27. 162 Edition of March/April 1990, vol. 35 no. 4, 22. 163 Edition of November 1992, 31f. 164 Edition of Saturday, 16 April 2005, front page.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

67

In the first two phases, most papers that were read during the sessions were published afterwards in the Roman Catholic ecumenical journal One in Christ.165 The Final Report was, apart from the SPCU Information Service and One in Christ, printed in full in key ecumenical collections.166 The limited attention for the dialogue on the Classical Pentecostal side is notable. FR I was published in the paramount Pentecostal academic journal, Pneuma, only in 1990 and was republished in a collection on Pentecostal ecumenism in 2010.167 While the second phase of the dialogue caused stress on the popular level, it gained increasing interest from scholars. One in Christ again published some of the early presented papers.168 Pierre Duprey wrote an article in Episkepsis in 1979, in which he explained the particularities of this dialogue and contrasted it with other dialogues in which the Roman Catholic Church was involved.169 After the turmoil on Mary, and possibly because of it, Jerry Sandidge was asked to present Pentecostal papers on Mary at different conferences. His paper for the dialogue was published in Pneuma as ‘A Pentecostal Response to Roman Catholic Teaching on Mary’ in 1982.170 In the second volume of his published dissertation, all papers presented during phase II are collected. Final Report II was also published in the 1990 issue of Pneuma and in the aforementioned collection.171

165

The complete list of published papers and responses is found in the bibliography of Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:xxxviii–lviii. 166 Michael Harper, Three Sisters: A Provocative Look at Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Catholic Charismatics and Their Relationship to One Another (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1979), 109–122; Kilian McDonnell, ed., Presence, Power, Praise: Documents on the Charismatic Renewal, vol. 3 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1980), vols. 3, 385–395; Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer, eds., Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, Ecumenical Documents 2/Faith and Order Paper 108 (New York: Pauline Press/WCC, 1984), 421–431; Sever J. Voicu and Giovanni Cereti, eds., Dialoghi internazionali, 1931–1984, Enchiridion oecumenicum: Documenti del dialogo teologico interconfessionale 1 (Bologna: Dehoniane, 1986); Harding Meyer, Hans Jörg Urban and Lukas Vischer, eds., Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung: Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene, 1931–1982, vol. 1 (Paderborn: Verlag Bonifatius-Druckerei, 1983), 476–487; Adolfo Gonzalez Montes, ed., Enchiridion Oecumenicum: relaciones y documentos de los diálogos interconfesionales de la Iglesia Católica y otras iglesias cristianas y declaraciones de sus autoridades (1964–1984); con anexos de grupos no oficiales del diálogo teológico interconfesional, Bibliotheca Oecumenica Salmanticensis 12 (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 1986), 541–552. The subsequent FR’s were also published in these collections. 167 ‘Final Report of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1972–1976)’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 85–95; Vondey, ed., Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, 101–112. 168 F. P. Möller, ‘Faith and Experience’, One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 306–15; J. H. Walgrave, ‘Experience and Faith’, One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 316–323; Vinson Synan, ‘Speaking in Tongues’, One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 323–331; Kilian McDonnell, ‘The Function of Tongues in Pentecostalism’, One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 332–354; Charles W. Gusmer, ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Rome 1979: The Ministry of Healing in the Church’, One in Christ 21, no. 1 (1985): 51–60; Robert McAlister, ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Rome 1979: The Ministry of Healing in the Church’, One in Christ 21, no. 1 (1985): 43–51. 169 Pierre Duprey, ‘L’Eglise catholique et le dialogue œcuménique’, Episkepsis 10, no. 212 (1979): 6–16. 170 Jerry L. Sandidge, ‘A Pentecostal Response to Roman Catholic Teaching on Mary’, Pneuma 4, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 33–42. 171 ‘Final Report of the Dialogue between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostals 1977–1982’, Information Service 55, no. II–III (1984): 72–80. See Pneuma 12/2 (1990) and Vondey, Pentecostalism and Christian Unity. Due to our focus, publications in Catholic or general ecumenical volumes are not listed. All Final Reports can be found online at the website of the Centro Pro Unione: http://www.pro.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/e_perc-info.html [accessed 1 January 2014].

68

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Final Report III was published soon after completion in Roman Catholic and Pentecostal journals, respectively the PCPCU Information Service and Pneuma.172 In addition, Cecil Robeck, then General Editor of Pneuma, invited a variety of scholars and church leaders to send in responses and critiques to FR III. A total of thirteen responses were published in the same issue.173 David Cole notes, however, that ‘[f]ewer than half of those whose responses were sollicited actually provided a response, and by far the majority of those who declined the opportunity to respond were Pentecostals’, which ‘says something significant about both the perception and the reception of the Dialogue among Pentecostals’.174 Notably, only two papers from the third phase plenary sessions were published.175 Even then, interest in the dialogue in academic circles was still growing, as is evidenced from the number of articles written in this period on Pentecostal ecumenical involvement.176 By the end of Phase IV, Pentecostal academic interest in the dialogue had again substantially increased. Soon after its finalization, the Final Report was published in English in at least four academic and professional journals: the Catholic ecumenical journal One in Christ,177 the Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research,178 the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies179 and Pneuma.180 As after the third phase, Pneuma published the Final Report along with an editorial by Cecil Robeck and responses by a broad variety of readers.181 In the course of the fourth

172

‘Perspectives on Koinonia’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 117–142; ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: The Report from the Third Quinquennium of The Dialogue between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1985–1989’, PCPCU Information Service 75 (1990): 179–191. 173 David K. Bernard; Frank Colborn; Donald Gelpi; J. L. Hall; Walter J. Hollenweger; David Hubbard; Harold Hunter; Leonard Lovett; Jesse Miranda; Thomas P. Rausch; Vinson Synan; George Vandevelde; Jakob Zopfi. Cf. Pentecostal Steering Committee Minutes, 14–21 July 1990, SanColl. 174 Cole, ‘Pentecostal Koinonia’, 140, footnote 94. 175 Robeck Jr and Sandidge, ‘The Ecclesiology of Koinōnia and Baptism’; Kilian McDonnell and, ‘Communion Ecclesiology and Baptism in the Spirit: Tertullian and the Early Church’, Theological Studies 49 (1988): 671–693. 176 For articles on Pentecostal involvement in ecumenical dialogue, see, e.g. Robeck Jr, ‘Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith’; Jerry L. Sandidge, ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: A Contribution to Christian Unity’, Pneuma 7, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 41–61; McDonnell, ‘Communion Ecclesiology and Baptism in the Spirit’; Hocken, ‘Dialogue Extraordinary’; Peter Hocken, ‘Signs and Evidence: The Need for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue on the Relationship between the Physical and Spiritual’, Pneuma 11, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 123–133. 177 ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness: The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990–1997 between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders’, One in Christ 35, no. 2 (1999): 158–190. 178 ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness: The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990–1997 between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders’, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 4 (July 1998). 179 ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness: The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990–1997 between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders’, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2, no. 1 (January 1999): 105–151. 180 ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness: The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue (1990–1997) between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 11–51. 181 Robeck explains, however, that the fifty invitations to respond were sent out but only thirteen responses came, of which only three were Pentecostal voices. Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘When Being a “Martyr” Is Not Enough: Catholics and Pentecostals’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 9.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

69

phase, a number of articles were written on the dialogue as well, primarily by the two co-moderators, Robeck and McDonnell.182 From the twelve papers presented at the dialogue sessions, only two were published.183 The Final Report of the fifth phase was officially released in 2007 at a symposium at VU University Amsterdam with an introduction by Cecil Robeck.184 A Classical Pentecostal, a Roman Catholic and a Reformed response followed.185 Probably due to its length, this Final Report was not published in Pneuma nor in One in Christ. It can be found in its entirety in the PCPCU Information Service,186 in key ecumenical collections,187 in the Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research,188 in the second volume of Vondey’s Pentecostalism and Christian Unity189 and at a number of places on the internet.190 Of the twelve papers that have been presented during the sessions, five have been published, some slightly adapted.191 182

Robeck Jr, ‘Taking Stock of Pentecostalism’; Terrence Robert Crowe, Pentecostal Unity: Recurring Frustration and Enduring Hopes (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1993); Peter Hocken, ‘Ecumenical Dialogue: The Importance of Dialogue with Evangelicals and Pentecostals’, One in Christ 30 (1994): 101–123; Kilian McDonnell, ‘Can Classical Pentecostals and Roman Catholics Engage in Common Witness’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 3, no. 7 (1995): 97–106; McDonnell, ‘Five Defining Issues’; McDonnell, ‘Improbable Conversations’; Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘What Should Roman Catholics Know about Pentecostalism?’, The Catholic World, December 1995; Walter J. Hollenweger, ‘Common Witness between Catholics and Pentecostals’, Pneuma 18, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 185–216. 183 McDonnell, ‘Can Classical Pentecostals and Roman Catholics Engage in Common Witness’; Hollenweger, ‘Common Witness’. 184 Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: Some Thoughts on the International Roman Catholic – Pentecostal Dialogue’ (presented at Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007). This paper was published as Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: An Important Theme in the International Roman Catholic – Pentecostal Dialogue’, PentecoStudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements 7, no. 2 (2009): 1–28. The paper built on an earlier article, see Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: An Update on the Fifth Round of Discussions’, Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas 82, no. 854 (June 2006): 473–508. 185 Patrick Lens, ‘Hoe word je christen? Opnieuw ontdekken van de charismatische “oergrond” ’ (presented at the Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007); B. Plaisier, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: Een protestantse bijdrage bij de dialoog tussen de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en de Pinksterkerken’ (presented at the Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007); Huibert Zegwaart, ‘Reactie op “On Becoming a Christian” ’ (presented at the Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007). 186 IS 129 (2008/III), 162–215. 187 E.g. in German: Johannes Oeldemann et al., eds., Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung: Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene 4; 2001–2010 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt/Bonifatius, 2012), 869–980. 188 Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 18 (January 2009), http://pctii.org/cyberj/ cyber18.html, accessed 1 January 2015. 189 Vondey, Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, Volume 2, 95–216. 190 Notably at the PCPCU website: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ eccl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060101_becoming-a-christian_en.html; on the Centro Pro Unione website: http://www.pro.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_5-contents.html and as document 0205uk on www.stucom.nl (Accessed 1 January 2015). 191 Kilian McDonnell, ‘Does the Theology and Practice of the Early Church Confirm the Classical Pentecostal Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit?’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (1999): 115–134; Ralph Del Colle, ‘Pentecostal/Catholic Dialogue: Theological Suggestions for Consideration’, Pneuma 25, no. 1 (2003): 93–96; Matthias Wenk, ‘Conversion and Initiation: A Pentecostal View of Biblical and Patristic Perspectives’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8, no. 17 (October 2000): 56–80; Huibert Zegwaart, ‘Christian Experience in Community’, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 11 (2002); Ralph Del Colle, ‘Postmodernism and the Pentecostal-Charismatic Experience’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8, no. 17 (October 2000): 97–116.

70

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Quite a number of articles have been published on the dialogue during and following this phase. Catholic systematic theologian and dialogue participant, Ralph Del Colle, has published his overview and commentary of the Final Report in One in Christ.192 Catholic ecumenist, Teresa Francesca Rossi, offers in Ecumenical Trends short reflections on the Report.193 Pentecostal theologian, Glen W. Menzies, published a Pentecostal response in the same issue.194 In the course of this dialogue phase, the IRCCPD and its theological project have been the subject of a number of academic articles and lectures. Most prolific in this area were VeliMatti Kärkkäinen, Cecil Robeck and Ralph Del Colle. Apart from his dissertation and Habilitationsschrift, Kärkkäinen published introductory articles to the dialogue and theological articles related to the third or fourth dialogue phase. 195 Cecil Robeck wrote a number of articles on the dialogue from his participatory viewpoint, mainly directed to the Pentecostal community but also to participants in the broader ecumenical scene.196 Ralph Del Colle wrote both general articles on the dialogue and systematic theological articles related to key questions in 192

Ralph Del Colle, ‘On Becoming a Christian: Commentary on the Fifth Phase Report of the International Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, One in Christ 43, no. 1 (2009): 98–121. 193 Francesca Rossi, ‘On Becoming a Christian: Reflections and Insights’, Ecumenical Trends 39, no. 1 (2010): 2–4. 194 Glen W. Menzies, ‘A Pentecostal Response to On Becoming a Christian’, Ecumenical Trends 39, no. 1 (2010): 5–6, 15. 195 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘Authority, Revelation, and Interpretation in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 89–114; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘Pentecostal Missiology in Ecumenical Perspective: Contributions, Challenges, Controversies’, International Review of Mission 88, no. 350 (1999): 207–25; ‘An Exercise on the Frontiers’; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘Trinity as Communion in the Spirit: Koinonia, Trinity, and Filioque in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’, Pneuma 22, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 209–230; ‘ “Anonymous Ecumenists”?’; ‘Pentecostalism and the Claim for Apostolicity’; ‘Church as Charismatic Fellowship: Ecclesiological Reflections from the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001): 100–121; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘Are Pentecostals Oblivious to Social Justice? Theological and Ecumenical Perspectives’, Missiology 29, no. 4 (2001): 417–431; ‘Spirituality as a Resource for Social Justice: Reflections from the Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 6, no. 1 (January 2003): 83–96; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen ‘Unity, Diversity, and Apostolicity: Are There Any Hopes for Rapprochement between Older and Younger Churches?’, in Believing in Community: Ecumenical Reflections on the Church, ed. P. De Mey, P. De Witte, and G. Mannion, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 261 (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2013), 487–506. 196 Main publications/lectures in academic context are Cecil M. Robeck Jr, ‘The Challenge Pentecostalism Poses to the Quest for Ecclesial Unity’, in Kirche in ökumenischer Perspektive: Festschrift für Kardinal Walter Kasper zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Walter, Klaus Krämer and George Augustin (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003), 306–320; ‘Pentecostals and Christian Unity’; ‘Lessons from the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’; Cecil M. Robeck Jr and Jerry L. Sandidge, ‘Dialogue, Catholic and Pentecostal’, in NIDPCM (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 576–582; ‘Do “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors”? Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness’, Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, accessed 1 January 2014, http://www.apts. edu/aeimages//File/AJPS_PDF/99-1-robeck.pdf; ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: Some Pentecostal Assumptions’, Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 21 (2001): 3–25; ‘The International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: An Update on the Fifth Round of Discussions’ (University of Stellenbosch, 21 September 2004); ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: Challenges and Lessons for Living Together’, in Pentecostal Power: Expressions, Impact, and Faith of Latin American Pentecostalism, ed. Calvin Smith, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 249–276; ‘Some Reflections on Current Catholic-Pentecostal Relations: What Are We Learning?’, in Festschrift for Msgr. John Radano (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012).

Challenges of Representation and Reception

71

Catholic-Pentecostal relations.197 Apart from these three, other participants and also some outsiders critically reflected on theological and methodological issues related to the dialogue and its fifth phase.198 The growing dispersion of and interest in the dialogue within Pentecostal academia is evidenced in the footnotes of the last few pages and underlines again the change in focus in the Pentecostal dialogue team. Rather than aiming at popular publications and seeking denominational support, in the latter half of the dialogue the academic route became the preferred way to reach the Classical Pentecostal constituency.

Personal correspondences A third way in which the dialogue was promoted for the critical Pentecostal public was through personal correspondences of participants and observers with their constituency, and more specifically with their denominational leaders. The archives

197

Ralph Del Colle, ‘The Pursuit of Holiness: A Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37, no. 3–4 (Summer-Fall 2000): 301–320; ‘Pentecostal/Catholic Dialogue’; ‘Aesthetics and Pathos in the Vision of God: A Catholic–Pentecostal Encounter’, Pneuma 26, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 99–117; ‘Catholic vs. Pentecostal Missiologies: Toward Reconciliation by Catholic Reception of Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, Missiology 35, no. 3 (2007): 337–346; ‘Mary, the Unwelcome (?) Guest in Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, Pneuma 29, no. 2 (November 2007): 214–225; ‘Whither Pentecostal Theology? Why a Catholic Is Interested’, Pneuma 31, no. 1 (2009): 35–46; ‘Nature and Grace: Why This Catholic Delineation of the “Supernatural” Is Important for Pentecostals’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18, no. 1 (May 2009): 111–122; ‘The Implications of “Religious Experience” for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: A Catholic Perspective’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 45, no. 4 (Fall 2010): 525–542; ‘Postmodernism and the Pentecostal-Charismatic Experience’; ‘The Holy Spirit: Presence, Power, Person’, Theological Studies 62, no.2 (June 2001): 322–340; ‘The Holy Spirit and Christian Unity: A Case Study from Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, in Kirche in ökumenischer Perspektive: Festschrift für Kardinal Walter Kasper zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Walter, Klaus Krämer, and George Augustin (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003), 290–305. 198 E.g. McDonnell, ‘Does the Theology and Practice of the Early Church Confirm the Classical Pentecostal Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit?’; Peter Hocken, ‘Baptized in Spirit – An Eschatological Concept: A Response to Norbert Baumert and His Interlocutors’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13, no. 2 (2005): 257–268; McDonnell, ‘The Pros and Cons of Dialogue with Roman Catholics’; Huibert Zegwaart, ‘The Place of the Church in the Economy of Salvation. Roman Catholic and Pentecostal Perspectives: Room for Rapprochement?’, The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 21 (2001): 26–40; Kenneth G. Appold, ‘Dialogue with Pentecostals and Its Implications for Ecumenical Method – Some Initial Thoughts’ (Expanded Staff Meeting, Strasbourg, 3 April 2005); ‘The Pentecostal Challenge to Traditional Ecumenism’ (Strasbourg Summer Seminar, 10 July 2006); H. Gasper, ‘Global Players im Gespräch? Zum Dialog der römisch-katholischen Kirche mit den Pfingstkirchen’, Ökumenische Rundschau 56, no. 3 (July 2007): 317–333; Walter J. Hollenweger, ‘Roman Catholics and Pentecostals in Dialogue’, The Ecumenical Review 51, no. 2 (April 1999): 147–159; Dale M. Coulter, ‘Baptism, Conversion, and Grace: Reflections on the “Underlying Realities” Between Pentecostals, Methodists, and Catholics’, Pneuma 31, no. 2 (2009): 189–212; Martien Parmentier, ‘Water Baptism and Spirit Baptism in the Church Fathers’, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 3 (January 1998); Kilian McDonnell, ‘Response to Martin Parmentier on Baptism and Spirit Baptism in the Church Fathers’, Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 3 (January 1998); Hans Hess, ‘Mission Theology in Dialogue between Catholics and Pentecostals’, One in Christ 39, no. 4 (October 2004); William Henn, ‘Les dialogues œcuméniques de l’Église catholique avec les Églises méthodistes, baptistes et les Églises de Pentecôte suggèrent-ils une autre voie d’approche du dialogue œcuménique?’, in Nouveaux apprentissages pour l’Église: Mélanges en l’honneur de Hervé Legrond, o.p., ed. Gilles Routhier and Laurent Villemin (Paris: Cerf, 2006), 85–106.

72

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

available are limited and for the most part contain correspondences directed to Assemblies of God (USA) officials. Examples of such correspondences have been presented earlier.199 Glimpses of communication with other denominational leaders can also be found in the archives, and suggest that this type of communication was extensively used to raise awareness of the dialogue and to seek support.200

Assessment of effects The theological profile of Classical Pentecostalism and its history offer ample explanation for the critical attitudes of many inside the movement regarding ecumenism and particularly regarding theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Three main responses to this challenge have been formulated and discussed. This conclusion assesses the development of these responses and their influence on the dialogue. First, the unwillingness of the majority of the ‘mainstream’ Classical Pentecostal denominations to officially support the dialogue was known from its very beginnings. Still, official support was considered important by both Catholics and Pentecostals for the dialogue’s credibility and for the reception of its results. A distinction between official and non-official representatives was made and persuading denominations to officially support the dialogue was an ever-recurring charge. In phase III, priorities seem to have shifted and denominational support lost some of its importance. A second development involves the participation variable of participants and observers. David du Plessis desired from the beginning of the dialogue that observers could be invited, which was slowly accepted by the Catholic team in phase I. The importance attached to observers attending the dialogue seems to have grown until phase III and the role of observers in the dialogue process came to be clearly delineated. Thereafter, the relative number of observers declined in phase IV and V. This parallels the decline in the total number of Classical Pentecostal attendees, the number of denominations officially involved and the earlier mentioned exposure rate. It affirms the change in priority from broad and official representation of mainstream Classical Pentecostal denominations to a theologically robust and constant team.201 In the said process, the usage of the observer status changed considerably. In the first three phases the observer status was used to augment exposure to the dialogue by including individuals or denominations critical to the dialogue. Thereafter,

199

See pp. 49–52. See, e.g. David Hugh Edwards, ‘Information and Evaluation of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue 24–30 May 1986’, SanColl; David Cole to Ray Smith, 15 November 1993, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to Paul Walker, 20 June 1997, RobArch; Gary McGee to Loren Triplett, 5 September 1990, SanColl. Such communications were also witnessed by Pentecostal participants of the dialogue’s sixth phase: interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013; interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013; interview by Jelle Creemers with David Moore, 16 July 2013, CrArch. 201 cf. pp. 57–58. 200

Challenges of Representation and Reception

73

the observer status came to be seen as a ‘first step’ of participation. This had two advantages. First, the observer status was communicated to the denominations as a first step of participation normally extended for only one session. It allowed them a year of exposure before choosing for full participation. Second, it allowed the observer to get familiar with the dialogue with a limited right to interference so as not to burden the dialogue with ignorant questions. Thus it came to serve the focus on a theologically strong and constant team. Finally, the dialogue team, its PSC and its chairman sought to inform the Classical Pentecostal public on the existence, development and results of the IRCCPD through different channels of communication. Denominational leaders were frequently updated on the dialogue’s development in personal correspondence of the PSC members and/or their own representatives. In the run-up to phase III, the team invested much energy in getting the press releases and other communications on the dialogue published in popular Pentecostal newspapers and magazines. After phase III, the growing number of academic publications on the dialogue and its theological achievements catches the eye. This again underscores the growing focus on theological quality in the dialogue.

Classical Pentecostalism: theological demarcations A third specific diversity in the Classical Pentecostal movement, which the Pentecostal dialogue team had to cope with in its struggle for fair representation and broad reception, is the theological plurality of the movement. Speaking of global Pentecostalism, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen states that ‘[s]pirituality, rather than theology/ creeds or sociology of religion, is the key to understanding Pentecostalism’. As such he agrees with the emerging scholarly consensus that ‘at the heart of Pentecostal spirituality lies the “Full Gospel”, the idea of Jesus Christ in his fivefold role as Savior, Sanctifier, Baptiser with the Spirit, Healer, and Soon-Coming King’.202 In a theological dialogue, however, a definition focusing on spirituality cannot suffice. The Pentecostal dialogue partner had to find a manner to define itself theologically for this dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. In what follows, the consequent challenges are described. Clearly, not all challenges that could be addressed have been addressed. The dialogue team has, consciously or unconsciously, chosen a specific discourse regarding the theological identity of Classical Pentecostalism that implies certain challenges rather than others. The consequent responses to the challenges are described thereafter. An assessment follows in the concluding subsection.

Description of the challenge The distinction between Classical Pentecostals and the Charismatic movement in the historic churches has been essential for the self-definition of the Pentecostal

202

Kärkkäinen, ‘Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology’, 224.

74

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Dialogue Team in the first phases of the IRCCPD.203 Behind this differentiation lies the genealogical discourse on Pentecostalism, which places the origins of the movement in the early twentieth-century North American Evangelicalism/Holiness circles and which identifies early Pentecostalism as the root of the ‘second wave’ (the Charismatic movement) and the ‘third wave’ (the Neo-Pentecostals).204 The Classical Pentecostal dialogue team in the IRCCPD opted for this historiographical discourse as well, most explicitly so under the presidency of Cecil Robeck, who has written extensively on early American Pentecostalism.205 This historiography has been spelled out in Final Report V (§238–259). While acknowledging that Pentecostalism has taken many forms through the years (§239), the origin is pinpointed in early twentieth-century California: ‘From “Azusa Street” the message of salvation, holiness, and power was rapidly dispersed around the world by a host of evangelists and missionaries where it took root and developed’ (§238). The history narrated in the subsequent paragraphs is largely early American Pentecostal history, and the theological diversity of Pentecostalism that is presented, is limited to its key developments. The historical overview focuses on the theology of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Two important Holiness sources are pointed to that have resulted in two theological perspectives on Spirit baptism and consequently to two distinct theological and ecclesial traditions within Classical Pentecostalism. One is the nineteenth-century Wesleyan-Holiness movement, which taught a second experience of grace subsequent to conversion identified as ‘entire sanctification’ and later called ‘baptism in/with the Holy Spirit’. The second tradition, the Keswick Movement, saw sanctification as an ongoing process but acknowledged an experience subsequent to conversion in the form of an empowering ‘baptism with the Holy Spirit’.206 FR V continues to say that these two traditions led to the first division in the movement between the ‘Holiness’ and the ‘Finished Work’ wing. It was disputed whether the Pentecostal Spirit baptism was to be considered a second or third ‘work of grace’.207 Almost as an intermission and an appendix (§250, 253), and without positing it clearly within the account of early Pentecostal history, ‘Oneness Pentecostalism’ is mentioned in FR V. It is considered a deviant group, which ‘contributed to the confusion because they linked salvation and baptism in the Holy Spirit together theologically […]’ thus ‘offer[ing] some support for those who advocated baptismal regeneration’. Second, the theological peculiarity of the Classical Pentecostal view on ‘Spirit baptism’ with the concomitant evidence of tongue speech was essential to the

203

See pp. 47–48. Cf. pp. 9–13. 205 Robeck Jr, ‘Pentecostal Origins’, 170. See also, amongst other publications, Cecil M. Robeck Jr, The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2001); Robeck Jr, ‘William J. Semour and “the Bible Evidence” ’; Robeck Jr, ‘Making Sense of Pentecostalism’. 206 FR V:241–242. 207 FR V:251–252. In an interview, Cecil Robeck explains that the differences between the Holiness and Finished Work wing were highlighted to balance in FR V the divergent RC perspectives on Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. 204

Challenges of Representation and Reception

75

dialogue team’s self-definition. Considerable attention is given in dialogue sessions and consequently in the Final Reports to the theme of Spirit baptism.208 As FR I states, ‘In the Pentecostal movement “being baptized in the Spirit” [is] understood as occurring in a decisive experience distinct from conversion whereby the Holy Spirit manifests himself, empowers and transforms one’s life, and enlightens one as to the whole reality of the Christian mystery […]’ (FR I:11). ‘[ … I]n the Pentecostal movement, the manifestation of tongues has had, and continues to have, particular importance’ (FR I:16). Tongues are discussed in FR II:8–11 and Final Report V deals with Spirit baptism and tongues extensively. The Pentecostal team stresses that ‘the expectation that all who receive baptism in the Holy Spirit would be able to give some evidence of that fact other than a personal testimony is deeply ingrained within Pentecostal theology’ (FR V:256). Such statements evidence the team’s resolution to speak primarily from a Classical Pentecostal theological perspective. The genealogical approach to Classical Pentecostalism and the consequent breakup of its theological diversity is important to understand the dialogue team’s strife for theologically fair representation. It brought about at least three important challenges that needed to be dealt with: (a) In this genealogical discourse, the genesis of Oneness Pentecostalism is an important development within early Classical Pentecostal history. The unwillingness of Oneness Pentecostals to subscribe to classical Trinitarian formulae is problematic in ecumenical dialogue as this dogma is generally considered essential to Christianity and its endorsement fundamental to ecumenical dialogue. The Pentecostal dialogue team therefore needed a clear positioning with respect to Oneness Pentecostalism in the IRCCPD. (b) All throughout, the Classical Pentecostal team sought fair representation of the movement’s theological breadth. At least since Robeck’s chairmanship this implied consciously taking into account the aforementioned Holiness and Finished Work traditions. (c) During the earlier decades of the dialogue, the rapid globalization and diversification of Pentecostalism, mostly through the so-called ‘Third Wave’, was not yet in sight. By the 1990s, however, the Pentecostal Dialogue Team was very aware that these developments posed serious theological challenges to the question of representation of Pentecostalism in the IRCCPD.

Responses to the challenge Selection variable 3: Trinitarian theology? In the first two phases, the existence of Oneness Pentecostalism has been neatly kept out of the annals of the IRCCPD. FR II:29 simply ignores this section of the Classical Pentecostal movement and firmly states that ‘classical Pentecostals and Roman Catholics agree on the basic elements of the Christian faith, e.g. Trinity […]’. David

208

FR I:11–18; See also FR II:8–11; FR III:50, 64–69; FR IV:16, 27; and extensively FR V:192–262.

76

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

du Plessis probably considered them as ‘isolated Pentecostals’, and therefore refused to invite them to the dialogue sessions.209 The possibility of Oneness Pentecostal involvement was put on the agenda for the first time in December 1985 by Jerry Sandidge. At the SPS conference a month earlier, Oneness Pentecostal scholar Manuel Jesús Gaxiola-Gaxiola had expressed ‘a great interest’ in the dialogue. After deliberation with Justus du Plessis, Kilian McDonnell, David du Plessis, Peter Hocken, Cecil Robeck and the superintendent of the Latin American District of the Assemblies of God, Sandidge invited Manuel GaxiolaGaxiola to the 1986 session as an official observer for his denomination, the Apostolic Church of Mexico.210 At first sight the participation of Manuel Gaxiola-Gaxiola seems to have left no special traces. The archives indicate that he gave a devotion in the Pentecostal caucus on the last day and the press release mentions his presence as observer without comments.211 Also in the aftermath, there is no indication that his presence caused distress or that it was decided that Oneness Pentecostals had no place in this dialogue. On the contrary, in 1987 Jerry Sandidge wrote to Gaxiola-Gaxiola that ‘[i]t would be good to have you be with us sometime in another meeting’.212 Yet the presence of Manuel J. Gaxiola-Gaxiola remained a unique instance. In no other dialogue session of the IRCCPD (phases I–V) was a Oneness Pentecostal invited to participate. As a consequence of Gaxiola-Gaxiola’s presence, however, the existence of Oneness Pentecostalism could not be ignored in the dialogue communications of phase III. This had clear repercussions on the Final Report’s formulations of Pentecostal theology and praxis. Paragraph 29 of FR III states that ‘[b]oth Pentecostals and Roman Catholics believe that the koinonia between Christians is rooted in the life of Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. A footnote is added, which introduces the Oneness teaching in the following way: A segment of Pentecostals known as ‘Oneness’ or ‘Jesus Name’ Pentecostals are opposed to the Trinitarian formulation of the faith. Their view of God tends toward modalism and the baptismal formula which they pronounce is ‘in the

209

In view of numbers, note the claims of Barrett and Johnson that ‘since 1920 [Oneness Pentecostals] have comprised 25 per cent of all Pentecostals in the US’ and that ‘[m]any Third Wave denominations […] also hold Oneness teachings.’ David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, ‘Global Statistics’, in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2002), 294. David Reed concludes that these estimations are too low. Reed, In Jesus’ Name, 339. Cecil Robeck asserts that these figures are too high. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. 210 See Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, s.d., SanColl; Justus du Plessis to Jerry Sandidge, 4 January 1986, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis e.a., 28 January 1986, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to Kilian McDonnell, 11 March 1986, SanColl. 211 See ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Sierra Madre Pentecostal Devotional Schedule’, 24–30 May 1986, SanColl. 212 Jerry Sandidge to Manuel Gaxiola-Gaxiola, 12 January 1987, SanColl.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

77

name of Jesus Christ’ (Acts 2:38) instead of the traditional Trinitarian appeal to Matthew 28:19. Most Pentecostals, however, strongly disagree with this position.213

A few elements can be noted. First, the relative size is left unmentioned by calling Oneness Pentecostals simply ‘a segment of Pentecostals’. Paragraph 56 only implicitly adds that they are a minority. Second, the formulation is very careful not to define Oneness Pentecostals as ‘anti-Trinitarian’: they are said to be opposed to the Trinitarian formulation of the faith and to tend towards modalism. Third, it is striking that the aberrant theological perspective is clearly criticized, not only in this footnote but also in §56: ‘Roman Catholics and most Pentecostals disagree with those Pentecostals who do not baptize according to the Trinitarian formula, especially if in baptizing only in Jesus’ name (e.g. Acts 2:38) they deny the orthodox understanding of the Trinity.’ The strong language is notable as different practices and theologies within Classical Pentecostalism are regularly admitted in the dialogue reports without any evaluative suggestions.214 Clearly the importance attributed to the dogma of the Trinity made the Classical Pentecostals to be very explicit about their appreciation of this theological difference. They also feared that Oneness participation in the dialogue would have a negative effect on the participation of other Classical Pentecostal denominations.215 FR III:54 indicates that the Trinitarian confession is also of great importance for the Roman Catholic dialogue partner: they base the dialogue in ‘the Catholic recognition of the baptism performed by Pentecostals in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. Final Reports IV and V demonstrate that the recognition of Oneness Pentecostalism had lasting consequences on the Dialogue. FR IV opts for a circumscription of Trinitarian belief rather than an explicit recognition if it: ‘Clearly, any striving for social justice in which our faith communities engage needs to be rooted in the life of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ (§59). Similarly, §121 reads: ‘We share a common belief in the Fatherhood of God; the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Messiah, Savior, and Coming Lord; the power of the Spirit for witness; the enduring nature of Pentecost; the love of God poured out through the Spirit.’ It can be argued that these formulations were deliberately chosen to allow the Pentecostals (and the Catholics) to speak with one voice without needing to introduce the Oneness Pentecostal view on the Trinity.216 Final Report V mentions Oneness Pentecostalism

213

Oneness teaching is mentioned specifically in footnotes 6, 8 and 9 of FR III. Gaxiola-Gaxiola was not present when these comments were formulated. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. 214 See, e.g. pp. 16–17. 215 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. 216 Minutes Joint Steering Committee meeting, 9 November 1997, RobArch, mentions: ‘Lengthy discussion how, if at all, “Oneness Pentecostals” should appear in document in context of discussion of ground Catholics and Pentecostals understanding of communion with each other.’

78

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

a few times, but limits itself to what is absolutely necessary. In the historiographical section on the Pentecostal theology of Spirit baptism, which was pointed to earlier, the Oneness view on the intrinsic relations among baptism, Spirit baptism and salvation is explained (FR V:250). Notably, the Oneness teaching of ‘immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ is mentioned without any further comments. Hence, the clear rejection of the Trinitarian formula and of Trinitarian theology in se will not be grasped by the uninformed reader. Again, Oneness Pentecostalism is again posited simply as a minority over against ‘most other Pentecostals’ without any indication of its relative size. The consequences are also seen indirectly when the theological discourse of FR V is examined. In contrast to the earlier Final Reports and to concurrent developments in ecumenical theology, FR IV–V do not build on Trinitarian theology at all.217 In short, Oneness Pentecostalism was considered an essential part of Classical Pentecostalism and thus had to be accounted for in the communications, but it was avoided to attract special attention to it.218 The PSC headed by Cecil Robeck chose a double strategy of both excluding Oneness participation while consciously aiming to speak for them as well. This was meant to serve two purposes.219 On the one hand, excluding Oneness Pentecostals from the team allowed the dialogue to guard its respectability within Trinitarian Classical Pentecostalism.220 On the other hand, constructing the Final Reports in such a way that all Classical Pentecostals, including Oneness Pentecostals, could recognize themselves increased the potential for broader reception.221

Selection variable 4: ‘Holiness’ and ‘Finished Work’ Under the chairmanship of David and Justus du Plessis, it seems that denominational background played no structured role in the selection of attendees. Under the chairmanship of Cecil Robeck, this changed and a fourth selection variable was added.

217

Only in a number of the historical sections of FR V, early church teachings on the Trinity are positively acknowledged (§12, 79, 93, 118, 147, 149, 212). 218 This is recognized by both David Cole and Cecil Robeck. Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. 219 This is recognized by Cecil Robeck: interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. Apart from the historiographical definition of Classical Pentecostalism from which he started, Robeck gives a second reason for this inclusion: he wanted the Catholics to know about them and their theological peculiarities as Oneness Pentecostalism is the dominant Pentecostal movement in some global regions. The strategy was not appreciated by all: see the responses to Perspectives on Koinonia by David K. Bernard, J. L. Hall, Harold Hunter in Pneuma 12, no. 2 (1990), 143–183 and the responses to Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness in Pneuma 21, no. 1 (1999), 52–88. 220 Cf. Jerry Sandidge: ‘I think there was the fear that had we maintained someone each year from the Apostolic tradition, that it would have reduced the validity of the dialogue from the [Trinitarian] Pentecostal perspective … .’ Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch. 221 This was also acknowledged by David Cole. Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

79

Robeck consciously sought fair representation of both the Finished Work and the Holiness streams of Trinitarian Classical Pentecostalism.222 The fact that Robeck uses these two categories when seeking theological balance in the team can be found implicitly in a number of his communications.223 An explicit reference occurs in a letter to Cheryl Bridges Johns, in which Robeck states: ‘The way I have thought about the composition of the team is much more geographical than denominational, though I have tended to think of the constituents as breaking out along “Finished Work” versus “Holiness” lines.’224 Because the Finished Work stream is larger globally, he considers it not unfair that the dialogue team has more representatives from the Finished Work stream than from the Holiness stream. The development of the dialogue team’s composition throughout the phases shows that the share of representatives that came from the Holiness stream grew strongly since the active involvement of Cecil Robeck. Before his involvement, in phases I and II the share of Holiness representatives was limited to 10 per cent. In phase III this grew slightly to about 14 per cent.225 In phase IV, the share of Holiness representatives is over one-fifth (21%) and in phase V again raises to almost onethird (29%) (Table 3.5). Table 3.5 Attendance of Holiness Pentecostal participants Ph I

Ph II

Ph III

Ph IV

Ph V

Attendees from the Holiness stream

3

4

8

18

18

Trinitarian Pentecostal Attendees

30

41

57

87

63

# Holiness/#Trinitarian Pentecostals

10%

10%

14%

21%

29%

While seeking fair involvement from both streams and of the related denominations, Robeck was not a proponent of a very strict system of balance and selection.226 In a 1994 Pentecostal Dialogue Team Meeting, it was suggested that a quota system for the various denominational representatives at the dialogue be set up. Cecil Robeck argued against it. He only wanted to make sure that relative over-representation did not ‘develop into some sort of power bloc’ and that ‘the numbers change from year

222

Denominations involved in the IRCCPD that can be said to belong to the Holiness stream are the following: BewegungPlus, Church of God (Cleveland, TN), Church of God in Christ, Church of God of Prophecy, Elim Fellowship (USA), International Churches and Missionary Association (USA), International Pentecostal Holiness Church, Original United Holy Church International, USA. Note that Robeck belonged to the Finished Work stream, just as his predecessors. 223 See, e.g. Cecil Robeck to Cheryl Bridges-Johns, 5 August 1994. Robeck laments the overrepresentation of the AG, see, e.g. Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, 12 August 1994, RobArch and Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, email, 8 January 1998, RobArch. 224 Cecil Robeck to Cheryl Bridges Johns, 25 February 2000, RobArch. 225 This is the percentage relative to the total number of Trinitarian Pentecostals present. The growth in phase III is mainly due to a large presence of Holiness representatives in the 1986 session (26.7%). 226 Minutes of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team Caucus, 24 July 1993, RobArch.

80

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

to year’.227 Most important for him was that each team member would represent his/her own stream and Pentecostalism at large in a fair way without ‘political wrangling’.228

Participation variable 5: Paper presenters (‘experts’) The annual dialogue sessions in the IRCCPD (phases I–V) started with papers on set fixed topics that were presented by each side.229 The next chapter demonstrates that the amount of papers and their use in the discussions have changed through the decades. Here the focus is only on the selection of paper presenters, who were invited to the dialogue sessions as ‘experts’ on a certain topic as a way to deal with the challenge of Classical Pentecostalism´s theological diversity (Table 3.6). Table 3.6 Paper presenters (‘experts’) in the Classical Pentecostal team Ph I

Ph II

Ph III

Ph IV

Ph V

Papers/responses presented

22

8

6

5

6

Classical Pentecostal Presenters

12

6

5

4

6

Presenters from Finished Work stream

11

4

5

3

3

Presenters from Holiness stream

1

2

0

1

3

Holiness Presenters/CP Presenters

8%

25%

50%

33%

0%

A first interesting peculiarity regarding paper presenters is the fact that, until phase IV, they were often not Classical Pentecostals. Charismatic Protestants have long been given important roles in the theological presentation of Classical Pentecostalism. Only in the fifth phase, no more ‘experts’ came from outside Classical Pentecostalism.230 An examination of the theological background of the Classical Pentecostal paper contributors shows that participation of experts from the Holiness stream has grown, but not in a straight line. In phases I and II their share relative to the Classical Pentecostal total was, respectively, 8 and 33 per cent, but there are no indications in the archives that this was intentional or part of a strategy. The fact that phase III did not have any presenter from the Holiness stream strengthens this presumption. In phase IV, one out of the four Classical Pentecostal papers was a joint presentation by two scholars from the Holiness tradition (25%) in the year following Cecil Robeck’s appointment as Pentecostal chair (1993).231 In phase V, 50 per cent of the (partial)

227

Cecil Robeck to James Jenkins, 12 August 1994, RobArch. Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, 12 August 1994, RobArch, cf. Cecil Robeck to Cheryl Bridges Johns, 25 February 2000, RobArch. 229 Cf. pp. 186–187. 230 Cf. p. 48. 231 A denominational broadening of paper presenters was explicitly asked for by the Pentecostal Dialogue team in 1991. Minutes of the Pentecostal Steering Committee Conference Call, 22 November 1991, SanColl. 228

Challenges of Representation and Reception

81

papers were presented by experts from the Holiness stream. Robeck informed them that they should ‘feel completely free to reflect [their] own Holiness-Pentecostal tradition, but what is absolutely critical is that the majority of Pentecostals around the world would be able to read the paper and find themselves represented there in some way, even if they were to be surprised by the diversity of the Pentecostal Movement at large’.232 The participation variable of ‘experts’ thus underlines the slow but steady growth of involvement of Classical Pentecostal academicians and the conscious implementation of the selection variable of ‘Holiness’ and ‘Finished Work’ representatives by the PSC under chairman Cecil Robeck.

Assessment of effects In the historiographical discourse used by the Classical Pentecostal team, and most explicitly by Cecil Robeck, Classical Pentecostalism has three distinct streams based on historical developments in their early American history: the Holiness Stream, the Finished Work stream and the Oneness stream. The PDT has clearly struggled with the position of Oneness Pentecostalism in relation to the Classical Pentecostal movement. The presence of Manuel Gaxiola-Gaxiola in 1986 demonstrates that the dialogue team considered it necessary to recognize the Oneness movement as part of Classical Pentecostalism, in line with its genealogically founded self-definition. However, the departure of Oneness Pentecostals from Trinitarian theology made it very difficult to fully incorporate them in the IRCCPD. A pragmatic solution for this dilemma came to be opted for. The Oneness movement was marginalized and the necessity to mention the Oneness teachings in the Final Reports was circumvented if possible. At the same time, the Classical Pentecostal team sought to write the reports in such a way that Oneness Pentecostals would be able to affirm the Pentecostal positions. It is questionable, however, whether this solution is satisfactory for either group. The desire to keep balance in the representation of the two recognized Trinitarian streams is laudable and the growing balance, which the figures show, can be positively evaluated. But the focus on this classification also holds a weakness. Because of the genealogical definition of Pentecostalism and because representation of ‘the majority of Pentecostals’ (FR IV:3) rather than the full diversity was sought, the general teaching of these two streams of Classical Pentecostalism could be easily considered as representative for the whole movement. The movement, however, obviously has much more inner diversity than this bifurcation. For example, the globalization of (Classical) Pentecostalism also has ramifications on the movement’s theological variety. This is only slowly realized after phase III. In his response to FR III in Pneuma, Walter Hollenweger criticizes the absence of Third World representatives and states that if a fair representation is attempted, ‘[i]t could well turn out that Western Catholics find it easier to speak to Western Pentecostals, and Third World Pentecostals find it easier to speak to Third World Catholics’.233 The archives demonstrate that by the 1990s the

232

Cecil Robeck to Jackie Johns and Cheryl Bridges Johns, 7 January 2002, RobArch. Cf. Cecil Robeck to Matthias Wenk, 24 February 2000, RobArch. 233 Walter J. Hollenweger, ‘The Koinonia of the Establishment’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 157.

82

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Pentecostal Dialogue Team recognized the theological challenges connected to the development of global Pentecostalism in view of the question of representation in the IRCCPD. In a letter to Justus du Plessis, Cecil Robeck explained that ‘[p]erhaps we will learn something about ourselves and about our own truth claims as we listen to the testimonies of what God is doing in and through these other “Pentecostal” voices’. He thus placed the challenge in a positive perspective and explicitly opened the door, at least in theory, for such inner-Pentecostal discussion to be integrated in the dialogue. At the end of phase V, however, this challenge has not yet been taken up. A preliminary question is implicitly present in the quotations above: the inverted comma’s around ‘Pentecostal’ make clear that Robeck, at least in dialogue with Justus du Plessis, is hesitant to use this title for all who claim it. The genealogical definitions of Pentecostalism proved quite workable in relation to the challenges of the Charismatic Protestants and the Oneness Pentecostals, but seem inadequate to deal with the challenge of theological diversity springing from the globalization of Pentecostalism.

From the United States to the ends of the world: ‘Non-theological’ variety Description of the challenge Whether or not one focuses on North America as the cradle of the Pentecostal movement, its current expansion over the globe is evident. Allan Anderson summarizes that ‘at least two thirds of Pentecostalism is now in the Majority World and only a quarter of its members is white. […] In recent years, the greatest increase in Pentecostalism has been in sub-Saharan Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and especially Latin America.’234 This can be substantiated with numbers from the analyses of global religious trends by Barrett and Johnson. According to their calculations, the relative share of North American charismatic Christians compared to global Pentecostalism has diminished between 1970 and 2000 from about 33 to only 15 per cent.235 Pentecostalism in the Majority World largely belongs to the so-called ‘Third Wave’ and thus falls outside the focus of the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team. Yet, the massive growth of Pentecostalisms worldwide since the beginning of the twentieth century also includes a globalization of Classical Pentecostalism.236 From

234

Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, 281. David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200: Interpreting the Annual Christian Megacensus (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2001), 284. 236 The strong missionary impulses of early Pentecostalism have been discussed earlier on p. 18. and pp. 22–23. Recent publications on the globalization of (Classical) Pentecostalism include Anderson, Spreading Fires; William K. Kay and Anne E. Dyer, eds., European Pentecostalism, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2011); Allan Anderson, To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity, Oxford Studies in World Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 235

Challenges of Representation and Reception

83

the dialogue’s beginnings, the team was aware that in coping with the question of representation, they needed to be not only sensitive to theological diversity but also to racial and regional variances. It was recognized early on that participation of women had to be strived for as well.237 The way the dialogue team dealt with these challenges is discussed in this subchapter.

Responses to the challenge The selection variables of region, sex and race were essential elements of the annual discussions regarding the composition of the Pentecostal dialogue teams, but they turned out to be very difficult to attain. In addition, attention is given to a fourth related issue, the selection of dialogue locations. Finally, two specific responses to the challenge of ecumenical reception within the broad movement are considered: the initiation of local dialogues as spin-offs of the international dialogue and the challenge of translation of the Final Reports.

Selection variable 5: Region The need to have a varied dialogue team regarding regional background has been acknowledged from the beginning of the dialogue. Especially representation of the so-called ‘Third World’ was deemed needed. The overview of the places of residence of the Pentecostal participants in the dialogue demonstrates, however, that relative representation of regional variety was far from attained, as Table 3.7 demonstrates. Table 3.7 Region of residence of voices in the Pentecostal dialogue team (relative) Ph I (%) United States and Canada

Ph II (%) Ph III (%)

Ph IV (%)

Ph V (%)

54.2

63.5

73.6

77.3

3.7

10.4

4.8

2.5

1.7

Africa

11.1

14.6

9.5

15.1

5.9

Europe

35.2

16.7

22.2

7.5

15.1

Asia

–

2.1

–

1.3

–

Oceania

–

2.1

–

–

–

Hispanic America (Mexico and south)

50

In phase I, almost all participants were residents of the United States (50%), Western Europe (35.2%) or South Africa (11.1%). The South American presence (3.7%) refers to the participation in 1975 and 1976 of Robert McAlister, a Canadian who had been a missionary to Brazil since 1959. According to Arnold Bittlinger, the 1973 plea for Third

237

In 1973, the dialogue teams agreed that ‘consideration might be given to a wider representation at the meeting in terms of women and Third World people’. Minutes of the Roman Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue Steering Committee, 23 June 1973, DPColl.

84

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

World Pentecostals in the Pentecostal dialogue team mentioned above was repeated in preparation of the 1975 session. The majority opinion was, however, that there were no appropriate people there and that the travel costs would be too high.238 The limited broadness of Classical Pentecostal representation was considered problematic by the Catholics.239 In phase II, the share of the Classical Pentecostal team members who resided in the United States grew to 54.2 per cent. The relative share of Europeans halved (16.7%) while the (South-) African presence grew slightly to 14.6 per cent. SouthAmerican representation grew but was again limited to two American missionaries, Robert McAlister and Paul Finkenbinder. In this phase, Elias Malki came from Lebanon and James Worsford came from New Zealand, being the only voices in the dialogue’s history (1972–2006) from, respectively, the Middle East and Oceania. Jerry Sandidge notes that, just as in the first quinquennium, neither side had a single representative from the Third World.240 It should also be noted that while in the first series English, French and German were used in papers and discussions, from the second quinquennium on English was the exclusive lingua franca.241 This choice, which certainly has advantages, may also account for the high percentage of native English speakers in the dialogue teams in phases II–V, notably in the Classical Pentecostal team. Between the end of the second quinquennium in 1982 and the start of the third phase in 1985, engagements for the future were made by both teams, among which was a reaffirmation of the concern about inviting people from a variety of nations.242 This was taken up by Jerry Sandidge, then secretary to the PSC, who invited participants of the Conference on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe to be involved in the dialogue.243 It was also decided in 1985 that the Pentecostal steering committee would be enlarged with a treasurer as it was deemed ‘a must’ to get funds to pay for the involvement of Third World participants.244 Still, the international profile of the dialogue team remained a serious challenge and the quest brought frustration.245 By the end of phase III, the efforts of the PSC resulted in a

238

Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 111. Bittlinger refers to ‘Protokoll der 4. Sitzung des SteeringKomitee Craheim, Juni 1974, S. 2’. This information, however, cannot be found in the Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Steering Committee, 10/14 June 1974, DPColl. 239 Kilian McDonnell to David du Plessis, 19 March 1976, DPColl: ‘If you are not able to get a good representation of leaders from the Pentecostal churches, and not just Americans, there will be no possibility of continuing the Dialogue.’ See Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:108. 240 Cf. Ibid., 1:268. 241 Ibid., 1:273. 242 The details following come from Ibid., 1:377–381 Cf. Cole, ‘Pentecostal Koinonia’, 115. 243 Jerry Sandidge to Participants at the Conference on Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe, 26 April 1984, SanColl. 244 Justus du Plessis to Pierre Duprey, 3 April 1985, SanColl. Cf. Justus du Plessis to Robert McAlister, 3 April 1985, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to William Carmichael, 17 June 1985, SanColl. 245 Jerry Sandidge to Pentecostal Steering Committee members, Memorandum, 10 September 1986, SanColl; Miroslav Volf to Jerry Sandidge, 16 May 1987, SanColl; Cecil M. Robeck, (diary entry as attachment to) letter to Jerry Sandidge, 19 June 1987, SanColl. The archives at disposal do not allow a fair evaluation of the use of the team’s finances.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

85

broadening of the team as to the variety of European countries being represented (22.2%) and the Hispanic American presence was brought to 4.8 per cent with the participation of Omar Cabrera (Argentina) and Manuel Gaxiola-Gaxiola (Mexico).246 The (South-)African representation in the dialogue diminished in phase III to 9.5 per cent. Notwithstanding the growing variety, those resident in the United States and Canada now accounted for 63.5 per cent of the attendees, a serious growth compared to phase II. The composition of the dialogue team met with considerable criticism in the collected responses to FR III in Pneuma 12/2.247 Notwithstanding the criticisms and the good intentions in the PSC, in phase IV the Pentecostal Dialogue Team again had a very strong share of Western Pentecostals, especially those resident in North America (73.6%).248 At least partly, this North American preponderance was due to difficult church politics. As the Pentecostal steering committee was anxious to get as many (American ‘mainstream’) denominations officially involved as possible, they sometimes allowed them privileges such as double representation.249 Still, communications make clear that the Pentecostal Steering Committee put serious effort in searching for a broad representation.250 Participation of South Americans in phase IV was limited to two observers (2%). The expenses of Marta Palma and Luis Carlos Pinto were (partly) paid by the PSC.251 The limited South American participation was criticized by the Catholics as the issue of proselytism, a central topic in the fourth phase, was and is most pressing in this region.252 European participation was limited in phase IV to a sustained participation of Huibert Zegwaart (1992–1997), Walter Hollenweger (1994–1995) and Chris Stathis, an American missionary to Greece (7.5%). Assemblies of God missionary William Menzies (1991) was the sole participant from Asia (1.3%), while the (South)African participation grew again to 15.1 per cent. Afterwards, the strongly Western perspective in the dialogue again met with considerable criticism.253

246

They seem to have paid their own expenses. David K. Bernard, ‘Response to Perspectives on Koinonia’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 143–146; Jimmy Louis Hall, ‘Response to the Report from the Third Quinquennium of the Dialogue between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders (1985–1989)’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 152–154; Harold D. Hunter, ‘Sketches of Perspectives on Koinonia’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 161–166. 248 Jerry Sandidge and Miroslav Volf moved from Europe to the United States just before the beginning of phase IV. 249 This can be found in private communications in 1990 and 1991, SanColl. 250 E.g. Cecil Robeck to Pierre Duprey, 13 June 1991, SanColl; Minutes of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team Caucus, 24 July 1993, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, 12 August 1994, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, 12 August 1994, RobArch and Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, email, 8 January 1998, RobArch. 251 Cecil Robeck to Justus du Plessis, 21 May 1991, SanColl. 252 IS 91 (1996/I–II), 44. 253 ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 52–88. Regarding Sepulveda, see Marta Palma to Cecil Robeck, email, 5 November 1997, RobArch. In this communication Juan Sepulveda’s comments are forwarded: e.g. ‘En el capítulo sobre Evangelización y Cultura, el enfoque es marcadamente cristiano-occidental, y tiende a tener una visión de la misión desde el centro hacia la periferia. […]’ 247

86

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

In phase V, the overrepresentation of North Americans again grew slightly, reaching more than three-quarters of the total number of voices (77.3%). Dutch Pentecostal Huibert Zegwaart and Clayton Endicott, an American missionary to Germany, were returning participants from Europe. Together they were responsible for almost the whole European share of 15.1 per cent. This brings ‘Western’ participation to over 90 per cent of the voices, irrespective of how the South African participation (5.9%) is valued. Marta Palma’s single visit in 1999 was the only participation from Hispanic America (1.7%). Meanwhile, the PSC minutes and communications continue to express the team’s desire for a better regional representation.254 Regarding representation of global regions and particularly of Third World countries in which Pentecostalism has been growing tremendously in the past decades, an enormous and ever-growing rift between desire and reality must be noted. Especially the ever-growing share of North American participants can only be deplored in view of the desired diversity.255

Selection variable 6: Sex Very early in the dialogue’s history, it was acknowledged that both partners needed to invite women.256 The archives demonstrate that the Pentecostal team has strived throughout to have a female voice in the discussions, but it never came even close to giving women a fair share (Table 3.8), reflecting their preponderance in the Pentecostal pews: Table 3.8 Female voices in dialogue sessions per phase Ph I

Ph II

Ph III

Ph IV

Ph V

Female voices

0

0

5

6

3

Relative share female voices

0%

0%

7.9%

7.5%

5.0%

Both the numbers and the limited attention for female involvement in correspondences and minutes suggest that a strong participation of women was considered less important than the team’s geographical variety. In the first ten years of the IRCCPD history (phases I–II), not a single woman participated in the discussions.257 In the preparations of the third quinquennium, the necessity of female involvement was explicitly put on the agenda of the PSC again.258 The 254

In addition to numerous references in the archives, these efforts were underscored by Cecil Robeck and David Cole. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 18 July 2013; Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. 255 The sixth phase seems to bring positive development in this regard. Rev Joseph Suico, General Secretary of the Assemblies of God in the Philippines participated in 2011. Rev Opoku Onyinah, Chairman of the Church of Pentecost (Ghana), has been a member of the Classical Pentecostal team in 2011–2013. See IS 136 (2011/I), 21; 139 (2012/I–II), 36; 142 (2013/II), 14–15. 256 Minutes of the Roman Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue Steering Committee, 23 June 1973, DPColl. 257 Cf. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:268. 258 Cole, ‘Pentecostal Koinonia’, 115.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

87

first woman involved was Rose Belobaba in 1985. Her participation was, however, coincidental rather than prepared, as Jerry Sandidge explains: ‘One of the Four Square men had a wife who is an ordained minister. Since the Catholics had a Sister […] and since we were short of participants, we asked Mrs. Rose Belobaba to be an official observer.’259 In the following years of the third phase, female presence was assured by Bernice Gerard (Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada), who also came as observer. Female participation was highest in phase IV, when four women provided five voices.260 In phase V the female share in the discussions decreased again, notwithstanding the PSC’s desire to have two women involved in each dialogue session.261 Female Pentecostal participation was limited to three voices distributed over two sessions. This downfall of female participation in the last phase to date underlines the limited importance attached to female involvement in the dialogue.

Selection variable 7: Ethnicity While the dialogue archives never mention the aim to have people with different skin colours represented in the dialogue team, ethnicity has been a selection variable in a very specific way.262 Representation of ethnic groups was discussed in relation to two countries, the United States and Africa. Most probably, nonwhite participants from these countries were specifically targeted as both had racial discriminatory laws and policies until 1968 and 1990, respectively (segregation/ apartheid). In addition, there was a specific aim to get Hispanic US Americans at the dialogue table. The latter was, however, never accomplished: all Hispanic participants in the dialogue (phases I–V) came from Mexico or South American countries. Generally, the figures demonstrate that participation of non-Caucasians in the dialogue has been very limited throughout (Table 3.9). Table 3.9 Ethnic diversity in voices in dialogue sessions per phase Ph I (%)

Ph II (%)

Ph III (%)

Ph IV (%)

Ph V (%)

‘White’

98.1

97.9

95.3

94.3

98.3

‘Black’

1.9

–

1.6

3.8

–

‘Hispanic’

–

–

3.2

1.9

1.7

Others

–

2.1

–

–

–

259

Jerry Sandidge to William Carmichael, 17 June 1985, SanColl. See the Appendix. 261 Steve Overman to Ron Kydd, email, 1 April 1998, RobArch. 262 It is realized that ethnicity involves more than skin colour, that ethnicities are not monolithic and that the use of such classifications can be problematic. It is, however, deemed necessary to indicate a specific selection variable that was being used and to demonstrate the actual role thereof in the selection of Classical Pentecostal participants. 260

88

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The first non-white person to participate in the dialogue was the African American Leonard Lovett (– Church of God in Christ, USA), who joined the 1974 session in Germany.263 It took twelve years (eight sessions) before another black person participated in the Classical Pentecostal team. The archives indicate that in 1986 the participation of people of different ethnicities was consciously aimed at: lists were prepared with ‘Black Americans’ and ‘Hispanic Americans’ to be invited. This resulted in the presence of James Forbes (Original United Holy Church International, the United States) in the same year.264 In the first three sessions of the fourth phase, Japie Lapoorta from South Africa participated. He was the third and final black person to participate in the Pentecostal dialogue team (phases I–V). Jerry Sandidge particularly urged black participation from the Apostolic Faith Mission (RSA). He informed Justus du Plessis that he was ‘opposed to another white AFM member being a part of the new quinquennium. If he/she is not Indian, coloured, or black, then please do not bring them.’265 Notwithstanding evidence of a search for good representatives, black participation in the IRCCPD (phases I–V) has thus been very limited. In 1992, Sandidge stated that the PSC had tried for years to invite the largely Black Pentecostal denomination Church of God in Christ, but that the invitations were not accepted. He concluded that seemingly ‘[t]hey have a different agenda than ours’.266 Representation of Hispanics at the dialogue was equally low, as the figures indicate. A notable difference, however, is that all of the Hispanics present, four individuals in total, came from outside the United States. Manuel Gaxiola-Gaxiola (Apostolic Church of Mexico, 1986), Omer Cabrera (Vision de Futuro, Argentinia, 1987) and Luis Carlos Pinto (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Brazil, 1991) all joined the dialogue team once; Marta Palma (Chile) was present four times (1993, 1994, 1997, 1999). Her participation was very much desired by the PSC as she could ‘meet a triple purpose’, being a woman, a Latin American and a member from a denomination within the WCC.267 One participant in 1979 came from the Middle East (Elias Malki) and could not be put into the very generalizing ethnic categories of ‘white’, ‘black’ and ‘Hispanic’. Participants living or rooted in South and East Asia were completely absent. Cecil Robeck states that many persons from a variety of ethnicities were invited but did not have the interest or the funding to come.268 This weakness in the dialogue team may also involve difficulties that are easily overlooked, such as lusophone communitarianism

263

More information on these new participants can be found in Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:155–156 264 A. A., ‘Personal Suggestions’, 1985, SanColl. See also Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, 19 March 1986, SanColl. 265 Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, 26 April 1990, SanColl. On the same matter of race within the AFM, see also Justus du Plessis to Jerry Sandidge, 28 April 1990, SanColl and Justus du Plessis to Frank Chikane, 22 May 1990, SanColl. 266 Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch. 267 Minutes of the Pentecostal Steering Committee Conference Call, 22 November 1991, SanColl. 268 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 18 July 2013, CrArch. This was also pointed to by David Cole. Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

89

in Brazilian Pentecostalism.269 Looking at the numbers and the archives, however, it can hardly be argued that ethnic diversity in the Pentecostal dialogue team was ever prioritized.270

Locations of dialogue meetings When seeking to evaluate the importance attached to global and ethnic diversity in the IRCCPD, it is worthwhile to also consider the locations of the annual sessions. Bringing the dialogue to different world regions could be helpful in two ways. First, the dialogue participants could be exposed to cultural and theological peculiarities of Classical Pentecostalism (and Roman Catholicism) in these regions. Second, participants could be found locally and diversity in the teams could grow without major financial burdens. The facts are, however, sobering. None of the dialogue’s thirty-two plenary sessions (1972–2006) was held outside Europe and North America. Attempts were made to hold an annual meeting of the fourth phase in a Latin American country. Two reasons were given by the Catholic team for the failure to have a meeting in Latin America.271 Partly it was seen as financially difficult. Partly it was decided against ‘because of a certain reticence on the part of the Catholic Bishops, who felt that such a meeting might create misunderstandings’.272 Apart from this one occasion, there are no indications that the Joint Steering Committee has pondered the idea of organizing dialogue meetings in other continents. No reasons are given in the archives for the preference for Europe and North America, but in interviews David Cole and Cecil Robeck offer their perspectives.273 First, travelling costs to other regions are much higher and this was problematic both for the Pentecostal members, who needed to find their own financial support, and for the PCPCU.274 Second, ‘in discussions about South-America, Central-America, finding a place in which the Pentecostals in that area would welcome our presence is very difficult to find’.275 Third, finding a location in these regions to host the meeting would be strongly facilitated if there was a dialogue participant from one of these regions. The problem was thus considered a circular one. Robeck adds that in the time of apartheid, repeated invitations from South African team members to bring the dialogue to South Africa were declined for political reasons. 269

Ariel Colonomos, ‘Évangélistes en réseaux: la lusophonie a l’épreuve de la latinité en amérique’, Lusotopie, 1999, 347–54. 270 For phase V, see, e.g. Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, 12 August 1994, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to Francois Möller, 15 August 1994, RobArch; Pentecostal Dialogue Team Caucus Agenda, 15 July 1995, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to Ron Kydd, email, 28 March 1998, RobArch. The positive development in phase six has been mentioned in footnote 329. 271 IS 91 (1996/I–II), 44. 272 This Roman Catholic reservation was confirmed by Cecil Robeck: Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 18 July 2013, CrArch. 273 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 18 July 2013; Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. 274 The former is pointed to by David Cole: Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. The latter is pointed to by Cecil Robeck: Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 18 July 2013, CrArch. 275 Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch.

90

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Initiation of local dialogues It can be argued that promotion of local Catholic–Pentecostal dialogues in relation to the IRCCPD is important as a means of promoting reception of the dialogue results, in particular for the Pentecostal movement as the movement cannot make use of unifying structures and because of its emphasis on personal appropriation. Local dialogue initiatives have a strong potential to bring Catholics and Pentecostals closer together in their particular context to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern. Final Report II therefore states that ‘[e]very effort will be made to encourage opportunities for similar bilateral theological conversation at the local level’ (FR II:96). The PCPCU’s Information Service in 2004 emphasized ‘the importance of the promotion of the [IRCCPD] at the local level’, realizing that ‘[s]o far, the relations through the international dialogue have been privileged’ and that ‘local realities are extremely important, especially since the Pentecostal communities are deeply affected by the context in which they live’.276 Michael Putney, a friendly critic of the IRCCPD, looked back in 2008 on the achievements of the dialogue and indicated that ‘[a]ll five reports of the dialogue would serve well as a point for engagement between Catholics and Pentecostals at different levels around the world’.277 Yet, little effort has been made to facilitate the establishment of such dialogues. In 1982, Basil Meeking suggested a differentiation between official and informal local dialogues, implying that a procedure should be fixed for establishing official spin-off dialogues. This was explicitly recognized in 1983, but not developed.278 In 1984 the PSC suggested that for encouragement of local and national dialogues, ‘materials, bibliography, speakers, guidelines, etc.’ would need to be supplied by the IRCCPD team.279 This was not pursued either. Still, the initiation of local dialogues continued to be encouraged by the dialogue team in a general way.280 Local Catholic– Pentecostal dialogues have been initiated at least in Springfield, MO (1970–1983),281

276

Information Service 115/I–II (2004), 62. Michael E. Putney, ‘Commentary on the Report On Becoming a Christian: Insights from Scripture and the Patristic Writings with Some Contemporary Reflections. Report of the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue Between Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders and the Catholic Church (1998–2006)’, Information Service 129/III (2008), 216–226. Cf. Jerry Sandidge, who saw ‘the international dialogue serving as a model that could be […] used for local dialogue within a community, within a district or a state or a larger provincy.’ Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992. 278 Cf. “Proposed Agenda of the Evaluation Meeting of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Committee,” October 1983, SanColl. 279 Minutes of the Pentecostal Dialogue Steering Committee, 11–12 September 1984, SanColl. A similar suggestion is given by Thomas Stransky in a commentary on FR IV. Thomas F. Stransky, ‘Commentary on Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness’, PCPCU Information Service 97 (1998): 61. 280 See, e.g. FR III:109 and Kilian McDonnell to Cecil Robeck, 25 July 1989, RobArch. 281 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:352–355. The Springfield dialogue was local and involved Roman Catholics and the Assemblies of God. The Springfield dialogue has been ‘on and off ’ for years and is currently going on again. Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. 277

Challenges of Representation and Reception

91

Belgium (1982–1983),282 Italy (1992–2000?),283 the Netherlands (1999–2009) and Brazil (since 2006).284 The Dutch dialogue serves as a good example of local bilateral dialogue connected to the IRCCPD, as I have argued elsewhere.285

Languages and translations In the first phase of the dialogue, more specifically in the first two sessions, a bilingual approach was attempted in this Dialogue. In 1972 it was French–English: the Pentecostal papers were delivered in English, the Catholic papers in French; and in both, some of the participants needed translation into German. In 1973 the primary languages were German and English. Sandidge gives some insights into the difficulties that arose because of this bilingual approach.286 In his evaluation, ‘[n]either attempt worked, even with good translators and translation booths, etc. So, the decision was made then to make this Dialogue one in which English is the language of communication.’287 A 1991 letter makes clear that Sandidge was aware of and regretted the consequent disadvantages for non-native English speakers.288 Final Reports I–III were published in English and French by the SPCU/PCPCU. In phase IV, explicit attention for other languages followed.289 Translations needed to be prepared with care, Robeck stated: ‘[T]he last thing we need […] is an unauthorized translation that might unfairly bias the document in a particular direction, or make it less effective because such a charge has been raised.’ Robeck suggested that all translations from English should be checked by both sides before publication.290 Guarding a good and meaningful translation of the FR’s in other languages turned out to be difficult because of two reasons. First, translations were spontaneously made by outsiders without passing both teams. The German translation of FR V, which was published in the Dokumente Wachsender Übereinstimmung series, is an example in the case.291 Second, even if translations were ‘official’, they were not always checked (well) beforehand. This happened in

282

Ibid., 1:357–359. The dialogue took place in the context of the Conzultatione Carismatica Italiana. Public information is scarce. Massimo Introvigne, Aspettando la Pentecoste: Il quarto ecumenismo; Intervista a Matteo Calisi e Giovanni Traettino (Padova: Edizioni Messaggero Padova, 1996). 284 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Marcial Maçaneiro, 13 July 2013, CrArch. 285 Jelle Creemers, ‘Local Dialogue as a Means to Ecumenical Reception? The International and Dutch Pentecostal-Catholic Dialogues in Close-Up’, Exchange 42, no. 4 (2013): 366–384; ‘Een Geest: Tien jaar dialoog tussen Katholieken en Pinkstergelovigen in Nederland’, Perspectief 2, no. 4 (2009): 7–14. 286 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:151–152. 287 Jerry Sandidge to Marta Palma, 11 December 1991, SanColl. 288 Ibid. 289 FR IV also appeared in German, Portuguese and Spanish translations. Gasper, ‘Global Players im Gespräch?’, 324. For a list, see Murphy, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian” ’, 416. 290 Cecil Robeck to John Radano, 10 December 1997, RobArch. 291 Johannes Oeldemann to Jelle Creemers, email, 16 August 2013, CrArch: ‘[T]he German translation was not officially approved by the Steering Committee of the commission. The translation was made by two German theologians, mentioned in the footnote on p. 869. It has been cross-read by members of the Catholic Charismatic Movement.’ 283

92

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

the case of the Spanish translation of FR IV, over which discussion arose afterwards whether or not it was favouring one position over the other.292

Assessment of effects Although the archives give ample evidence to the desire of the PSC for a dialogue team with a diverse representation regarding global regions, sex and ethnicity, the bare figures show that such variety has never been achieved. Even a positive development over the phases towards a more inclusive representation is limited or non-existent. These variables seem to have been deemed important primarily for political reasons. Consequently, ‘a’ representation of the female sex, of other global regions and/or of different ethnicities, seems to have been strived for rather than a truly fair balance. Critics rightly have pointed to the importance of an interrelation between ‘non-theological’ variables and theological diversity. An analysis of FR I–V based on a search for relevant root terms (‘ethnic’, ‘race’, ‘black’, ‘Africa’, ‘South’, ‘Third’, ‘discrimination’, ‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘Western’, ‘Latin’, ‘male’ and ‘women’) contributes to the claim that the dialogue has a Western scope. In FR I and FR II, none of these terms is ever used in a way relevant to a discussion on diversity, variety and representation. The reports largely discuss Catholic and Pentecostal spirituality in generic ways. In Final Report III, koinonia is discussed at a systematic theological level and very limited attention is given to consequent questions of diversity and concomitant struggle within church or society. ‘Non-theological’ diversity is mentioned only when the Roman Catholics confess ‘lack of sufficient involvement of women in leadership’, insisting at the same time that ‘order and hierarchy do not in themselves imply such a defect in mutuality’ (FR III:74). In FR V, discussion of non-theological diversity or variety within the church is also barely present. Apart from the unsurprising mention of ‘the African-American, William Joseph Seymour’ (§238), and of the term ‘African Indigenous’ (§239), the historiographical and theological overviews regarding Pentecostalism and Pentecostal theology do not discuss global diversification. In fact, the only relevant reference downplays the importance of such diversity in favour of an experience of deep Christian unity, when it is said that ‘[s]tories or testimonies about conversion to Christ frequently involve elements of restoration to active participation in the Christian community, to the deeper experience of family and a sense of belonging, regardless of social, gender or ethnic differences’ (§56).293

292

The translation in Spanish is published as ‘Evangelización, proselitismo y testimonio común: relación de la cuarta fase (1990–1997) del diálogo internacional entre la Iglecia Católica Romana y algunas iglesias y dirigentes pentecostales clásicos’, Diálogo Ecuménico 34, no. 108 (1999): 103–152. A footnote explains that the translation was provided by the PCPCU (p. 103). For a discussion, see Cecil Robeck to Juan Usma Gómez, email, 18 November 1999, RobArch; Juan Usma Gómez to Cecil Robeck, email, 19 November 1999, RobArch. 293 Further references to diversity, more specifically gender diversity, can only be found in Scripture quotations (§39, 65, 75, 143, 201, 204).

Challenges of Representation and Reception

93

As phase IV dealt specifically with questions very close to the church praxis and especially to the struggles related to proselytism, non-theological variety is a recurring theme in FR IV. Racial discrimination and intended racial segregation in the church are condemned as they harm ‘the nature of Christ’s Church’ and cooperation to eliminate discrimination and promote reconciliation is encouraged with a reference to the Kingdom of God.294 FR IV is clearly more gender-inclusive in language (§12, 36, 53, 129) and the need to work together for the ‘rights and dignity of women’ is highlighted (§129). In the same sentence, the possibility of common witness in opposition to offensively permissive legislation, e.g. regarding abortion and euthanasia, is mentioned. The diversity of challenges with which churches struggle in different regional contexts is mentioned as well, but the challenges brought by the changing society in the West are described most specifically.295 ‘Social evils’ in other areas in the world are said to have been actively opposed by Catholics and Pentecostals on the basis of the Gospel, and the latter are said to have ‘successfully engaged in mission without the benefit of any formal training in issues related to inculturation of the Gospel’ (§32). Instances in which one of the partners, mostly the Pentecostal, has been object of discrimination and even violence (sometimes by the other partner) are also described (e.g. §81–82, 101). Such attention given to problems related to regional, gender and ethnic diversity notwithstanding, Western perspectives can regularly be found in Final Report IV, particularly in the attention given to problems of the West, in terminology, and in cultural viewpoints. Western preponderance can be noted, e.g. when Africa, Asia and Latin America are considered as missionary fields and the secularizing ‘Western world’ is not described in this way,296 or when polygamy is without question labelled a ‘social evil’ (§45). Although this analysis of the Final Reports regarding the discussion of non-theological diversity in the Church/Pentecostal movement is very concise, it demonstrates the consequences of the limited attention of nontheological variety in the Pentecostal dialogue teams.

Conclusions This chapter has uncovered how the Pentecostal Steering Committee has sought to represent fairly the Classical Pentecostal movement in the course of the IRCCPD (1972–2007). The intrinsically connected question of the reception of the dialogue results has surfaced from time to time as well. This conclusion aims to interpret the results of the analyses in a coherent way. In the course of the dialogue, the theological self-definition of the dialogue team and, consequently, of the constituency they claim to represent has evolved into what can be summarized as ‘(Trinitarian) Classical Pentecostalism’. The demarcation reflects a genealogical definition of the Pentecostal movement that emphasizes its

294

FR IV: 16, 54, 129. FR IV: 34–36, 80. 296 See, esp. FR IV, 28–36 and note also the use of ‘we’ and ‘they’ here. 295

94

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

North American origins. By consequence, early theological developments within North American Pentecostalism have been determinative for the understanding of the Classical Pentecostal movement’s theological diversity. This was most explicitly the case under the chairmanship of Cecil Robeck. The Classical Pentecostal movement is in general terms considered to be tripartite, consisting of a ‘Holiness wing’, a ‘Finished Work wing’ and a ‘Oneness wing’. The larger ‘Finished Work wing’ had a stronger presence in the dialogue, but participation of the ‘Holiness wing’ was consciously sought as well. The ‘Oneness wing’ has been explicitly recognized as part of the Classical Pentecostal movement since 1986, but a subsequent marginalization can hardly be denied. Oneness representatives were not invited to the dialogue sessions and their aberrant theological perspectives were concealed rather than explained. The limitation of the dialogue team to a ‘(Trinitarian) Classical Pentecostal’ composition has a clear advantage in allowing for theologically stronger Final Reports. At times, however, the dialogue team demonstrated to be part of a larger movement of Pentecostalism(s). The said genealogical approach understands the global Pentecostal movement today as consisting of three streams based on three historical ‘waves’. Following the first wave of Classical Pentecostalism was the wave of the Charismatic movement, which brought the Pentecostal message/ spirituality into the traditional churches. In the first phase of the IRCCPD, representatives from the Charismatic movement – mostly Protestants – were invited by the Pentecostals to strengthen their team. Thereafter this segment of global Pentecostalism was theoretically disposed of, but it took a long time to become fully ‘Classical Pentecostal’. The third wave, consisting of diverse conglomerates of movements, denominations, and churches with at least some elements of Pentecostal spirituality, has never been represented in the dialogue team. Notwithstanding, because of the dialogue team’s appropriation of the generic term ‘Pentecostal’ in its communications, the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team at times seemed to speak for this enormous wave as well. Because of the Classical Pentecostal movement’s lack of a unifying structure and representative organs, the dialogue team needed to continually seek for a responsible composition of the dialogue teams that could fairly represent the movement and serve a broad reception of dialogue results. For chairmen David and Justus du Plessis, the quest for fair representation quasi equalled a quest for official approval of the dialogue by ‘mainstream’ Classical Pentecostal denominations and for participation of denominational leaders in the dialogue team. Due to difficult church politics and suspicion against the dialogue in (segments of) these mainstream denominations, this strategy had only limited success. During phase III and under the influence of Jerry Sandidge, Miroslav Volf and Cecil Robeck, the emphasis shifted. Well-trained Classical Pentecostal theologians on the dialogue team were aimed at representing the ‘majority’ of the Pentecostal movement and to producing documents of which the theological quality would speak for itself. As a consequence, the dialogue teams tended to become smaller after the third phase. An important negative repercussion of the evolution to theological representation of the ‘majority’ is that the minorities are more easily lost sight of.

Challenges of Representation and Reception

95

In the course of five phases, participation variables have grown into a stable system allowing different levels and modes of participation. This development implied a democratization of the dialogue team’s internal working, transferring executive power from the chairman to the PSC and legislative power to the plenary PDT. Two shifts of emphasis regarding participation variables can be pointed to, that are both related to the aforementioned shifts in the dialogue team’s composition. First, the growing stress on theological quality in the team implied a relaxation in the quest for and, consequently, a decrease in the presence of representatives officially sanctioned by their denomination. A good balance of scholars and church leaders was consciously sought. Second, the observer status was redefined from a means to allow low threshold entrance for critical/suspicious individuals or denominations into a mandatory first level of participation. This first step could lead in the following year to full participation and thus promote continuity in the dialogue team and quality in the discussions. In the quest for a fair representation of (Classical) Pentecostalism, both the archives and the figures suggest that balances regarding non-theological elements of diversity such as regional, gender and racial variables have not been prioritized. Recognition of this diversity and a desire of at least ‘a’ non-Western, non-Caucasian and female representation is evident. Proportionality has, however, never been strived for. Consequently, the presence of regional, sexual and racial diversity in phases I–V has been very limited. The rift between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ is very deep in a number of ways, and particularly with regard to racial and regional diversity. Three reasons come to surface. First, the personal networks of the dialogue team members and most importantly of the PSC and its chairman have always been the primary areas in which potential participants were sought. This snowball selection method has the advantage that surprises regarding capacities or theologies of participants can usually be avoided. Limited affinity of the PSC members with Pentecostals in other networks, however, impedes better regional and racial representation. Second, the physical and cultural distance between most regions and ethnic groups and the dialogue and its team and the concomitant suspicion or apathy vis-à-vis the dialogue are difficult hurdles to take. Third, the fact that the dialogue has limited official backing signifies that in principle all participants are expected to pay their own travel and lodging expenses. This financial burden is probably the most important drawback regarding participation from less affluent regions. Since phase III the dialogue team has sought funds to assist participants financially, but the effects have remained limited. Finally, some implications regarding the potential of ecumenical reception of the dialogue results within the Pentecostal constituency can be indicated.297 As unifying institutional structures are non-existent, the dialogue team needed to search for less obvious routes to bring the dialogue results to their constituency. In this regard, the consequential nature of the challenges of reception in relation to the question of

297

The following has been more extensively argued in Jelle Creemers, ‘Intertwined Problems of Representation and Reception in Pentecostal Ecumenical Involvement: A Case Study’, One in Christ 45, no. 1 (2011): 142–161.

96

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

representation is first to be pointed to. Obviously the best chances of (good) reception are in the tradition best represented in the dialogue team, which is Western Trinitarian Classical Pentecostalism. In the course of the dialogue, distributing its results to the Pentecostal constituency has always been a difficult task. In Robeck’s words, they ‘haven’t found a way to crack that nut yet’.298 Three main routes seem to have been used to promote reception in the movement. First, a broad reception was aimed at via targeted invitation policies. In the first two phases, invitees to the dialogue sessions were primarily influential leaders within the (American) Pentecostal movement. It was hoped that their exposure to the dialogue would fuel their enthusiasm about the theological achievements and that they would communicate it to their constituencies. The willingness of (denominational) leaders to be involved in the dialogue was, however, limited. Since phase III, academicians rather than executives were brought to the dialogue table. It could be argued that the sphere of influence shifted from denominations to the institutions to which these scholars, mostly theologians, were connected. Second, reception within the Pentecostal movement was aimed at by way of publications on the dialogue. In the first phases news coverage at the popular level seems to have been primarily aimed at. The later phases evidence a growing interest in and dissemination of the dialogue reports in Pentecostal academic circles and a significant increase in academic publications on the dialogue. Third, since phase III the dialogue teams suggested the initiation of Catholic– Pentecostal dialogues at the local level with the intention of bringing the International Dialogue results to the grassroots level and allowing for reception and response. The dialogue in the Netherlands shows that this indeed allowed local reception of the International Dialogue’s results. To date, however, only few local dialogues have been initiated and their success has been rather limited. It appears that since halfway through the third phase, the academic route was privileged as the primary means of obtaining ecumenical reception of the dialogue results. Whether scholars are really able to influence or steer a movement as wayward and diversified as Classical Pentecostalism is however an open question.

298

Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch.

Part Two

Ecumenical Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

4

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions Method

Introduction Teresa Francesca Rossi calls the IRCCPD ‘one of the most interesting bilateral dialogues in which the Catholic Church is involved, […] courageous and fresh both in contents and in methodologies’.1 In an interview, she explains that the use of hard questions is ‘unique of this dialogue’ and ‘very, very helpful’.2 Participants in the IRCCPD phase VI give a variety of reasons for their appreciation of the hard questions sessions and of the other elements of the dialogue method that has developed over the decades.3 The dialogue method developed in the IRCCPD is not necessarily instructive for other ecumenical pairings. However, the fact that it has been exported to other dialogues argues for its particular value. Two international bilateral dialogues with Classical Pentecostal involvement have opted to take over the method developed in the IRCCPD: the dialogue with the World Communion of Reformed Churches (since 1996) and the dialogue with the Lutheran World Federation (since 2004).4 Cecil Robeck played an essential role in the establishment of both. He states that both dialogue partners were open to take over the method of the IRCCPD because they lacked a better alternative and that they are satisfied with its implementation.5 In meetings of the Joint Consultative Group of the World Council of Churches and

1

2 3

4 5

Rossi, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 2. Rossi is Associate Director of the Centro Pro Unione in Rome and teaches ecumenical theology at the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas in Rome. She participates in the IRCCPD phase VI. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Teresa Francesca Rossi, 18 July 2013, CrArch. General reference can be made to interviews with Cecil Robeck, David Moore, David Cole, Maria Ko and Juan Usma Gómez in the week of 13–19 July 2013. References to specific appreciations will be given in the course of this chapter and the evaluative conclusion. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 19 July 2013, CrArch: ‘[T]he Reformed and the Lutherans have adopted the very same model simply because they didn’t have a model that they felt comfortable with. So they said: “Let’s try this.” And now they like it. So I think it’s helpful.’

100

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Pentecostals, the hard questions method has been used as well.6 Apart from these international dialogues, the method has also been taken over by the US dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Alliance. This probably happened at the suggestion of Ralph Del Colle, who was involved early in it and also participated in the IRCCPD in phase V.7 No parallels of this dialogue method have been found in other ecumenical dialogues.8 This chapter aims to describe and valuate the development of the dialogue method in the IRCCPD phases I–V (1972–2007). The analyses of phases I and II again build on the research of Arnold Bittlinger and Jerry Sandidge, respectively. Phases III, IV and V are analysed primarily on the basis of the available archives, complemented with relevant information from the interviews. Insights of other researchers are integrated as well. The chapter discusses the preparations and the five phases of the dialogue in six subchapters. Each subchapter first describes the dialogue process in that phase. The organization of the annual sessions is analysed in order to gain insight in the elements that have played significant roles in the development of the concluding Final Report. As the dialogue method has been developed particularly in the preparatory meetings and in phases I and II, these phases are described on the basis of the annual sessions and conclusions are drawn at the end of each subchapter. Elements related to dialogue method in phases III–V are discussed thematically rather on an annual basis. In this analysis, the focus is exclusively on the elements essential to the development of dialogue method in the IRCCPD. After this historical description, each subchapter analyses in detail the formative process of the Final Report. It is described how information was collected, discussed, selected and organized, starting from the preparations of a dialogue session and theological papers and leading via the discussions (including hard questions sessions) and the annual Agreed Accounts towards the Final Report. A complete analysis of each of the twenty-five dialogue sessions,9 at which a total of eightythree papers were presented and a large variety of themes were discussed, is not possible within the scope of this work. A focused selection is opted for, which is limited to the theme(s) of the second dialogue session of each phase. While such

6

7 8

9

This is clear from the Recommendations of the Joint Consultative Group of the World Council of Churches and Pentecostals to the Ninth Assembly, Porto Alegre, Brazil (2000–2005), especially in the sections on the third meeting in Seoul (2002) and the fifth meeting in Johannesburg (2004). Published in: Vondey, Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, Volume 2, 48–69. Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Moore, 16 July 2013, CrArch. Parallels to the dialogue method of the IRCCPD evolving around hard questions sessions have been sought in secondary literature on other established ecumenical dialogues, but none has been found. The method has also been introduced to members of the Ecclesiological Investigations Network and of Societas Oecumenica, but only members of the IRCCPD were aware of the method. See Jelle Creemers, ‘How Hard Questions Can Soften Relations: Dialogical Method in Pentecostal Ecumenical Involvement’ (Paper presented at the Ecclesiologial Investigations, Assisi, 18 April 2012). All current members of Societas Oecumenica were approached by email: Péter Szentpétery to undisclosed recipients, email, 4 April 2013, CrArch. The total number of annual sessions of the IRCCPD (phases I–V) is thirty-two, but most phases had at least one session that did not focus on dialogue but on the writing of the Final Report. See infra.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

101

a selective approach disallows the claims of an exhaustive analysis, it suffices to indicate key developments.10 A detailed account of the theological and stylistic prehistory of all paragraphs and sections in the Final Reports is not aimed at and substantive discussion of the theological content is strictly refrained from as well. The sole aim is to examine how the different steps in the dialogue and writing process have determined the style, the content, and the emphases of the five Final Reports. Due to considerable differences in the processes, the analyses have different outlooks. In each instance, however, the research has been conducted in similar ways and in two directions. A retrospective reading from the Final Reports to the introductory papers was used to efficiently trace the origins of the agreements and the disagreements that were presented to the public. A chronological reading from the papers to the Final Reports made it possible to detect discontinuities and omissions. The combination of both effectively prevents ‘a teleologizing of historical reconstructions,’ in the words of Michael Bergunder.11 The chapter concludes with a synthetic overview and evaluation of the development of the dialogue method in the IRCCPD, phases I–V. Key elements of the dialogue method are listed and their developments are summarized and evaluated, making use of the analyses, secondary literature and interviews with key participants.

Preparatory meetings In 1970, the idea of a Catholic–Pentecostal dialogue first appeared in communications between Ray Bringham, David du Plessis, Jerome Hamer O. P. and Johannes Cardinal Willebrands.12 A letter from the Cardinal to David du Plessis shows that the Catholics were well aware of the precariousness of this new relationship and of the possibility of dialogue. Willebrands wrote that the initiators ‘must proceed slowly and carefully without great publicity. This is the more necessary as there are people on both sides who need to be accustomed gradually to the idea of such a conversation.’13 The first preparatory meeting was decided upon and it was agreed that it should be exploratory, private, without publicity and with no more than six people on both sides.14 It was followed by a second preparatory meeting about nine months later.15 10

11

12

13

14 15

The second session of each phase is opted for on the basis of formal arguments alone. Concentrating on the first session of each phase is suboptimal, as these meetings were largely exploratory. Focusing on the fourth session of each phase (or later) is not recommended, as in these sessions the writing of the Final Report was already on the participants’ minds. The second session is pragmatically preferable to the third, as these sessions are better documented in the accumulated archives. Michael Bergunder, ‘The Cultural Turn’, in Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, ed. Allan Anderson et al., The Anthropology of Christianity 10 (Berkeley : University of California Press, 2010), 57. The way to the dialogue is analysed historically by Arnold Bittlinger and Jerry Sandidge: Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 17–22; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 60–62. Johannes Willebrands to David du Plessis, 25 June 1970, DPColl. Quoted in Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 23. Letter from Jerome Hamer to David du Plessis, quoted in Ibid. Both meetings are described in more detail in Ibid., 22–49; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 62–75.

102

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

First preparatory meeting The first preparatory meeting took place in Rome in meeting rooms of the Roman Catholic Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity on 2–3 September 1970. Three Roman Catholics, three Classical Pentecostals and three Charismatic Protestants participated. After an opening word by SPCU representative, Pierre Duprey, every participant introduced himself and shared in a testimonial way something of his life. This led to some ‘very colorful reports’ in the eyes of the Roman Catholic key initiator of the dialogue, Kilian McDonnell.16 As the Catholics were mostly unfamiliar with Pentecostalism, the Pentecostals and Charismatics introduced them to their history and some of the characteristics of the movement. In the afternoon, Bittlinger reports, ‘a number of participants shared something of their spiritual experiences’,17 after which a discussion followed. Next, du Plessis and McDonnell were appointed as chairmen for the rest of the meeting. They would become co-moderators of the dialogue for respectively thirteen and twenty-two years. In the late afternoon and during the following day, the team discussed the initiation of a formal dialogue and adopted a statement that included (a) the Catholic ideal for ecumenical dialogue, (b) the nature and purpose of this dialogue in eight theses and (c) a description of the essence of Pentecostalism.18 It was agreed that a second preparatory meeting was necessary, which took place on 22–23 June 1971.19 McDonnell proposed that for this meeting each team would prepare five ‘hard questions’ to be directed to the other team.20

Second preparatory meeting Jerome Hamer, then secretary of the SPCU, opened the second preparatory meeting with a welcoming speech in which he emphasized the importance of dealing with spirituality in ecumenical dialogue. Subsequently, the statement produced at the first preliminary meeting was read again and Basil Meeking and David du Plessis reported on the positive reactions they had received since.21 Following the opening remarks and review, the plenary session set out to discuss four specific questions dealing with expectations for this dialogue. In the afternoon, at the suggestion of the Pentecostals, the new participants told something about their lives, focusing on their faith experiences. Thereafter some of the hard questions were

16

17 18 19 20

21

See Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 24, 345. Kilian McDonnell (°1921), OSB, has taught theology for most of his life and was involved in numerous theological dialogues. He has published broadly on pneumatology and on Pentecostalism and Charismatic movements. In 1967, he founded the Collegeville Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research. As one of the initiators of the IRCCPD, he chaired the Catholic team from 1972 until 2000. His 1991 publication, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit, was crucial to phase V of the IRCCPD. Am Nachmittag berichteten einzelne Teilnehmer über ihre geistlichen Erfahrungen. Ibid., 26. This is discussed in more detail on pp. 195–198. See the minutes of the Catholic/Pentecostal Meeting, 22–23 June 1971, DPColl. See Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 32–33. Over forty years later, Kilian McDonnell cannot recall where he got the idea from. Kilian McDonnell to Jelle Creemers, email, 24 January 2012, CrArch. For more details, see Ibid., 34.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

103

discussed, which dealt primarily with Pentecostal spirituality.22 The hard questions show the limited knowledge each group had of the other’s theology and tradition and gives evidence of a mutual suspicion. Two examples suffice:23 Pentecostal Hard Question 1: ‘Has the Church sufficiently faced up to what is referred to as baptism in the Holy Spirit? Rather has not the Spirit been taken for granted so that in the Church there has been a profound neglect of the transforming experiences which are the work of the Spirit?’ Roman Catholic Hard Question 2: ‘What is the link between baptism and baptism in the Spirit? Could the two not be the same thing?’

The hard questions made it possible to pinpoint quite naturally key theological differences and areas for further exploration. Moreover, the sharpness of the questions, so say the minutes, ‘made it possible to delineate important attitudes on both sides’.24 The use of hard questions as a heuristic tool was not appreciated by all present. Bittlinger indicates that Charles Msgr. Moeller, who had not participated in the earlier meeting, seriously questioned the confrontational method.25 He doubted if such hard questions could promote unity and feared that the approach would rather make each team pull back to default positions and be cut off from the other. His opinion was not shared by the group and after a short visit by Johannes Willebrands, chairman Kilian McDonnell brought the discussion back to the ‘hard questions’. In the afternoon of the following day, the team discussed the establishment of a formal dialogue. The desirability thereof was unanimously agreed upon. An initial proposal for its practical organization was spelled out, implying the installation of a steering committee. A four-page report of the meeting was written and accepted, which explicitly gave a positive evaluation of the use of hard questions.26

Preparatory Steering Committee meeting After the establishment of a formal dialogue was approved by Willebrands,27 a Steering Committee was formed, which met to discuss the practical outworking.28 The suggestion by Hamer to spread five dialogue meetings over a period of five rather than the originally suggested three years was agreed upon. It was also decided that at each session four papers would be presented, two from each side, and topics for the five annual meetings were selected. In the first phase (1972–1976), the dialogue team dealt primarily with issues of Pentecostal spirituality that were compared with the 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

See Ibid., 31–38. Appendices no. 1 and 2 to the Minutes to the Catholic/Pentecostal Meeting, 22–23 June 1971, Du Plessis Archives. Minutes to the Catholic/Pentecostal Meeting, 22–23 June 1971, Du Plessis Archives. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 37. Minutes to the second Catholic/Pentecostal Meeting, 22–23 June 1971, DPColl. Jerome Hamer to David du Plessis, 6 August 1971, SanColl. See Report of the Steering Committee Meeting, 25–26 October 1971, SanColl. Cf. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 31ff; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 71–75.

104

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Catholic points of view. Topics included water baptism, Spirit baptism, spiritual gifts, glossolalia, worship and prayer. The papers were to be distributed to all participants three weeks prior to the dialogue session. Two days of each session would be devoted to hearing and discussing the papers. The discussions would be reported by one person from each side. On the basis of these reports, discussion would be refined on the third day. The final day would be used for drafting the conclusions. The Steering Committee also made clear guidelines on the internal and external communication on the progress of the dialogue. For every meeting an ‘Agreed Account’ would be written for internal use, summarizing the discussions and giving clarity on consensuses and divergences. At each session a press release would also be prepared and adopted. Presenters would be allowed to publish their papers after the session. At the end of the five year dialogue, a Final Report would be composed, which would be spread as widely as possible after passing the appropriate authorities of both delegations.

Phase I Phase I: Dialogue process Phase I, Session 1 (1972) The first dialogue meeting (Zurich, 20–24 June 1972) largely followed the format that had been proposed in the preparatory meetings. The programme started with an evening session on Monday. Three full days of work followed. At 2 pm on Friday, the session was closed.29 An early document shows that the time schedule was left quite open: there were two plenary meetings per day of 3.5 hours each: 9:00 am – 12:30 pm and 3:30–7:00 pm. Each session had a fifteen-minute coffee break.30 How these days were filled was decided at the moment and the archives allow only some general insights. On the first morning, the session started with the four papers.31 A fifth paper was added to the programme during the dialogue week and was delivered by the Classical Pentecostal François P. Möller, focusing on Pentecostal perspectives on charismata.32 Arnold Bittlinger states that in the discussions that followed, the Catholics found it difficult to cope with Pentecostal conceptualizations and tried to understand ‘how that which the Pentecostals were seeking to express could be interpreted in the experiential world of Catholic spirituality’.33 About 29

30

31

32 33

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 79. This was to become the standard length and setup for the Dialogue Sessions of phases I and II. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement Dialogue I – Zurich, 20–24 June 1972. Programme’, DPColl. Pentecostal papers were prepared by Rodman Williams (‘Pentecostal Spirituality’) and Arnold Bittlinger (‘Charisma in the New Testament’). Catholic papers were prepared by Jean Giblet (‘Baptism in the Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles’) and Donatien Mollat (‘The Role of Experience in the New Testament Teaching on Baptism and the Coming of the Holy Spirit’). Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 54. All discussions of phase I are summarized by Arnold Bittlinger. For the first session, see Ibid., 54–57. The quotation comes from p. 55: ‘Sie versuchten ständig zu ertasten, wie das, was die Pfingstler meinten so ausgedrückt werden könne, daß es in die Erfahrungswelt der katholischen Spiritualität passe.’

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

105

halfway through the dialogue week, a committee was composed to draft a report of the session.34 Two drafts were discussed and improved before the Agreed Account of 1972 was accepted in plenum. It consisted of fifteen theses, focusing on the agreements while acknowledging the different emphases.35

Phase I, Session 2 (1973) The second dialogue session (Rome, 18–22 June 1973) had the same open agenda approach as the previous year. The dialogue started on Monday evening and concluded Friday afternoon. Daily work time was 9:00 am to 12:30 pm and 4:00–7:30 pm.36 It was decided beforehand that each presentation would be followed by a well-prepared response paper in order to facilitate the quality of the discussions.37 The main papers needed ‘to be kept within reasonable length’ and to be sent to all participants no later than by the end of March. Response papers from the other team were prepared by appointed reactors and were to be of three to four pages. The responses were distributed at the beginning of the dialogue session and were read after the papers.38 General discussion followed.39 Just as the year before, the Agreed Account of the second session went through two drafts before being accepted.40 It counts twelve theses and a conclusion. Again, the document presents no opposing views but only joint statements. Sandidge notes that at the suggestion of Classical Pentecostal John McTernan, each side provided during the week ‘a typical service of worship according to the respective traditions’ for which the Catholics used the Mass on the feast of Corpus Christi.41 The 1973 Press Release positively mentions this experience: During the course of the meeting participants had an opportunity to become better acquainted with their respective traditions by taking part in services of worship. This proved important for the good spirit and growth in mutual understanding which were a feature of the meeting.42

As the participation in one another’s worship services was highly appreciated, it became a fixed element in the dialogue week. In the course of the years, the rule came to be established that the teams would alternate and invite one another to a Sunday worship service close to the dialogue venue. 34 35 36 37 38

39

40

41 42

The differences between the drafts and the final Agreed Account are discussed in Ibid., 60–65. For the 1972 Agreed Account, see Ibid., 58–60. See Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 84. Minutes of the Joint Steering Committee meeting, 3–4 October 1972, DPColl. Minutes of the Joint Steering Committee Meeting, 3–4 October 1972, DPColl. Analysed in Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 68. As for all sessions of phase I, Bittlinger provides summaries of all papers, responses, discussions and an analysis of the Agreed Account of 1973. See Ibid., 70–83. See, for the full Agreed Account, Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 86–87; Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 83–84. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 85. Taken up in Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 90.

106

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Phase I, Session 3 (1974) The set-up of the third dialogue session (Schloss Craheim, 10–14 June 1974) was grosso modo the same as the second one. Jerry Sandidge provides us with the work schedule of the 1974 full days:43 7:30 8:00 8:45 9:00 10:30 10:45

Catholic Mass Breakfast Joint Prayer SESSION Coffee-break SESSION

12:30 14:45 15:00 16:30 16:45 18:30

Lunch Coffee SESSION Coffee-break SESSION Supper

Although it may have been present in the first two sessions as well, this schedule is the first document to explicitly mention a moment of joint prayer at the beginning of each day and the fact that the Catholics gathered early each morning for celebrating mass separately. This day schedule ‘became more or less a model through 1982’, reports Sandidge.44 The content of the work sessions continued to evolve. The week started again with the presentation of papers, but the number of papers is again reduced. Rather than five now only three main papers were presented. The first one received two responses, the other ones received a single response.45 About two working days were used for discussion of the papers. At the end of the week, the Agreed Account was prepared and again needed two drafts before acceptance.46 The Agreed Account consisted of ten theses and was considerably longer than the previous ones.47 It mentions for the first time differences of opinion in almost all theses. Regarding (re)baptism, some specific information on the diverse opinions is offered (theses 7, 9). The Agreed Account (AA) also lists five specific theological problems that would require future discussion (thesis 8) and concludes that ‘[o]ur discussion was enriched by the variety of viewpoints among the participants’. It is clear, both from this Agreed Account and even more from Bittlinger’s descriptions of the meetings, that the third dialogue session held much discussion and emotion.48

Phase I, Session 4 (1975) The fourth meeting of phase I (Venice, 20–26 May 1975) lasted six days, but Sunday was to be free. Because some of the ‘response papers’ in the third session had been much

43 44 45

46 47

48

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 89. Ibid., 1: 89. A full list of all papers presented at the dialogue sessions, statements on the dialogue, Agreed Accounts and press releases is provided in the bibliography. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 90. According to Sandidge, this was due to difficult theological questions raised in this session, notably regarding baptism. Ibid., 1: 90. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 101. Bittlinger speaks of ‘recht emotionale Aussprache über die Referate von John McTernan und Jean Giblet.’

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

107

too long, the Joint Steering Committee decided that in the fourth dialogue session only main papers would be presented.49 The session would focus on ‘prayer and worship’, ‘the psychological dimension’ and ‘discernment’. On each of these themes, papers were prepared from a Roman Catholic, a Charismatic Protestant and a Pentecostal perspective. The nine papers were sent to all participants beforehand. In the meeting the contributors gave only a short overview of their main points. Six out of nine papers were presented on the first full day and the second morning.50 In the afternoon, there was room for discussion and the evening ended with a Pentecostal worship service. The next morning, two more papers were read and in the afternoon the Steering Committee met. Saturday morning, the last paper was on the programme and the rest of the day was used for discussion. Rather than being a free day, Sunday turned out to be the ‘drafting day’, which meant that in the afternoon ‘small groups worked on the first draft of the “Agreed Account” document and the joint press release’.51 On Monday the drafts were discussed, revised and finalized in plenary sessions, which were, according to Sandidge, both long and difficult.52 Although two days were used for writing the Agreed Account, the team could not bring it to a closure. Therefore, the discussion and report on ‘prayer and worship’ were transferred to the next session. The 1975 dialogue session ended with a shared time of worship.

Phase I, Session 5 (1976) As 1976 was the final year of this first dialogue phase, the week schedule differed from the earlier sessions. The main focus was on writing the Final Report. The dialogue session started with only the ‘Core Group’,53 which met from 23 to 25 May. McDonnell had prepared a draft that was largely a compilation of the Agreed Accounts. It was, however, considered unacceptable by the Pentecostals as they feared it could be misinterpreted by members of their constituency who had not participated in the discussions. It was decided therefore that the Final Report was not to be a mere synthesis of the Agreed Accounts for the years 1972–1975, but an original report based on the previous reports but ‘not limited to its formulations’.54 49

50

51

52 53 54

Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Steering Committee, 10/14 June 1974, DPColl. Cf. Ibid., 110–111; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 95–97. The Charismatic Protestant paper on worship was actually a ‘communal paper,’ which turned out to be three more or less short but interrelated papers. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 98. Ibid., 1: 98–99 This mention of ‘small groups’ by Sandidge is difficult to harmonize with information given in a specific document in his own files, which states that ‘[a]t each dialogue, a select committee is chosen before the opening session and given the responsibility of taking sufficient notes in order to condense the many hours of discussion into a brief report that would represent the response to the paper which would be read, and the points of agreement and disagreement raised by the participants.’ The document is undated but located in a folder dated ‘1975’. It is possible that it refers only to the situation in 1972–1974. ‘The Report Committee,’ s.d., SanColl. Ibid., 1: 99–101. See p. 56. See Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 138–141. Quotation comes from p. 140: ‘nicht an die dortigen Formulierungen gebunden.’ Cf. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 111–113.

108

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

On the following day, the Steering Committee had a short audience with Pope Paul VI. Only after that, from the afternoon of 26 to 29 May, were other dialogue participants involved. Two days were used for discussing the theme that had been skipped in 1975, ‘prayer and worship’.55 In conclusion, the full assembly added a consensus report on this theme to the already prepared Final Report (1972–1975) and the end product was discussed and accepted on 28 May. It was published shortly thereafter.56

Phase I, Session 2 (1973): Analysis of the dialogue process In the first phase (1972–1976), the dialogue team dealt with typical issues of Pentecostal spirituality, which were compared with the Roman Catholic points of view. Hard questions were not part of the dialogue process; the focus was on reading and discussing papers. Throughout the five annual one-week sessions, thirty-four papers and responses were read and each week ended with the composition of an Agreed Account of about 700–1,200 words. On this basis, a Final Report was written in 1976, numbering eight pages. In the second year of this quinquennium (1973), the three themes on the agenda were decided by the Joint Steering Committee in their meeting of 3/4 October 1972.57 Each theme was introduced by one or two papers and all the papers received a response. The first theme was ‘the Historic Background of the Pentecostal Movement’ and the Pentecostals appointed David du Plessis as paper presenter.58 The second theme aimed ‘to locate the Pentecostal reality theologically’ and looked at the rites of initiation. Two papers were read and responded to. The first Catholic paper was entitled ‘The relation of baptism in the Holy Spirit to the rites of Christian Initiation’ and Arnold Bittlinger prepared the response. The second paper would originally deal with the question ‘What is the difference between a devout Christian and one who claims to have had the baptism in the Holy Spirit?’ This was reformulated by the Pentecostals as ‘What is the theological difference between one who has received the baptism in the Holy Spirit and a committed Christian?’ This paper was again prepared by a Roman Catholic and was responded to by John McTernan. The third theme was ‘The role of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit in the mystical tradition.’ It was discussed from both a Pentecostal and a Roman Catholic perspective, each receiving a response from the other team. After all papers and responses were read, general discussion followed. By the end of the week an Agreed Account was written. In the Final Report, only two paragraphs sum up the 1973 discussions. In what follows, each of the five papers with their responses as

55

56

57 58

The subject that was decided upon in the preparatory meeting of 1971 for this year, ‘Proselytism and Common Witness’, was dropped. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 112; Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 151. The Final Report of Phase I (1972–1976) appeared in the years following in different publications (see p. 67). Minutes of the Joint Steering Committee Meeting, 3/4 October 1972, DPColl. Appointments and changes made by the Pentecostal team can be found in handwriting in the minutes referred to above.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

109

well as the development from the papers over the Agreed Account to the Final Report is discussed. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

‘The historic background of Pentecostalism’ (CP) David du Plessis’s paper counts barely five pages and does not offer what most historians would expect from a paper with this title.59 Du Plessis’ restorationist perspective on history is evident when he argues that a Church can assure itself of its apostolicity only by testing ‘its correspondence with the Christianity of the first century’. According to du Plessis, the Pentecostals ‘have returned basically to the New Testament patterns of doctrine, religious experience and practice’.60 Du Plessis argues in conversionist lines when he states that this experience is something anyone can have personally, and that one cannot understand nor adequately discuss it without having experienced it.61 His revivalist perspective on the movement becomes clear when he puts the Pentecostal movement in line with other ‘renewal movements […] with an emphasis on some or other truth or truths what had become neglected or overgrown by traditions of men’.62 The Pentecostal renewal is, however, considered unique and the subsequent movement so ‘entirely new’ that it should not be seen as ‘Protestantism nor [as] a split in Protestant Churches’.63 Albert de Monléon, OP, was a sympathetic reactor to David du Plessis’s paper.64 The main aim of his eight-page paper was to point out ‘that there does exist a historical background to the XXth century Pentecostalism’. Second, it wanted to demonstrate ‘that some major elements of the apostolic teaching tend to be overlooked in Pentecostal doctrine’.65 Arnold Bittlinger offers in his dissertation a summary of the discussion that followed the paper and response.66 While Pentecostals desired to focus on the present time of the Church, Catholics argued that ‘the Holy Spirit does not only work vertically in the Charismata but also horizontally in the Church and in the Sacraments’. This probed a sharp discussion on the different views on the Lord’s Supper and on the use of charisms. The Pentecostals brought the question of superstition in the Catholic Church to the foreground, on which it was replied

59

60 61 62 63 64

65

66

Published as David J. du Plessis, ‘The Historic Background of Pentecostalism’, One in Christ, 10 no. 2 (1974): 174–179. Ibid., 175–176. Ibid., 178. Italics in the text. Ibid., 175. Ibid., 178. Italics in the text. Albert de Monléon (1937) is a Dominican priest and Bishop Emeritus of Meaux (France). He has been involved in the Charismatic Renewal since the early 1970s and was a member of the Doctrinal Commission of the Roman Congregation for the Divine Worship (1999–2005). His participation in the IRCCPD was limited to the 1973 session. According to Jerry Sandidge, de Monléon was an exception to the early SPCU rule that no Catholic charismatic would be invited to the Dialogue. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 146. A. M. de Monléon, ‘The Historic Background of the Pentecostal Movement. A Reaction to David J. Du Plessis’ Paper’ (Rome, 1973), 1. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 76–77. Translation mine.

110

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

‘that one cannot properly assess for another what is superstition and what is real expression of personal piety’. Finally, however, ‘a Pentecostal made the observation that in our conversations we should rather focus on the best side of the other confession than on its worst’.

‘The meaning of the expression “baptism of the Spirit” in the light of Catholic baptismal liturgy and spirituality’ (RC) Balthasar Mgr. Fischer67 provided a twelve-page paper with four main points,68 arguing that water baptism and baptism in the Spirit are identical from the perspective of traditional baptismal spirituality. First, he refers to the rite of exorcism in the context of baptism, after which the Spirit is being welcomed to take possession of the person baptized. Second, Fischer argues that in the Jerusalem Mystagogical Catecheses the baptismal water is not only seen as a cleansing bath but the ‘Spirit is implored to descend upon it, so that it may become communicated through the water […].’69 Third, the use of oil in the baptismal ritual is said to attest to ‘the conviction that baptism confers the Spirit with which the Lord […] was anointed’.70 Fischer adds that confirmation is not an original conferral of the Spirit but the ‘second summit of the double sacrament [which] gives direct expression to an ecclesial effect’.71 Fischer explains finally that the reception of the Spirit can be ever-new appropriated by ‘the repeatable third sacrament of initiation’, the eucharist.72 Fischer’s paper was responded to by Arnold Bittlinger.73 Essentially he agrees with Fischer that ‘[t]here is only one Christian baptism (Eph. 4.5) namely baptism in water and in spirit’.74 He also discusses the ‘relationship between the objective receiving of the Spirit and the subjective experiencing of the Spirit’ and describes the latter as ‘actualizations and realizations of what has been given potentially through baptism’.

67

68

69 70 71 72 73

74

Balthasar Fischer (1912–2001) was a Catholic priest, theologian and professor in liturgical studies at the theological faculty of Trier. He was involved in the preparation of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II and published frequently on related issues. He participated in the IRCCPD from 1973 to 1975. The structure of the paper is published in English as Balthasar Fischer, ‘Baptism of the Spirit: The Meaning of the Expression “Baptism in the Spirit” in the Light of Catholic Baptismal Liturgy and Spirituality’, One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 172–173. Below, we cite from a complete English translation of the paper located in the archives of Jerry Sandidge: Fischer, ‘The Meaning of the Expression “Baptism in the Spirit” in the Light of Catholic Baptismal Liturgy and Spirituality – Translated from the German Original,’ 12p., SanColl. Ibid., 2. Ibid., 3. Ibid., 5. Ibid., 6. Arnold Bittlinger (1928) is a Lutheran theologian and psychologist. He has been active in the charismatic and ecumenical movements and was involved early on in the establishment of the IRCCPD. He participated in all five sessions of phase I and wrote the first doctoral dissertation on the dialogue. Arnold Bittlinger, ‘Water-Baptism and Spirit-Baptism’, Sandidge Archives, 3.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

111

‘The distinguishing characteristics of the Charismatic-Pentecostal spirituality’75 (RC) The paper of Roman Catholic chairman, Kilian McDonnell, combines theological perspectives with observations on the experiential side of Charismatic-Pentecostal spirituality. McDonnell shares Fischer’s hesitance to use the phrase ‘baptism of the Spirit’ for the crisis experience characterizing charismatic spirituality to which this term refers in Pentecostal vocabulary. He prefers to speak of ‘the release of the Spirit’.76 McDonnell emphasizes that the experience should be placed in a sacramental framework as a way in which the fullness of life in the Spirit, already given in baptism, is appropriated, experienced and made fruitful. The short response paper by John McTernan bore the surprising title ‘Water Baptism’.77 His opening sentence states that ‘[t]he thesis that baptism in water and baptism with the Holy Spirit is one and the same thing […] is completely foreign to Classical Pentecostal theology.’ Thereafter, however, McTernan does not argue against this thesis but offers a Bible-based defence of baptism by immersion following personal repentance. In his dissertation, Arnold Bittlinger offers a summary of the discussion, which followed the last two papers and responses.78 First, ‘the objection was brought in that there are also Pentecostals who practice infant baptism’ to which McTernan replied that these were ‘historical rudiments’ and that even in these cases, baptism ‘is not understood as regeneration’. The Catholics pointed to the communal aspect of baptism, saying that ‘infant baptism is possible only there, where the Christian church already exists’. The main difficulties in the discussion focused on the sacramental understanding of baptism and different interpretations of Spirit baptism. ‘The discussion revealed that concerning the relationship of water baptism and Spirit baptism there exists not only a difference between Catholics and Pentecostals but also between Catholics and Catholics, Charismatics and Pentecostals, and between Charismatics and Charismatics,’ attests Bittlinger.

‘The role of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit in the mystical tradition’79(CP) In the fourth paper, Vinson Synan sought to answer two questions.80 First, he wondered, ‘Can the reality if not the name of the baptism in the Holy Spirit be 75

76 77

78 79

80

Kilian McDonnell, ‘The Distinguishing Characteristics of the Charismatic-Pentecostal Spirituality’, One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 117–128. Ibid., 122. John McTernan (1920–1975) was an American Pentecostal missionary to Italy and the founder of the Chiesa Evangelica Internazionale in Rome, which he served as its pastor until his death. He participated in the IRCCPD sessions from 1972 to 1975. His response was published as John McTernan, ‘Water Baptism: A Response to the Paper – The Distinguishing Characteristics of Charismatic Spirituality by Fr Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B.’, One in Christ, 10, no. 2 (1974): 203–205. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 78–79. Translation mine. Vinson Synan, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Spirit in the Mystical Tradition’, One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 193–202. Vinson Synan (1934) is a Pentecostal theologian and leader in the Pentecostal Holiness tradition. He has published on global Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal and his work on The HolinessPentecostal Movement in the United States (1971) has heavily influenced Pentecostal historiography. He participated in the IRCCPD in four sessions, distributed over phases I, II, III and IV.

112

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

found in the mystical tradition?’81 After an overview of Pentecostal perspectives on charismatic spirituality in church history, Synan lists seven statements that he considers areas of agreement of Pentecostal and Roman Catholic mystical spiritualities.82 He thereafter identifies similarities and dissimilarities and notes that ‘Pentecostals […] have generally identified more with those mystics who were excommunicated or burned at the stake than with those who were canonized by the Church.’83 Synan then compares phenomena in the Pentecostal movement with phenomena in the mystical tradition.84 Synan concludes on the basis of the experiences and teachings of a number of Catholic mystics ‘that we are on most points indeed soul-brothers’.85 ‘Mystery – Mysticism – Charismatics’86 was the title of the response paper by Heribert Mühlen.87 Mühlen argues that mysticism and charismatics are different revelations of the mystery of God but ‘both spring from the same root, […] complement each other and, indeed, penetrate each other’. The common root is the mystery of God, which ‘is offered by God to every Christian and every Christian must keep himself open for this experience’. He explains that, while the charismatic gifts of the apostolic church were considered essential in the missionary activities of the NT church, later in church history ‘the charismas are to a large extent absorbed by the ministerial functions and almost identified with them’.88 Yet it seems to him that ‘in a far-reaching crisis of Christianity the charismas are once again becoming free, and they may well be the beginning of a new epoch in the history of the church’.89 The discussion that followed was summarized by Bittlinger.90 From different sides, there was disagreement with Mühlen’s distinction of graces for personal salvation and for the salvation of others, and the commonality between mysticism and charismatics was argued for. In conclusion the relationship between charism, love for the neighbour and love for God as an integrated climax was argued for.

81 82 83 84 85 86

87

88 89 90

Synan, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit’, 194. Ibid., 197. Ibid., 198. Ibid. Ibid., 202. Heribert Mühlen, ‘Mystery – Mysticism – Charismatics’, SanColl, 16p. This paper was published as Heribert Mühlen, ‘Mysterium – Mystik – Charismatik’, Geist Und Leben 46, no. 3 (1973): 247–256. Heribert Mühlen (1927–2006) was a German Catholic priest and theologian and taught over thirty years at the Faculty of Theology in Paderborn. He was peritus at the Second Vatican Council and later became involved in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. He published largely on pneumatology, experience and church renewal. He participated in the IRCCPD in phase I (1972–1976), phase II (1977) and phase III (1985–1986). A monograph on his theology and praxis was written by Pentecostal theologian, Wolfgang Vondey, Heribert Mühlen: His Theology and Praxis; A New Profile of the Church (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004). Ibid., 14. Ibid., 15. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 80–81. Translation mine.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

113

‘Charismatic movements in history within the church tradition’91 (RC) In the final paper, Louis Bouyer92 first provides an overview of selected movements and individuals in church history, showing that charismatic spirituality has been an ‘ever-recurrent feature in the life of the Catholic Church’. Second, he analyses ‘what kind of reactions […] analogous movements in the past [have] provoked on the part of theologians and of the Church authorities’.93 Three conclusions are drawn. First, ‘Pentecostal manifestations of the Spirit have never really ceased within the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church.’ Second, ‘[i]t has always been felt essential to maintain a discernment of spirits.’ Third, in the matter of the gifts there is a tension between two tendencies that must always be kept in balance. On the one hand, ‘the life of the Spirit […] is to be an experience which involves the whole of our being.’ On the other hand, ‘the experience of the Spirit […] must never be confused with any of its concomitants in the mind and heart of man.’94 The response by Athanasios Emmert contains no major disagreements with Bouyer’s conclusions.95 Although he agrees with Bouyer that spiritual renewal movements have been recurrent in the history of the church, he considers the current one different because of its extent.96 Bittlinger summarizes the subsequent discussions, stating that ‘[t]he Catholics affirmed first of all their agreement with Bouyer, but also pointed to the importance of the Charismatic Renewal.’97 Next, different views on ecstasy and religious experience in Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Classical Pentecostal perspective were discussed. Finally, discussion focused on the strong growth of the Pentecostal movement and the consequences thereof for the Catholic Church.

The Agreed Account of 1973 As said previously, the Agreed Account of the 1973 session needed two drafts before being finalized. Neither Bittlinger nor the combined archives offer us (information on) the earlier versions of this Agreed Account. The aim here is a genealogical analysis informed by pointing specifically to the papers, responses and discussions that were at the origin of each statement, when possible. The statements/paragraphs are numbered so that they can easily be referred to in the next subsections.

91

92

93 94 95

96 97

Louis Bouyer, ‘Charismatic Movements in History within the Church Tradition’, One in Christ, 10, no. 2 (1974): 148–161. Louis Bouyer (1913–2004) was a French theologian and pastor who converted to Catholicism in 1939. He wrote and taught internationally on a variety of topics, including Eucharistic theology and ecclesiology. He was consultant on liturgical reform during Vatican II and served in different international Catholic commissions. He participated in the IRCCPD only once. Bouyer, ‘Charismatic Movements’, 148. All given quotes come from Ibid., 160. Athanasios Emmert (1935–2013) was an American Greek Orthodox priest, ordained in 1960, who served in more than a dozen North-American parishes. He was the only Charismatic Orthodox to have participated in the IRCCPD (1972–1973). Ibid., 5. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 82–83. Translation mine.

114

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The 1973 Agreed Account has, apart from an introduction and a conclusion, twelve statements.98 The introduction (AA 1973-Intro) explains that in this second meeting, ‘views on the historical background of the pentecostal movement and on the gift, experience and manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the history of the Church’ were exchanged. The first statement (AA 1973–1) indicates that ‘in the early centuries of the Church, the celebration of Christian initiation (Baptism, Laying on of hands/Chrismation, Eucharist) expressed clearly in words and signs the request for and the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ This historical liturgical perspective was most clearly argued for by Balthasar Fischer and was also implicitly present in the contributions of McDonnell and Bittlinger. A historical perspective is obviously opted for as a dogmatic statement would directly contradict the Pentecostal perspective argued for by McTernan. The second statement (AA 1973–2) seeks to draw lines from the early church practice into the present: ‘In adult christian baptism following conversion to Christ, the unity of this celebration historically has been maintained, practised or restored by different Churches (for example, the Roman Catholic Church).’ Again Fischer’s paper can be considered the key source. In this statement implicitly the pattern ‘conversion – adult baptism – reception of the Spirit’ is put to the fore as historically warranted and restored in the Roman Catholic Church, even if this is rather exceptional in its ecclesial practice. No mention is made of Pentecostal perspectives on or practice of this rite of initiation. The next statement (AA 1973–3) draws attention to an important difficulty in Catholic–Pentecostal relations regarding Roman Catholic baptismal customs: ‘The baptism of children, especially in the Churches which separate in time water Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist, raises problems which must be studied in future meetings.’ That the baptism of children is problematic in view of the historically warranted baptismal practice described above was signalled by Bittlinger. His paper explicitly ‘concentrate[d] on adult baptism to eliminate additional problems’.99 The second problem, which concerns the separation of baptism from confirmation and Eucharist, is explained in both Bittlinger’s100 and Fischer’s paper.101 Interestingly, it is not mentioned that this applies to the Roman Catholic Church. The fourth statement (AA 1973–4) refers to three paragraphs in the 1972 Agreed Account and calls for an extension of ‘the use of the expression “being baptized in the Holy Spirit” [in these paragraphs] to other expressions such as “being filled with the Holy Spirit” and “receiving the Holy Spirit” ’. Thus, it is acknowledged that in Pentecostal discourse all three expressions can refer to the same post-conversion experience. This position is not presented in any of the Pentecostal papers, but

98

See Ibid., 83–85. Bittlinger, ‘Water-Baptism and Spirit-Baptism’, SanColl, 2. 100 Ibid., 3. 101 Fischer, ‘The meaning of the expression ‘Baptism of the Spirit’ in the light of Catholic baptismal liturgy and spirituality’, 4–5. 99

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

115

Bittlinger’s paper states that ‘[e]vents of further releasing the given Spirit are [in the New Testament] never called by the name “being baptized in the Spirit”, but with expressions such as “being filled with the Spirit” or “being full of the Spirit” .’102 Statement five (AA 1973–5) repeats an argument of McDonnell: ‘the difference between the christian with the pentecostal experience and the devout christian is a matter of theological focus, expanded openness and expectancy with regard to certain charismatic gifts, and [accordingly] their religious experience can differ.’ The consequent stress on the freedom and sovereignty of the Spirit can be brought back to McDonnell’s paper as well. The sixth statement (AA 1973–6) is a single sentence that claims that ‘[d]uring the entire history of the Church the charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit never ceased, taking many different forms according to the times, cultures, or traditions in which they occurred.’ Bouyer’s historical overview and conclusion resonate most clearly in this sentence, while Synan argued in similar lines. Synan’s statement that there was ‘a decline in their occurrence after the third century’ was, however, not taken over.103 The seventh thesis (AA 1973–7) first signals the participants’ awareness ‘of the tensions that arise in the Church in times of spiritual renewal’. Bouyer’s term ‘tensions’104 was chosen over the stronger language of participants from within the renewal movements, such as Emmert who spoke of Orthodox clergy ‘resisting’ spiritual movements among the laity105 and du Plessis’ statement that ‘the historic institutions always rejected renewal’.106 The statement continues with the quite selfevident recognition that ‘these tensions are caused by different factors, such as prejudice and a lack of mutual understanding and communication’. In conclusion it is said that ‘[t]he members of the dialogue expressed much concern about this’, which was most obvious in the papers of Synan, du Plessis and Emmert. In line with the preceding, the eighth statement (AA 1973–8) stresses that ‘the task of discernment of spirits […] has often been, and on some occasions still is, misused to suppress Pentecostal activities and the charismatic renewal.’ While the Pentecostal and Charismatic concerns resonate, the importance of discernment was put forward by Louis Bouyer. Further, all participants ‘agreed that the gifts of the Spirit, according to the Scriptures, must be exercised in love and lead to a greater fidelity to Christ and His Church’. These elements are presupposed in a number of papers (such as Mühlen’s), expounded by Bouyer and Emmert, and emphasized during the discussions following Synan’s paper. The ninth statement (AA 1973–9) takes over Mühlen’s main argument in making a ‘distinction […] between mystical experiences which are generally more oriented towards a personal communion with God, and charismatic experiences which are generally more directed toward the building up of the community and witness in 102

Bittlinger, ‘Water-Baptism and Spirit-Baptism’, 4–5. Quote from Synan, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit’, 197. 104 Bouyer, ‘Charismatic Movements’, 160. 105 Emmert, ‘A Neo-Pentecostal Reaction’, 3. 106 du Plessis, ‘The Historic Background of Pentecostalism’, 175. 103

116

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

mission’. The double relativization by the use of ‘generally’ and ‘more’ can be attributed to the discussion following his paper. Thesis ten (AA 1973–10) again points to the priority of love over gifts after stating that ‘[w]hatever charismatic gifts may be received by Christians, they should never consider others who do not have the same manifestations to be inferior Christians.’ This brings together two warnings by Fischer and Synan. Fischer warns against creating two ‘classes’ of Christians on the basis of Spirit baptism.107 Synan stresses that charismatic manifestations ‘do not prove the depth of one’s spirituality’.108 The eleventh statement (AA 1973–11) points to remaining ‘differences in the understanding of the relationship between regeneration, sanctification and the Pentecostal experience with the “initial evidence” of speaking in tongues,’ which ‘should be dealt with in future meetings’. These differences indicate a controversy within early Pentecostalism,109 which interestingly is only mentioned by a Catholic, de Monléon.110 The final statement (AA 1973–12) acknowledges the need ‘to study more deeply the relationship between the charismatic dimension and sacramental and ecclesial life’. That baptism in the Spirit is essentially integral to the rite of initiation, is argued for in the Catholic papers of Fischer and McDonnell and is clearly presupposed by Mühlen.111 The Pentecostals were critical of this perspective, certainly so in the case of infant baptism (cf. McTernan’s paper). The statement indicates that the next meeting would revolve around this question, as was decided in 1971. The Agreed Accounts ends with a conclusion (AA 1973-Con) that draws attention to ‘the growing extent and dimension of the Pentecostal churches and the charismatic renewal’. This had come to the fore in the closing discussion. It also states ‘that these movements could have profound repercussions on the renewal of the Churches and progress towards Christian unity’, which parallels the conclusion of Fischer’s paper.112

The Final Report of phase I Final Report I has a total of forty-six paragraphs, covering the discussions of the dialogue phase 1972–1976. Remarkably, the dialogue session of 1973 takes up only two paragraphs (FR I: 16–17), while having slightly influenced two other paragraphs (FR I: 12, 14: see AA 1973–4). This section aims at a genealogical analysis of FR I in relation to AA-1973. Not completeness is aimed at but a focused exposure of important continuities and discontinuities. In FR I:16, the statements AA 1973–1, AA 1973–5 and AA 1973–6 are clearly recognized, plus remnants of AA 1973–2 and AA 1973–11. The continuity between AA-1973 and this paragraph is obvious, but some changes need to be reconstructed to show their force. 107

Fischer, ‘The meaning of the expression “Baptism in the Spirit” ’, 8. Synan, ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit’, 202. 109 Cf. pp. 78–80. 110 De Monléon, ‘The Historic Background of the Pentecostal Movement’, 2–3. 111 Mühlen, ‘Mystery – Mysticism – Charismatics’, 12. 112 Fischer, ‘The meaning of the expression “Baptism in the Spirit” ’, 12. 108

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

117

In the first sentence, the attention for what happened ‘[i]n the early centuries of the Church’ (AA 1973–1) is combined with the historical continuity mentioned in AA 1973–2. It now opens to say that ‘[f]rom the earliest non-canonical texts of the Church there is witness to’ a certain understanding of Christian initiation. Thus, the emphasis replaced from its early occurrence to the continuity of the usage throughout church history. Contrary to AA 1973–2, however, no reference is made to churches that claim this continuity in their tradition, including the Roman Catholic Church. The next three sentences are based on AA 1973–5. The second sentence explicitly denies that the Holy Spirit would only be given to ‘those baptized in the Holy Spirit’. The third sentence changes the distinction between ‘the christian with the Pentecostal experience and the devout christian’ (AA 1973–5) to one between ‘a committed Christian without such a Pentecostal experience and one with such an experience’. This rephrasing better communicates the intended message. The fourth sentence contains another interesting shift of focus. While in AA 1973–5 diversity in religious experiences was linked to a different theological focus and expanded openness and expectancy, it is now attributed to the Spirit that apportions ‘as he wills in freedom and sovereignty’ (cf. AA 1972–5). The penultimate sentence of this paragraph generally communicates the content of AA 1973–6. In the rephrasing the emphasis is put on the Spirit rather than on his manifestations. In a final sentence, the theme of glossolalia is brought in, which in AA 1973 only appears once. Paragraph 17 of FR I brings together insights from statements 7–10 of AA 1973. Again continuity is strong but some reformulations and additions evidence farreaching shifts of emphasis. The first sentence of this paragraph regarding tensions during times of spiritual renewal is adapted from AA 1973–7. A clause is added, which claims that at such times, ‘charismatic elements are more manifest’. However, instead of indicating awareness of the tensions and expressing concern about it, FR 1:17 only states that tensions ‘can’ arise. The next three sentences are reminiscent of AA 1973–8. In contrast to AA 1973–8, the second sentence stresses the importance of the discernment of spirits in direct relation to times of spiritual renewal rather than the possible misuse of discernment to ‘exclude charismatic manifestations’. The acknowledgment that such misuse is a frequent reality is erased. Sentences 5 and 6 are the reflections of AA 1973–10. Christians with certain charismatic gifts are warned ‘never [to] consider others who do not have the same manifestations to be inferior Christians’ and add that the presence of such gifts ‘is not a sign of spiritual maturity’. Love is stressed as ‘the context in which all gifts are rightly exercised’ and ‘a more definite and primary order than the spiritual gifts’. The recognition that only God can judge the degree of one’s love (AA 1973–10) is eliminated. The final sentences of FR I:17 are an interesting rearrangement of AA 1973–9. While in AA 1973–9 charismatic experiences were said to be directed to ‘the building up of the community and witness in mission’, this direction is now a qualification

118

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

for ‘all the charisms’, be it ‘in varying degrees’. The distinction between mystical experiences and charismatic experiences is brought up only in a next sentence and their common features are given additional stress. The absence of two insights and agreements formulated in AA 1973 is noteworthy. First, AA 1973–3 indicated that the baptism of children is particularly problematic ‘in the Churches which separate in time water Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist’. This statement is simply absent in the Final Report.113 Second, AA 1973–11 pointed to conflicting views on the relation between regeneration, sanctification and baptism in the Spirit in early Pentecostalism.114 This internal discussion was not integrated in FR I either. In the discussions preceding the construction of the Final Report, Bittlinger reports that the Pentecostals were of the opinion that too many agreements were mentioned in the Agreed Accounts. To avoid misunderstandings from the Pentecostal World Fellowship, the Pentecostals thought that more opposition needed to be brought into the Final Report and more attention should be given to Pentecostal particularities, such as tongue speech.115 A comparison of the different AAs with the Final Report demonstrates that both elements were indeed taken up. Finally, AA 1973–12 signals the need ‘to study more deeply the relationship between the charismatic dimension and sacramental and ecclesial life’. Although the essential nature of this relationship was argued for and/or presupposed in the main Catholic contributions, it was not further discussed in phase I and consequently not taken up in a structured way in FR I.116

Conclusions A number of developments in phase I regarding dialogue method can be enumerated in conclusion. After three remarks on the practical organization of the dialogue, three elements from the described process from the 1973 papers to the Final Report follow. First, although the archives lack precision regarding the dialogue week schedules, it seems that the length of a dialogue session grew from the equivalent of four to the equivalent of six working days, each counting about 6.5 working hours.117 Second, the dialogue team wrestled with finding the right amount of papers to be presented each year. As the papers and responses were the basis for the discussion, it was essential that each partner had a fair input in every session. The amount of papers and responses gradually increased from five (1972) to nine in 1975. This seems due to the growing realization that there were actually three partners involved rather than two.

113

This topic was discussed again in phase V in the context of a dialogue on Christian initiation and conversion, and is reflected extensively in FR V:48–59, 160, 221–222. 114 See pp. 29–31 and pp. 75–80. 115 See, especially, Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 138–139. 116 Implicit references to the problematic relationship can be found in FR I:32–34. 117 In later phases, the length and day schedule of the sessions was extensively discussed. See infra.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

119

Third, the importance attached to spirituality was clear in the thematic focus on spirituality, as was agreed upon in advance. The dialogue week also provided a spiritual context with daily joint prayer moments and a shared worship service during or at the end of the week. While the precise process of the writing of the Agreed Account cannot be clearly traced from the information available, it is obvious that the papers were the main sources for the 1973 Agreed Account and the related section in the Final Report. Virtually all content collected in the statements could be attributed to particular papers. Jerry Sandidge’s contention that in the first phase ‘the Catholic side outweighed the Pentecostal side in scholarship and theological expertise’ is substantiated in the analysis.118 The Catholic papers and responses were theologically more refined, better structured and argumentatively stronger than the Pentecostal contributions. As Sandidge states, only Vinson Synan’s contribution ‘could be considered to be on a theological/historical par’.119 The Catholics clearly afforded the main building blocks for the composition of the AA. Some phrases can be attributed to input from the Charismatics, but nothing can be traced back specifically to Pentecostal contributions other than Synan’s paper. When comparing AA 1973 with the relevant passages in the Final Report, the selection of material and changes in nuance and emphasis again testify to a greater ability of the Catholics to have their viewpoints reflected. The Pentecostals were able to ensure that their own perspectives were fairly represented, but they were not the main architects of the reports and they seldom managed to have their criticism of the Catholic perspectives integrated in the Final Report. Still, they were very conscious of the differences between both traditions and were adamant that these needed to be stressed to ensure that fellow-Pentecostals would better understand the Final Report. Notably, in the course of the dialogue process the level of engagement attested to on paper developed significantly. The papers and responses of the Pentecostals, of most Charismatics, and of some Catholics demonstrate a strong personal commitment and strong opinions. Bittlinger’s summaries of the discussions show that personal experience and examples from daily life played a significant role and that emotional interactions were part of the group dynamics. This is evident in the Agreed Accounts, which mentions ‘stress’, ‘much concern’, ‘recognitions’, ‘underlining’, ‘need is felt’, ‘growing awareness’, etc. Such expressions of personal and emotional involvement are entirely absent in FR I:16–17. The Final Report is factually formulated and breathes distance and ‘objectivity’.

Phase II Before the beginning of the second phase of the IRCCPD, it was decided that the dialogue should continue with only representatives from the Roman Catholic Church

118 119

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 123. Ibid., 1: 122.

120

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

and the Classical Pentecostal movement.120 The second phase was again to last five years. Contrary to the first phase, the themes were not pinpointed beforehand, but some recommendations were made in the 1976 Steering Committee meeting.121 Each year, this committee met at the end of the session to decide on (tentative) dates, locations and topics for the following year.

Phase II: Dialogue process Phase II, Session 1 (1977) The amount of discussion topics was seriously reduced at the beginning of phase II. Only two subjects would be discussed per session, and each partner would prepare one paper on each. Consequently, the total amount of papers in a session dropped from nine in 1975 to four in 1977.122 For each paper one and a half hour was planned for reading and initial discussion, amounting to about one working day. Ample time was left for in-depth plenary discussion and the fifth work day could be entirely devoted to the writing and approval of an Agreed Account. In organization and method, the pattern of the first phase was generally continued. The 1977 session (and the sessions following) totalled about twenty-five work hours and involved daily joint prayer moments, two work sessions per day, and on one day a shared worship service.123 The 1977 dialogue session stands apart from the other four in this quinquennium, as the 1978 session was cancelled due to the sudden death of Pope John Paul I. Jerry Sandidge argues that this first session was a rather weak one, which is reflected in FR II, where its subjects only receive a few paragraphs (respectively paragraphs four and six). Sandidge explains the weakness by the absence of a number of key participants and the lack of a plan to pinpoint the major issues of the discussions.124

Phase II, Session 2 (1979) In preparation of the 1978 (1979) dialogue session, Kilian McDonnell proposed the re-introduction of ‘hard questions’ as had been used in the second preparatory meeting in 1971. McDonnell hoped that they would ensure that the dialogue would be kept alive and that important questions would not get overlooked.125 Each member would have to do some homework in advance, but this was not problematic as it was already customary that the participants would read the papers before each session. A few weeks before the 1979 meeting, each participant was expected to submit to his 120

See Ibid., 1: 180. Joint Steering Committee Meeting, Memo, 29 May 1976, SanColl. 122 All papers of the second phase are entirely taken up in the second volume of Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987. 123 For reasons unexplained, the schedules of the sessions of phase II differ in total accounted days. Probably the differences are due to whether or not the travelling days are counted in and/or special days. 124 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 187. 125 Kilian McDonnell to Basil Meeking, 6 November 1978, SanColl. 121

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

121

secretary five hard questions on each of the papers of the dialogue partner. A hard question was described by McDonnell as follows: A hard question is one which pushes hard (even too hard) on what the questioner sees as a deficiency, weakness, misreading of the scriptures, failure in theological method, attributing exaggerated importance to a given emphasis (it might be found in the scriptures but do they give it the same importance as one’s tradition does). Hard questions do not attempt to be fair.126

The hard questions were to be formulated in all boldness from within the own theological paradigm without seeking beforehand to do full justice to the dialogue partner’s theological framework. In other words, not fairness to the dialogue partner but the honesty of each participant to indicate what he deemed problematic was considered to be most important. The hard questions were well integrated in the 1979 dialogue week.127 After the four papers had been read and elucidated through discussion in one and a half day, each group sat together and selected four of the prepared hard questions for the other side to answer. Next, the questions were exchanged and each group withdrew again in caucus to formulate an answer to the hard questions they had received. Finally, the two sides came together again in plenary to discuss all questions and answers. The hard questions discussions took about a day and a half and were interrupted on the third day by an audience of the newly elected pope, John Paul II. On the last two days, three small (mixed) groups worked on drafts of Agreed Accounts on both topics under consideration and the press release.128 Jerry Sandidge notes that ‘the character of the agreed account is directly related to the hard questions that were asked on both sides. Thus they were helpful in not only “getting to the topic,” but also in providing some clarity on the agreements, disagreements, and concerns for additional study.’129 During the dialogue week, the Agreed Account could not be finalized. It is unclear how the finalization of the Agreed Account and of the press release was organized, but by the end of November, the Catholic secretary, Jerome Vereb, sent it to the Pentecostal secretary, William Carmichael.

Phase II, Session 3 (1980) As the hard questions had served well in the 1979 session, in 1980 all participants were asked again to prepare some pressing questions on the other team’s two papers.130 After the presentation and general discussion of the papers in the first two days, the

126

Kilian McDonnell to Basil Meeking, 6 November 1978, SanColl. There was a discussion by correspondence between McDonnell and McAlister on how the hard questions would best be used. In the end, McDonnell’s approach was introduced to the group. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 199f. 128 Ibid., 1: 206. 129 Ibid., 1: 207. 130 Report of the Joint Steering Committee meeting, 11 October 1979, SanColl. 127

122

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

groups split up and selected the most crucial hard questions as a basis for continuing discussion. These were chosen from the hard questions that had been prepared and the questions that had arisen during the paper presentations and discussions. Unlike in 1979, the questions were immediately and verbally discussed in plenary rather than having answers prepared in caucuses. The dialogue focused on the sensitive subject of the Lord’s Table and the hard questions ensured sharp discussions between the dialogue teams.131 As an unexpected effect of the hard questions, it became painfully clear how opinions diverged among the Classical Pentecostals present. The Catholic hard question of whether or not the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace provoked an internal controversy in the Pentecostal team. As the topics were not first discussed in caucus, ‘[t]he Roman Catholic delegation sat quietly while the inner-dialogue was in progress’.132 Afterwards, the Pentecostals appreciated this as an important lesson. The negative consequences were acknowledged as well. William Carmichael summarized that it had led to waste of time, lack of solidarity and loss of credibility with the Catholic delegation.133 Carmichael apologized for his personal share and suggested that the Pentecostal team should learn to ‘politely disagree, and point out the distinctive differences that some Pentecostals hold, without attacking one another’s sincerity, knowledge, character, or credibility’.134 Hereafter, diversities of opinion in Classical Pentecostalism were more readily admitted at the dialogue table and also in the official communications.135 Retrospectively, both teams evaluated this lively session as a successful venture.136

Phase II, Session 4 (1981) The disagreements in the 1980 session may have been serious, but they were only minor compared to the 1981 discussions following the papers on Mariology.137 Two days were spent discussing substantive issues related to the content of these papers. Consequently, only on the third day the papers on the second subject for that year were presented. Jerry Sandidge reported afterwards: ‘As time progressed it became apparent that it would be impossible to adequately treat hard questions raised by both topics – Mary and ministry. It was decided, therefore, to put the papers and hard questions on ministry aside and reread them in 1982 […].’138

131

The hard questions and the discussions of 1979 are summarized in Sandidge, Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 219–222. 132 Ibid., 1: 232. 133 Ibid., 1: 232–233 Reference is made to the memo of William Carmichael to the Pentecostal Steering Committee, s.d., DPColl. 134 William Carmichael to Pentecostal Steering Committee, memo, s.d., DPColl. 135 In FR I, only one small differentiation within Classical Pentecostalism was explicitly mentioned (FR I, 18). In FR II, the internal diversity was recognized in at least seven different instances: FR II: 36, 43, 45f., 70, 76, 79, 83. 136 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 230. 137 Details on the 1981 session can be found in Ibid., 1: 235–253. 138 Ibid., 1: 237.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

123

The hard questions served again as an excellent device to bring the discussions on the razor’s edge. No less than ten hard questions from the Pentecostals were handed over to the Roman Catholics, and vice versa. The subsequent discussion was largely an exchange of Pentecostal objections and Roman Catholic answers to various doctrinal questions regarding Mary, her role in the church and her relationship to Christ.139 One participant from each team served as recorder and made notes during the plenary sessions in view of the drafting of the Agreed Accounts. Notwithstanding the heated discussions, Pentecostal participants agreed afterwards that this was ‘the best dialogue yet’.140

Phase II, Session 5 (1982) Due to the postponement mentioned before, in 1982 about one working day was devoted to the papers and discussion regarding ‘Ministry in the Church’.141 As in the 1980 session, the questions were discussed in plenary rather than having answers written out. In his dissertation, Sandidge provides summaries of the discussions and argues that the hard questions from each side touched largely on the same issues.142 The days remaining were used for preparing the Final Report, but the team did not manage to finalize it in the time provided, so Sandidge explains.143 Leading up to the closing session, Kilian McDonnell and William Carmichael had prepared a draft of the Final Report in late spring 1982. During the final session, small groups reworked different sections including the new section on ministry, which were consequently discussed again in plenary. At the end of the session, the finalization of the Report was forwarded to the two secretaries, William Carmichael and Jerome Vereb, but this took longer than expected. In the last instance, the SPCU suggested some minor adaptations, which troubled the Pentecostals at first but were then positively received. The Final Report did not appear in print until February 1985.144

Phase II, Session 2 (1979): Analysis of the dialogue process Presenters for the 1979 papers had been appointed in the aftermath of the 1977 session and had ample time to prepare their contributions due to the aforementioned change of pontiffs.145 On the first topic, ‘the problem of interpreting Scripture’, the Pentecostal paper was prepared by Howard Ervin while William Dalton prepared the Catholic paper. On ‘the ministry of healing in the Church’, the Catholic paper was prepared by Charles Gusmer and Robert McAlister prepared the Pentecostal paper.

139

Ibid., 1: 202–206. Ibid., 1: 249. 141 See Ibid., 1: 254–263. 142 Ibid., 1: 256–260. 143 Ibid., 1: 263–265; Sandidge, ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 48. 144 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 265. 145 Ibid., 1: 192. 140

124

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

As discussed above, the week schedule of 1979 differed considerably from the 1973 session. After the reading and discussion of all papers, hard questions were selected, exchanged, answered and discussed. Finally, an Agreed Account was prepared, which became essential to FR II.146 All the documents that testify to the 1979 discussions and trace the development towards the Final Report of phase II are discussed below.

‘Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal option’147 (ChP) In his opening paper, Howard Ervin148 argued for a ‘pneumatic’ hermeneutic on the basis of a pneumatic epistemology, i.e. an epistemology ‘firmly rooted in the Biblical faith with a phenomenology that meets the criteria of empirically verifiable sensory experience (healing, miracles, etc.) and does not violate the coherence of rational categories’.149 This epistemology should posit ‘an awareness that the Scriptures are the product of an experience with the Holy Spirit which the biblical writers describe in phenomenological language’. This is best understood when one has encountered the Holy Spirit ‘in the same apostolic experience, with the same charismatic phenomenology accompanying it’.150 Ervin consequently pleads for a further programmatic development of a Pentecostal hermeneutic that builds on the movement’s insistence upon the experiential immediacy of the Holy Spirit.151

‘The composition, inspiration and interpretation of the Bible’ (RC) William Dalton’s paper is structured according to the three elements offered in the title.152 Regarding the composition of the Bible, Dalton states that ‘[f]rom the human point of view, [Scripture] has had a long and complicated history’.153 In answer to the question of the human authorship of the Old Testament, according

146

FR II consists of ninety-three paragraphs, twenty-three of which are based on the 1979 session. All papers of phase II are published in the second volume of Jerry Sandidge’s dissertation. For Ervin’s paper, see Jerry L. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982): A Study in Developing Ecumenism, vol. 2 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987), 100–121. It was also published as Howard Ervin, ‘Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option’, in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin Presented to Him by Colleagues and Friends on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985). 148 Howard Ervin (1915–2009) was a charismatic American Baptist theologian and served as professor at Oral Roberts University for over forty years. His scholarly focus was on pneumatology, and, while not a Pentecostal himself, he has participated in the IRCCPD in phases II (1979–1982), III (1985–1989) and II (1990). 149 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 2: 101. 150 Ibid., 2: 115–116. 151 Because of this published paper, Ervin is named ‘one of the first scholars actually to propose a Pentecostal hermeneutic’: John Christopher Thomas, ‘ “Where the Spirit Leads” – the Development of Pentecostal Hermeneutics’, Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education 30, no. 3 (December 2009): 290. 152 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 2: 122–145. William Dalton (1916–2005) was an Australian Jesuit priest and New Testament theologian specialized on 1 Peter. He has taught mostly at Jesuit institutes in Melbourne and Sydney and has been much involved in ecumenical affairs in his country and abroad. He participated four times in the IRCCPD in phase II. 153 Ibid., 2: 122. 147

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

125

to Dalton ‘perhaps the most adequate answer is that the people of Israel itself is the author’,154 while with regard to the New Testament, ‘[i]ts real human author is the primitive Christian Church’.155 When discussing biblical inspiration, a number of theories of inspiration pass in review but are all found wanting. Affirmatively Dalton states that God can be called the author of Scripture in the meaning of ‘cause’ or ‘founder’, which indicates ‘God’s special influence in the whole process of Scripture writing’.156 Regarding the interpretation of the Bible, Dalton insists ‘that critical studies do not undermine the Bible, but, on the contrary, clarify it’.157

‘The ministry of healing in the church’ (RC) Charles Gusmer158 describes spiritual healing as a very ‘contemporary and controversial topic among Christians’, both because of the attention given to it in Pentecostal–Charismatic circles and because of the revised Roman Catholic ‘Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick’ (1972), to which his paper frequently refers.159 Opening with a consideration of the phenomenon of human sickness in the light of faith, Gusmer calls attention to the biblical insight ‘that some intangible relationship exists between cosmic sin and sickness’.160 Next, Gusmer focuses on Jesus’ ministry to the sick. Rather than terming them miracles or wonders, Jesus’ multiple healing works are seen as eschatological signs of the kingdom. According to Gusmer, Jesus’ ministry to the sick is continued in his Body, the Church, through pastoral, charismatic and sacramental ministry. In a final section, Gusmer discusses the distinction between charismatic and sacramental healing. He explains that both are situated within the community of the Church, both employ similar gestures, and both are first and foremost prayer. A distinction is made on the basis of (a) their different modalities of prayer, (b) their place in the church, respectively reflecting more her incarnational and her pneumatological aspect, and (c) the expected results, charismatic healing generally intending a cure and sacramental healing aiming at a deeper conformation with Christ.

‘The ministry of healing in the church’ (CP) Robert McAlister’s paper is largely an overview of Pentecostal perspectives on healing placed in direct continuity with practices described in the New Testament.161 154

Ibid., 2: 123. Ibid., 2: 132. 156 Ibid., 2: 135. 157 Ibid., 2: 138. 158 Charles W. Gusmer (1938) is an American Catholic priest and author of numerous academic and professional publications. His specialization was sacramental ministry to the sick and the dying. He spent over twenty years on the faculty of Immaculate Conception Seminary (Huntington, NY) where he taught sacramental theology and liturgy. He participated in the IRCCPD only in 1979. 159 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 2: 146–162. Citation from p. 146. 160 Ibid., 2: 148. 161 Ibid., 2: 162–178 Robert McAlister (1931–1993) was a Canadian Pentecostal missionary to Brazil, where he founded and led for over thirty years Nova Vida, a mega-church in São Paulo, with an extensive televangelization ministry. He participated in the IRCCPD in phases I (1975–1976) and II (1977, 1979, 1982). 155

126

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

He claims that it is ‘no exaggeration to say that every Pentecostal church in the world is a Lourdes or Fatima where miraculous physical healings are a common occurance [sic.]’.162 McAlister focuses on the healing ministry of Jesus, which was ‘a part of the good news of redemption for sinful and suffering mankind’. Hence, ‘it is the conviction of every Pentecostal minister that part of his job is to bring divine healing to sick people’.163 McAlister tells the story of Philip in Samaria who combines proclamation of Christ with miraculous signs (Acts 8). In true restorationist fashion, he considers this ‘a description of a Pentecostal missionary evangelistic campaign’.164 Healing is considered a sign of the coming of the Kingdom of God, but ‘the gift of healing does not guarantee [the child of God] freedom from future pain and suffering’.165

The hard questions and answers on ‘Scripture and hermeneutics’ The archives of Jerry Sandidge demonstrate that a majority of the participants handed in their prepared hard questions at the beginning of the 1979 session. Sandidge’s collection contains a total of forty-three questions from six Pentecostals and twenty-one questions from three Catholics.166 The selection and (re)formulation of questions was done in separate caucuses and obliged the teams to select the topics considered most important to discuss. The Catholic team formulated four questions on Ervin’s paper, which largely brought together their prepared questions. The first question was ‘What is the relationship between the supernatural, the miraculous, and the Pneumatic?’ The Pentecostal response was short and added little insight by claiming that all three are manifestations within ‘the Spirit-matter-continuum’.167 The second question – ‘How does one judge between Christian groups who claim to be guided by the Spirit and who come to radically different interpretations of the Scriptures?’ – had been prepared by Dalton. The Pentecostal response was basically that structural collegiality and consensus were absent in the Pentecostal movement, but virtually all agree that the criterion for determining the meaning of a Biblical text is the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The third question – ‘Is the prevalent method of exegesis among classical Pentecostals affected by biblical fundamentalism?’ – vouched for a series of questions of Dalton and McDonnell. The Pentecostal response admitted to having 162

Ibid., 2: 166–167. Ibid., 2: 171. 164 Ibid., 2: 173. 165 Ibid., 2: 175. 166 Catholic questions were prepared by Barnabas Ahern, Kilian McDonnell and William Dalton. Pentecostal questions were prepared by Paul Schoch, Robert McAlister, John Mears, William Carmichael, Vinson Synan and Howard Ervin. See the collected Hard Questions to Howard Ervin’s paper, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl and the collected Hard Questions to William Dalton’s paper, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. For a summary, see Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 203–205. 167 For the Pentecostal answers, see Hermeneutics – Pentecostal answers to Catholic Hard Questions, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. 163

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

127

been influenced by fundamentalism, but hastened to add that ‘there is a new trend that is moving away from literalism toward our own unique Pneumatic Pentecostal exegesis’. The final Catholic question – ‘How can a “Pneumatic epistemology” escape the same subjectivity to which the New Hermeneutic is [said to be] open?’168 – was almost verbally prepared by McDonnell. The answer acknowledged that Pentecostals are as biased as everyone else, but added that they are open to adjusting their presuppositions ‘in the light of Scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit’ while not feeling bound ‘by the eighteenth to nineteenth century a priories of scientism’. Most of the prepared Pentecostal questions were very specific and directly related to a perceived ‘anti-miraculous bias’ in Dalton’s paper or to his emphasis on Scripture being the result of a ‘continuous process of literary composition’.169 Two of the three questions that were forwarded to the Catholics, however, were formulated in the caucus meeting and aimed at a deeper level. The first Pentecostal question was based on an attempt to put the other’s exegetical method in a pigeonhole in a way comparable to the third Catholic question. It was summarized by Sandidge as follows: ‘Is not the adoption of the German critical methodology an acceptance of the Old Antiochian exegesis that was emphatically rejected by the Council of Ephesus (431 AD)?’170 In response, the Catholics first explained that critical exegetical method is accepted in many traditions and is used in the Catholic Church with care and in combination with other methods. Next, it was stated that the Church ‘has never understood the condemnation of Nestorius as a condemnation of any exegetical method’. Finally, it was underlined that Roman Catholics read the Bible ‘set in the living tradition of the Church’.171 The second Pentecostal question – ‘Can you justify placing tradition on a par with Scripture and call it the Word of God?’ – was answered in two steps. First, Tradition was said not to be ‘a list of writings, but the living witness of the Spirit acting in the Church’. Second, Scripture and Tradition were said to come from one source of revelation, the latter being defined as the ‘total experience of the Church guided by the Spirit’. A third Pentecostal question was reminiscent of a number of questions prepared by Howard Ervin, Vinson Synan and Paul Schoch on the topic of biblical authorship. It read as follows: ‘How do you deal with the testimony of Scripture itself, e.g. explicit claims to Mosaic authorship in Paul’s claims?’ This question received the longest Catholic answer (195 words) in eight points, in which it was argued that Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is neither probable nor necessary. It is improbable as his death is described in it and different styles can be recognized. It is unnecessary as in ancient times authorship was attributed to give authority to a book and this was not seen as a lie. 168

Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 203. See the collected Hard Questions to William Dalton’s paper, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. 170 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 204. 171 Answers to Pentecostal Hard Questions on Hermeneutics, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. 169

128

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The hard questions and answers on ‘Healing’ Jerry Sandidge’s archives show that beforehand, five Pentecostals prepared a total of twenty-five questions to Charles Gusmer’s paper, while twenty questions were prepared by three Catholics to Robert McAlister’s paper.172 In the dialogue week, each team gave four questions for the other team to answer. The Pentecostal team dropped all questions they had prepared regarding terminology and regarding practical implications, but their four questions can all be directly related to other prepared questions. In the first question, the team wondered if the ministry of healing, either charismatic or sacramental, is generally perceived as an important aspect of parish ministry, and if so, why millions of Roman Catholics worldwide have left the church to seek healing elsewhere. The Catholic team answered the first part positively and explained thereafter the diversity of modes and functions of the healing ministry.173 Regarding the second part, it was admitted that ‘[i]n some parts of the Church there are nominal Catholics […] not fully evangelized.’ It was asked in return to what degree simple people have not just been attracted by the marvellous elsewhere and whether they have found the Healer behind the healing. Second, the Pentecostals asked whether the Catholics really had an expectation of divine cure. The question came from Synan’s list and was reminiscent of one of Carmichael’s questions. In answer, a prayer used in the rite of anointing was quoted, which expressed this expectation. Second, it was stressed that a sacrament is a prayer for Christ’s initiative, which is always heard and answered according to the will of God. The third Pentecostal question asked (in line with questions by Mears, McAlister and Carmichael) what the Catholic tradition teaches in reference to the authority of the lay believer regarding the laying on of hands for healing. In answer, the Catholics stressed that any baptized believer can pray over a sick person or minister to him as a member of the body of Christ. Anointing of the sick is considered a sacrament and must be done by an ordained priest. These acts should not be put in opposition as ‘it is the same Lord and the same Church acting in both ministries’.174 The final Pentecostal question was literally taken over from Paul Schoch’s preparations. On the basis of the assumption that Jesus’ healing ministry did not include social issues, it called into question Gusmer’s statement that ‘healing ministry encompasses unpleasant social issues’.175 The Catholic answer first questioned the

172

See the collected Hard Questions to Charles Gusmer’s paper, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl and the collected Hard Questions to Robert McAlister’s paper, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. Pentecostal questions were prepared by John Mears, Paul Schoch, William Carmichael, Vinson Synan and Robert McAlister. Catholic questions were prepared by Kilian McDonnell, Barnabas Ahern and Robert McAlister. 173 See, for this and the following Catholic answers, the collected Answers to Pentecostal Hard Questions on Healing, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. 174 From the Catholic answer to the third Pentecostal Hard Question on Healing, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. 175 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 2: 156.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

129

relevance of the assumption: ‘by what principle can one limit Christian behaviour to what Jesus did?’ Consequently it was argued that Jesus showed a pronounced social concern. He did not suggest a change in the social order, though, given his expectation of an imminent return. The Catholic team dropped their many prepared questions regarding Pentecostal interpretation of Scriptural texts related to healing and chose four questions directly related to Pentecostal theology of healing and pastoral praxis.176 The first Catholic question was essentially the counterpart of the fourth Pentecostal question and was based on concerns from Dalton and Ahern: ‘Should not a healing ministry be directed more toward the social injustices rather than the individual illness of persons?’ The Pentecostals answered that they are deeply concerned with social injustice but separate it from divine healing. Social injustice is seen as a result of sin. ‘When sin is adequately dealt with through the preaching of the Gospel, social injustice will be solved as a by-product.’ 177 Second, the Catholic team combined two questions of Kilian McDonnell and asked: ‘Is not a miracle-oriented ministry in danger of giving people demonstration of power while neglecting to feed them (spiritually) and to bring them to Christian maturity?’ In answer, the Pentecostals agreed with the Catholics that healing was in the ministry of Jesus both a sign of the present Kingdom of God and a demonstration of its power, and thus should be so in the Church today. It should certainly not be severed from teaching and discipling. The third question again combined two of McDonnell’s questions: ‘What role does redemptive suffering play in Pentecostal theology? […] How do Classical Pentecostals handle the cases of those who are sick, are prayed for, yet remain ill?’ The Pentecostals answered first by affirming the sovereignty of God in the matter of health and illness and by stating that suffering can bring about a deeper relationship with God and purification. One should, however, continue seeking God for healing unless one has received ‘a special revelation that God has some other purpose’. The final Catholic question was short and did not reflect any of the prepared questions: ‘What is the purpose of the gifts, with special reference to healing?’ The Pentecostal answer was equally short: ‘The purpose of the gift of healing is to heal the sick: to the world a sign of the Kingdom (Mark 1:14–15); to the Church a ministry of wholeness to the body (Eph. 4:11; 1Cor 12:25).’

Agreed Account 1979 The Agreed Account of the 1979 session was much longer than was usual in the first phase, counting approximately 1800 words. While neither the combined archives nor Jerry Sandidge’s dissertation offer information on the drafts of the Agreed Account, it is obvious in style and structure that the parts on hermeneutics and on healing were prepared by different drafting teams. In what follows, a genealogical analysis is provided by specifically pointing to papers and hard questions (and answers) that 176 177

See the collected Hard Questions to Robert McAlister’s paper, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. Pentecostal Answers to the Catholic Hard Questions on Healing, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl.

130

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

were at the origin of each statement. The paragraphs follow the original (illogical) numbering so that they can be easily referred to in the next subsections.178 The first part of AA 1979 (AA 1979-I) is entitled ‘The Composition, Inspiration, and Interpretation of the Bible’ and consists of five sections. The first section (AA 1979-I.1) deals with ‘Scripture and Tradition’. It opens with a paragraph containing general statements on inspiration in agreement (AA 1979-I.1.A), borrowing insights and formulations from Dalton’s paper.179 Next, the relation between Scripture and Tradition is discussed. Neither Ervin nor Dalton elaborates on this relation in their paper but the subject is discussed in response to the second Pentecostal question on hermeneutics. The RC perspective is presented first (AA 1979-I.1.B) and is strongly reminiscent of the Catholic answer to this question. The Pentecostal perspective (AA 1979-I.1.C) accentuates the single authority of Scripture but adds that its right interpretation requires the illumination of the Spirit, in line with Ervin’s paper and the Pentecostal answer to the second Catholic hard question. The final paragraph asks for further dialogue on Catholic doctrine, which goes beyond the letter of Scripture, such as the Assumption of Mary. This rephrases a hard question prepared by Robert McAlister, which was, however, not selected by the Pentecostal team.180 The second section (AA 1979-I.2) is entitled ‘Exegesis’. The first paragraph (AA 1979-I.2.A) clearly reflects Ervin’s paper. It posits the Pentecostal rejection of philosophical and theological principles of form criticism and redaction criticism and their insistence on the necessity of the light given by the Holy Spirit. Next (AA 1979-I.2.B), Catholics are said to equally reject these principles but to appreciate some of the methods as useful means to better understand Scripture. This reflects their answer to the first Pentecostal question. The final paragraph (AA 1979-I.2.C) admits that Pentecostal exegesis is rooted in fundamentalism and in a formative stage, reflecting the third Pentecostal answer. The third section, on ‘Discernment of Meaning’ (AA 1979-I.3), discusses how both traditions deal with conflicting interpretations of Scripture texts. The first and second Pentecostal questions and the second and fourth Catholic questions directed the discussions to this topic and key elements of the written answers are recognized in the paragraphs (AA 1979-I.3.A and AA 1979-I.3.B). Under the heading ‘Faith and Reason’ (AA 1979-I.4), it is stated in agreement that these elements cannot be polarized and that the natural and the supernatural work in harmony. It further is acknowledged that the Pentecostals put more emphasis on supernatural manifestations. Discussion on these word pairs was stimulated by the first Catholic question. A final section (AA 1979-I.5) concisely lists four points of agreement and two points needing clarification. 178

See Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 2: 179–185. See, esp. Ibid., 2: 133–137. 180 Question 4 of McAlister was: ‘Does the Roman Catholic teaching authority consider the revelation of the Scriptures to be incomplete, i.e. the assumption of Mary? And how do you consider our rejection of this dogma?’ See the collected Pentecostal Hard Questions to William Dalton’s paper, 8–12 October 1979, SanColl. 179

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

131

Part II on ‘the Healing Ministry of the Church’ counts nine paragraphs. The first paragraph (AA 1979-II.1) stresses that this ministry is practiced in both traditions and that the means of ministering is the same, although the Pentecostals disagree with the Catholic understanding of anointment as a sacrament. This section may be based on the discussions stimulated by the first and second Pentecostal questions. The emphasis given on healing of the whole man resonates McAlister’s paper.181 AA 1979-II.2 draws attention to the Catholic emphasis on pastoral care of the sick, in line with Gusmer’s paper.182 It is added that Pentecostals are becoming increasingly involved in this ministry. The third paragraph (AA 1979-II.3) discusses differences in expectation regarding healing, which brings to mind the second Pentecostal question. It also lists differences in approach, such as the Catholic appreciation of shrines and novena services when seeking healing (cf. Gusmer’s paper)183 and the Pentecostal teaching ‘to expect healing anywhere at any time’. The place of suffering in this life is discussed in AA 1979-II.4 as probed by the third Catholic hard question. Agreement on the pre-eminence of God’s will and the possible benefit of suffering for the believer is expressed. The explanation that Pentecostals continue to expect healing ‘unless there is a special revelation that God has some other purpose’ reflects the Pentecostal response. In the fifth paragraph (AA 1979-II.5) both Roman Catholics and Pentecostals acknowledge the existence of ‘a “folk religion” that often lacks sophisticated theological understanding’. The possibility of disputable healing practices within both traditions is hinted at in the first Pentecostal question and the consequent Catholic answer. In AA 1979-II.6, the Pentecostal disapproval of going to a shrine for healing is connected to a Catholic reserve in making judgements about miraculous manifestations and healings. The latter is brought up in the first Catholic answer. The former is not surprising in any way but has no precedence in the written sources of the 1979 session. Paragraph seven (AA 1979-II.7) admits that a wide gap exists between Catholics and Pentecostals concerning lay participation in the ministry of healing. It reformulates the Catholic answer to the third Pentecostal question including their sacramental understanding of anointment and adds a short description of Pentecostal praxis. In the eighth paragraph (AA 1979-II.8), the wide divergence concerning the reference to social injustice in the area of the healing ministry, as stressed by Gusmer and confronted in the fourth Pentecostal question and the first Catholic question, is explained, building on their respective answers. In closing, paragraph AA 1979-II.9 concisely lists different areas of agreement.

181

E.g., Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 2: 174. Ibid., 2: 156–157. 183 Ibid., 2: 157. 182

132

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The Final Report of phase II Final Report II has ninety-three paragraphs and about 7,000 words. The subjects of the 1979 session are taken up in paragraphs 18–40. They carry virtually the same headings as the Agreed Account. In what follows, the conclusions of a comparison between AA 1979 and the relevant paragraphs from FR II are presented with a focus on clarifications and changes. The first section on ‘Scripture and Tradition’ is taken from AA 1979 with only minor adaptations.184 The RC view on Scripture and Tradition is clarified by accentuating that ‘tradition is not a source of revelation separate from Scripture’ and dropping the suggestion of a common source. The Pentecostal view is also clarifying by pointing to their ‘reluctance to give [their] consensus a status of tradition’. In the paragraph suggesting further dialogue on ‘doctrines […] which go beyond the letter of Scripture’, it is explained that the Pentecostals feel this need. Under the heading of ‘Exegesis’, two short paragraphs reformulate the Catholic perspective on exegetical methods and a few clauses are added that present even more sharply the different viewpoints of the dialogue partners.185 The Roman Catholic team begins by positing the historical-critical method as ‘the accepted framework within which exegesis is done’. It is valued because it allows one to understand the author in his own context. The Pentecostals reject ‘the philosophical and theological principles of form and redaction criticism’ is because they ‘militat[e] against the plenary inspiration of Scripture’. While the Agreed Account points to ‘the Pentecostal insistence on the necessity of the light given by the Holy Spirit to understand the Word of God’ as ‘a valuable contribution to our dialogue’, now the discussion on the subject rather than this opinion is said to have been valuable. Hereafter, the Catholic belief in ‘the light of the Holy Spirit’ as ‘the ultimate principle of interpretation of Scripture’ is expounded. ‘Any exegetical method that would deny this’ is again rejected but it is added that critical methods are ‘necessary for a proper understanding’ and ‘compatible with a Spirit-inspired exegesis’. In contrast to the Agreed Account, the roots of the Pentecostal form of exegesis is said to be in ‘evangelicalism’ rather than in ‘fundamentalism’. When the paragraphs under ‘Biblical Inspiration’ are compared with the relevant passages from AA 1979, again only minor modifications are found.186 When the Catholics state that God is trusted to provide guidance of the Spirit in interpreting Scripture, it is added that this takes place ‘within the local body of believers’. Scripture passages considered relevant are included. Under the heading of ‘Faith and Reason’ both additions and reformulations are found when compared to the relevant passages from AA 1979, but they explain rather than add to or modify the respective positions.187 While agreeing on the fact that 184

Apart from some stylistic modifications, FR II:18 is an exact copy of AA 1979-I.1.A. FR II:19–21 clearly build on, respectively, AA 1979-I.1.B, AA 1979-I.1.C and AA 1979-I.1.D. 185 FR II:22 and FR II:24 are largely new paragraphs but cf. AA 1979-I.2.B. FR II:23, FR II:25, FR II:24 cf. AA 1979-I.2.A, AA 1979-I.2.C, AA 1979-I.2.B, respectively. 186 FR II:26–27 cf. AA 1979-I.3.A-B. 187 FR II:28 is based on AA 1979-I.4. For FR II:29 and FR II:30, cf. AA 1979.I.5.A, AA 1979-I.5.B, AA 1979-I.3.A.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

133

faith and reason cannot be polarized, FR II:28 adds that Pentecostals ‘place a greater emphasis upon pneumatic inspiration and supernatural manifestations, than on reason, for determining the limits and validity of religious knowledge’. In the list of basic elements of Christian faith on which both dialogue partners agree, ‘Trinity’ is added.188 When compared to AA 1979-II, the section in the Final Report on ‘Healing in the Church’ adds one paragraph and a few sentences, which help to clarify Roman Catholic teaching and praxis and emphasize agreements of the dialogue partners.189 It is added that ‘[i]n the Roman Catholic Church the sacrament of anointing of the sick was formerly named “extreme unction” ’ and that Catholics, besides ‘seek[ing] healing in sacramental rites, in healing services, novenas and similar forms of devotion’, go on pilgrimage to shrines where many ‘seek and experience a deepening of faith and a spiritual healing’. The explicit rejection of going to a shrine for healing by the Pentecostals is left out. In the paragraph on taking care of the sick, this Catholic strength is no longer contrasted with ‘the ministry of physical healing’, thus attenuating the differing emphases. Two statements that were first attributed to one dialogue partner are now said to concern both. Not only Catholics but also Pentecostals ‘exercise reserve in making judgments about miraculous manifestations and healings’ and ‘are aware of the existence of some popular religious expressions that may lack sufficient theological understanding’. The difference between Catholic and Pentecostal praxis in the ministry of healing is explained by adding that ‘Catholics, singly and in community, pray for the sick and with the sick’ while only the priest may administer the sacrament of the ‘Anointing of the Sick’. The different views on dealing with social injustice are introduced by the statement that ‘[i]n contemporary Roman Catholic theology the necessity for healing is applied to a broader spectrum of social ills.’ The Pentecostal perspective is shortened: ‘Though they believe exploitative conditions should be rectified they would emphasize the priority of direct evangelism, as the best means of effecting social change.’ Finally, in the list of areas of agreement, the joint confession of Christ as ‘anointer’ has been left out.

Conclusions The process from papers to Final Report II differs considerably from the process in the first phase. Again, the observations are limited as lines can only be drawn from one written source to another and insight into the oral discussions is lacking. Still, continuities and discontinuities could be clearly traced. In conclusion, two key changes in dialogue method and their influence on the dialogue process are indicated. First, as the number of papers was now limited to four, there was more time for a good discussion of each of the subjects. Consequently, in the Final Report each subject is dealt with in more detail and with more precision than in FR I. The dismissal of

188

This is especially noteworthy in light of the question as to the place attributed to Oneness Pentecostalism within the Classical Pentecostal movement. See pp. 29–31 and pp. 75–78. 189 FR II:31–32 cf. AA 1979-II.1–2. AA 1979-II.3–6 cf. FR II:33–36 but reordered. FR II:37 cf. AA 1979II.7. FR II:38 is largely new and introduces FR II:39 which is parallel to AA 1979-II.8. AA 1979-II.9 cf. FR II:40.

134

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Charismatic Protestants also facilitated the discussions as only one rather than three relations were to be accounted for. Second, the introduction of hard questions discussions in the dialogue week seriously affected the dialogue process. Seven consequences can be listed. First, as a consequence of the introduction of hard questions, the participants came better prepared to the sessions. A majority of the participants had prepared hard questions, which meant they had not only taken in the information in the papers but also had gone through a first process of critical reflection. Second, the hard questions served as a heuristic tool for pinpointing the main issues at stake for each dialogue partner. Immediately following the presentation and initial discussion of the papers, each team met in caucus to select and prepare hard questions for the other team. This brought the focus immediately on subjects deemed important and positions judged to be problematic. Both teams made ample use of the prepared questions but also formulated new questions together. Thus, the subjects that were to be discussed the rest of the week were singled out. Frequently, questions of both teams sought attention for the same issues. Third, the hard questions necessitated both teams to formulate balanced answers. On the basis of the 1980 session, one can argue that preparing responses in caucus is to be preferred over unprepared discussions in the plenary. The caucus sessions allowed each team to see and fairly reflect their inner diversity in the response. It seems that the Catholic team was more careful in writing down their positions and arguments. Some of the Pentecostal answers barely added clarity, others were very short. Fourth, the effects of the introduction of hard questions are also clear in the balanced Agreed Account with which the 1979 dialogue week ended. A large majority of its paragraphs and statements can be directly related to the hard questions sessions. The questions were always directed to the other team, but in the discussions following the caucuses apparently the positions of both teams were explained. In the discussion, divergent opinions were easily traced and agreements surfaced as well. Both were taken up in the Agreed Account. Fifth, while the focus in the papers was on theological argumentations, in the hard questions discussions the focus shifted to explanations of theological positions and questions of ecclesial praxis. Consequently, the Agreed Account gives few exegetical or dogmatic argumentations but rather provides agreements and disagreements in general perspectives and a view on the diversity in ecclesial practices. Sixth, the hard questions method allowed a levelling of the dialogue teams. The theological preponderance of the Catholics, which was noted in phase I, was still evident in the papers. The hard questions method, however, allowed each team to select focuses, tone and style of further discussion. In the words of Juan Usma Gómez, the method ‘puts the two fighters in the most equal way of acting’.190 Finally, in the finalization of the report of phase II, the teams were apparently quite satisfied with the results of the 1979 session. The continuity with AA 1979 is very 190

The insight that the hard questions method brought a form of levelling of the teams comes from Juan Usma Gómez: Interview by Jelle Creemers with Juan Usma Gómez, 18 July 2013, CrArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

135

strong. While at the end of phase I the need was felt to bring out more clearly opposing views, the hard questions had already largely done that now. In conclusion, it can be argued that the introduction of the hard questions method was the main reason for Cecil Robeck’s evaluation that ‘the quality of theological material that came from the second round of discussions […] is clearly better than it was in the first round of discussions.’191

Phase III Between the end of the second quinquennium in 1982 and the start of the third quinquennium in 1985, the Pentecostal steering committee met three times and the joint executive committee met twice.192 In these meetings, engagements to the dialogue were renewed and projections for the future were made. Regarding dialogue method, three decisions were made in view of further improvement of the dialogue’s theological quality.193 First, the use of hard questions would be continued as ‘[e]veryone agreed that this process had served the dialogue very well’. Second, theological papers should not exceed ten pages ‘to facilitate time in discussing […]’. Third, more depth in the dialogue was to be attained by a reduction of the number of themes handled in a single session from two to one.194 Consequently, the amount of papers was cut again to two per year, one from each side, dealing with the same subject.195 Paul Lee notes that ‘the third phase of the dialogue was more concentrated than the previous two’, thus suggesting that these measures were effective.196 As in phase II, the topics were not delineated beforehand. In 1984, it was decided that the 1985 session would deal with ‘the Communion of the Saints’.197 At the Joint Steering Committee meeting in 1985, the Roman Catholic side suggested that this subject should serve as overall theme of the quinquennium,

191

Robeck Jr., ‘Pentecostals and Christian Unity’, 336. The preparation of phase III is described in more detail in Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 377–381. The break was opted for to allow the results of the dialogue to reach the national and local levels. Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch. 193 Minutes of the Executive Core Committee meeting, 8 November 1983, SanColl. 194 The minutes mentioned above say that ‘two topics per session’ would be discussed. This was, however, argued against by McDonnell and reduced to one theme on which two papers were presented. See the letter of Kilian McDonnell to Jerry Sandidge, 3 August 1983, SanColl. Note that the ten-page rule was only practiced in 1985. Cf. Cecil Robeck to Jelle Creemers, email, 26 May 2014, CrArch. 195 A full list of all papers presented at the dialogue sessions, statements on the dialogue, agreed accounts and press releases is provided in the bibliography. 196 Lee, ‘Pneumatological Ecclesiology’, 37. 197 Different minutes and interpretations of the Joint Steering Committee meeting make unclear how the selection of the theme for 1985 came to be finalized. See Minutes of the Executive Steering Committee meeting, 5 May 1984, DPColl; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Plenary Meeting, 5 May 1984, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, 18 July 1984, SanColl; Basil Meeking to Jerry Sandidge, 1 August 1984, SanColl. David Cole’s interpretation can be found in Cole, ‘Pentecostal Koinonia’, 114–117. 192

136

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

to which the Pentecostals agreed.198 The Final Report signals that the selection of koinonia as overarching theme was not surprising for two reasons. First, it ‘emerged from the portions of the discussions in the second phase of dialogue which had centered on Mary’.199 Second, the larger ecumenical scene was also viewing the topic of communion with interest and expectation.200 Remembering the explicit initial intentions of the Pentecostal participants not to deal with unity or ecclesiological questions, Lee states that in this phase ‘[w]ith the specifically ecclesiological discussions […], the Pentecostal–Catholic dialogue came closer to the mainstream of the ecumenical discussion.’201 Afterwards, the theological quality of FR III was praised by Catholic and Pentecostal participants and observers.202

Phase III: Dialogue process After phase II, the dialogue method was largely fixed and developments were slower and of a different kind. Therefore, issues regarding dialogue method in phases III–V are discussed thematically per phase rather than annually.

Improvements regarding Pentecostal preparations of the dialogue sessions In the preparations of phase III, the Pentecostal team took two initiatives to better prepare its participants for the dialogue sessions. First, as new secretary of the PSC Jerry Sandidge prepared each year a ‘notebook of items for dialogue participants (and observers)’, containing information on the history of the dialogue (including FR I and FR II), some guidelines for dialogue, a bibliography with required, suggested, and related reading, and the dialogue papers with instructions.203 This notebook was sent out more than a month beforehand and was to be brought to the dialogue week. It soon became an important source of information for the Pentecostal participants. This habit of sending a package of relevant literature to prepare the participants was later taken over by Cecil Robeck.204 198

See the minutes of the Dialogue Executive Committee meeting, 23–25 May 1985, SanColl; Minutes of the Meeting of the Pentecostal/Catholic Dialogue, 21–26 May 1985, SanColl; Minutes of the Dialogue Executive Committee Meeting, 26 June 1985, SanColl. The fact that themes were selected at an annual basis instead of beforehand is exemplified in a memorandum from Jerry Sandidge to the PSC, 10 September 1986, SanColl. 199 FR III:7. 200 FR III:7. See, for a historical overview of the use of koinonia in ecumenical theology and dialogue, Cole, ‘Pentecostal Koinonia’, 9–76. 201 Lee, ‘Pneumatological Ecclesiology’, 37. 202 See Miroslav Volf to Cecil Robeck, 12 September 1989, SanColl; Interview by Jelle Creemers with Juan Usma Gómez, 18 July 2013, CrArch; Robeck Jr., ‘Specks and Logs’, 81. Cf. Hunter, ‘Sketches of Perspectives on Koinonia’, 161. 203 Jerry Sandidge became secretary of the PSC just after the completion of phase II: Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 275–276. A notebook was prepared all through phase III except for the final session in 1989 ‘since there are no papers being given’ (Jerry Sandidge to Pentecostal Dialogue Team, 29 March 1989, SanColl). Different notebooks and tables of contents thereof can be found in the SanColl. 204 Cecil Robeck continued this habit in the fourth phase. In phases V and VI, when the dialogue teams were more stable, Robeck only sent it a package of relevant literature at the beginning of each phase. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 19 July 2013, CrArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

137

Second, the PSC institutionalized in 1985 a Pentecostal Delegation Meeting to take place on the day prior to the start of the dialogue session.205 This preparatory meeting was afterwards evaluated as ‘very successful’ and remained an essential element of the dialogue.206 The day served three purposes. First, it was used as an information moment to explain to newcomers the peculiarities of ecumenical dialogue, to introduce them to contemporary Roman Catholicism, to put the coming dialogue session in its historical context, and to go over the papers together.207 Second, it was considered important for the Pentecostal team to get acquainted, as Jerry Sandidge explains, ‘because many of our delegates do not know each other’.208 Third, it was considered essential for the spiritual preparation of the dialogue meeting: ‘We need […] some moments for prayer and inviting the Holy Spirit to lead us.’209 The Pentecostal Delegation Meeting took (the equivalent of) a working day and was entirely in the hands of the Pentecostal Steering Committee.210 It remained an important element of the dialogue sessions after phase III, but it was not always possible to have all participants come a day earlier for these preparations.211

Changes in the organization of the dialogue sessions In the course of phase III, two discussions took place regarding the organization of the dialogue week, both triggered by the extraordinary 1986 session. As this session was organized by the Pentecostals in Los Angeles, CA, they had many ideas to give visibility to the dialogue meeting. Some suggestions were accepted by the Catholics, such as the huge amount of Pentecostal participants and observers expected, 18 in total.212 Two of the suggestions, which concerned the use of time, led to discussion and renewed emphases in the organization of the dialogue week. First, a discussion arose regarding ‘special events’ that were organized during the dialogue week. The Pentecostal team planned a number of events in 1986, including a worship service at the famous Foursquare Gospel Headquarters Church ‘Angelus Temple’ followed by a lunch there with key leaders of the denomination, a visit to Fuller Seminary for the morning chapel service followed by a lunch with the president, and a ‘short historical tour of Pentecostal sites’.213 This led to concern 205

Its installation was decided upon in the PSC meeting of February 1984: Sandidge, ‘Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue’, 52. 206 Jerry Sandidge to William Carmichael, 17 June 1985, SanColl. 207 See, e.g. Jerry Sandidge to Pentecostal Dialogue Team, s.d., 1988, SanColl. 208 Jerry Sandidge to John Radano, 30 June 1987, SanColl. 209 Jerry Sandidge to John Radano, 30 June 1987, SanColl. 210 See Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Emmetten, Switzerland: Pentecostal Delegation Meeting, 20 August 1988, SanColl. See, for a day schedule, the attachment to the Pentecostal Delegation Meeting, 20 August 1988, SanColl. Robeck indicated the latter: Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 16 July 2013, CrArch. 211 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 16 July 2013, CrArch: ‘I would be willing to have an extra day every year but I can’t get people to spend the money to do that. […] Some places are easier than others. […] So it’s been more hit and miss. But when I look at it and I say “we really need to have this” then we just go ahead and do it.’ 212 See pp. 55–57. 213 Jerry Sandidge to Basil Meeking, 28 January 1986, SanColl.

138

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

from both Basil Meeking and Kilian McDonnell and a reminder ‘that our most important work is to have time to discuss the papers and dialogue at a significant theological level’.214 Sandidge agreed that ‘[w]orship services, tours, and luncheons are good but must not cut too deeply into our work schedule’.215 The time schedule was adapted into making the historical tour an optional filling of the afternoon break. Every following year, the team limited itself to just one special event organized on an afternoon somewhere mid-week in addition to the already established joint worship service on Sunday morning.216 A few times in phase III, a short meeting with a church leader was organized as well. In 1989 this had the form of an audience of Pope John Paul II.217 Second, throughout phase III the work schedule of the annual sessions was reconsidered. Because of the special activities planned for 1986, Jerry Sandidge proposed to work longer on some of the other days by including evening work sessions.218 This suggestion was convincingly argued against by Kilian McDonnell and Basil Meeking and no evening sessions were planned in 1986.219 The total work time in the work schedule amounted to 24.5 hours, slightly less than the 27 hours of the 1985 session. The discussion was, however, not closed. In 1987, it was agreed that evening sessions could be added to the programme if necessary. This option was already used on the first day by the Pentecostal group, which met to continue their work on the hard questions. From the third day on, the evening sessions were fully used, lasting sometimes until 10:00 pm.220 It seems not all were convinced of the benefit of these long days as evening sessions were absent in the 1988 programme and communications. The total work time in the week schedule, however, rose slightly to 30.5 hours spread over the six full days.221 This was apparently considered workable, as the week schedule of the final year 1989 also had only sessions during the day and a total work load of close to thirty-one hours.222 Evenings were, however, used for writing sessions. As this was the last meeting of the quinquennium, especially Miroslav Volf and Hervé Legrand (and in final instance John Radano) worked long hours to get the Final Report as coherent as possible by the end of the week.223

214

Kilian McDonnell to Jerry Sandidge, 15 March 1986, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to PSC, memorandum, 19 March 1986, SanColl. 215 Jerry Sandidge to PSC, memorandum, 19 March 1986, SanColl. 216 See Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Third Meeting Proposed Agenda, 1–8 August 1987, SanColl; Press Release of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, 20–27 August 1988, SanColl; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Week Schedule, 2–9 September 1989, SanColl. 217 Press Release of the 1989 Dialogue session, Information Service 72 (1990/I), 1. 218 Jerry Sandidge to Basil Meeking, 28 January 1986, SanColl. 219 Kilian McDonnell to Jerry Sandidge, 15 March 1986, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to PSC, memorandum, 19 March 1986, SanColl; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue 1986 Daily Work Schedule, s.d., SanColl. 220 Jerry Sandidge Personal Diary of the 1987 Dialogue meeting, 1–8 August 1987, SanColl; Minutes to the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, 7 August 1987, SanColl. 221 Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Emmetten, Switserland: Daily Schedule, s.d., SanColl. 222 Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Week Schedule, 2–9 September 1989, SanColl. 223 Miroslav Volf to Cecil M. Robeck, 12 September 1989, RobArch; Miroslav Volf to Jelle Creemers, email, 20 February 2013, CrArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

139

Continued use of the hard questions method In phase III, the dialogue teams again made use of hard questions to deepen the discussions after the paper presentations. As in phase II, the hard questions sessions proved useful, in Jerry Sandidge’s words, ‘to get to the “gut issues” of the discussion at hand’.224 In the eyes of a first-time observer, ‘[t]he discussions were very frank but held in a most courteous manner’.225 The growing importance of the hard questions discussions in the dialogue week can be demonstrated not only from the week schedules, which show that at least two full days per dialogue session were now attributed to the hard questions discussions,226 but also from the written resources of the meetings. In phase III, instead of working towards a short document with carefully crafted agreed conclusions, summaries of the whole dialogue week were collected, leading to cumulative packages of each session of at least twelve pages. They included summaries of the substantial discussion after the papers, summaries of the hard questions and answers, and summaries of the discussions that followed, written by two recorders, one from each team. This led to different forms of Agreed Accounts. In 1985, the whole culminating package of summaries was entitled ‘Agreed Account’. Of the 1986 session, all summaries were collected but no document was entitled ‘Agreed Account’. In 1987 and 1988, the Agreed Account was a rather long list of concise and basic agreements, disagreements, convergences and areas for further study, which were met along the way, and which accompanied the summaries.227 As the minutes and Agreed Accounts were written throughout the week and as they did not involve careful and nuanced conclusions, there was more time for the hard questions discussions. This implied, however, that more work was needed to arrive at a careful and balanced Final Report at the end of the phase. This is discussed below.228

Continued attention for a spiritual framework The dialogue meetings continued to take place in an established spiritual framework, which is clarified in the archives of phase III. Every morning each team met separately for a religious service, which for the Catholics took the form of a Mass and for the Pentecostals was a time of worship and prayer.229 At the opening and closing of each

224

Jerry Sandidge to Pentecostal delegation, 15 June 1987, SanColl. Gordon Hills, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Venice Report, 9 September 1987, SanColl. 226 Apart from the week schedules, also the minutes of the meetings substantiate this claim. See also Hugh Edwards, ‘Information and Evaluation of Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, 24–30 May 1986’, SanColl. 227 Agreed Account, 2–7 August 1987, SanColl; Agreed Account, 21–26 August 1988, SanColl. The latter AA was a list of more than ten pages of usually concise one-sentence statements. 228 See p. 140. 229 See the proposed agenda for the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Third Meeting, 1–8 August 1987, SanColl. The Catholic morning mass has taken place all throughout the dialogue phases I–V. Most probably only in phase III, this was mirrored consistently by a Pentecostal religious meeting, under the influence of Jerry Sandidge. Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. 225

140

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

working day, a joint time for spiritual encounter was organized, in which Catholic and Pentecostal participants took roles to provide for short devotionals. The 1988 schedule explained that the opening devotionals were to be limited to a maximum of ten minutes, while closing devotionals should not exceed five minutes. It is highly unlikely that these limits were kept.230 On Sunday mornings, the groups participated jointly in either a Catholic Mass or a Pentecostal worship service. On the last day usually a joint service was organized.231 The importance of this attention for joint experience of spirituality is underlined by different participants.232

The writing of the Final Report As in the previous quinquennia, again four meetings with papers and discussions and a fifth meeting for writing the Final Report were planned. Contrary to the previous phases, all topics could indeed be discussed in the first four sessions. This may well have been due to the limited time spent in the sessions to draft carefully written and balanced Agreed Accounts.233 As a consequence, however, the Final Report could not be finalized in the 1989 session. It was planned that a first draft of the FR would be prepared beforehand, but it is not clear from the archives if this really was done.234 During the final dialogue session, drafts of the different chapters were written by mixed teams. Hervé Legrand and Miroslav Volf were most productive in this regard. They would write sections, which were first discussed in caucus meetings and then again in plenary.235 This exercise was apparently difficult, leading at times to disappointment and frustration. At the end of the week, Volf thought that both sides again needed to carefully scrutinize the document.236 The Steering Committee plus key participants from each side continued working on it the following summer in Engelberg, Switzerland, prior to the 1990 Dialogue session.237 After a final brush-up, the Final Report was presented to the plenary in Emmetten and approved.238

230

Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Emmetten, Switserland: devotional schedule, s.d., SanColl. The improbability of these time limits being kept is based on schemes of these meetings which usually implied prayer, singing and a short meditation. 231 See, e.g. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue 1986 Daily Work Schedule, s.d., SanColl; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Week Schedule, 2–9 September 1989, SanColl. A special commemoration service for David du Plessis was organized in 1987. 232 This was particularly stressed in interviews. E.g. interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch; interview by Jelle Creemers with Maria Ko, 18 July 2013, CrArch. 233 See p. 139. 234 Jerry Sandidge to Pentecostal Delegation, 29 March 1989, SanColl. 235 Miroslav Volf to Jelle Creemers, email, 4 June 2013, CrArch; Miroslav Volf to Jelle Creemers, email, 22 June 2013, CrArch. 236 Miroslav Volf to Cecil M. Robeck, 12 September 1989, RobArch. 237 John Radano to the Joint Steering Committee, 23 March 1990, SanColl; Jerry Sandidge to Justus du Plessis, 26 April 1990, SanColl; John Radano to Cecil Robeck, 13 June 1990, SanColl. 238 The brush-up was done by Cecil Robeck and John Radano. John Radano to Cecil M. Robeck, 9 November 1990, SanColl. For the publications, see Information Service 75 (1990/IV), documentation supplement and ‘Perspectives on Koinonia’.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

141

Phase III, Session 2 (1986): Analysis of the dialogue process The second session of phase III dealt with ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament View of Communion.’ After the presentation of the Catholic paper by Heribert Mühlen and the Pentecostal paper by Cecil Robeck, discussion followed. Next, the teams split up to prepare the hard questions for the other team in caucus, exchanged them, answered them on paper, and discussed them in plenary. No Agreed Account was written but minutes of all the plenary sessions and the hard questions and answers were kept.

‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament vision of koinonia’ (CP) Cecil Robeck made his entry into the dialogue by presenting this paper.239 While giving attention to systematic theology and church history, Robeck’s line of thought starts from and time and again returns to biblical theology.240 In his first part, Robeck seeks to understand the meaning of koinonia in the New Testament. Drawing mainly from the Pauline epistles and integrating fragments from 1 John, he argues that ‘koinonia is a work of God which comes from God. […] It has both vertical and horizontal dimensions which may be distinguished but not separated.’241 Next, Robeck discusses how koinonia should be manifested. He begins with the individual and the local church and builds up to the universal level, stressing the divine initiative for the genesis of the Church.242 In the third section, Robeck asks in true Pentecostal fashion what koinonia has to offer to the subject of Gospel witness. Robeck stresses that in her calling to the service of the world, the church must be recognizable.243 In his final section, he explains how the overlapping of the visible and the invisible church in NT times has led throughout church history ‘perhaps inevitably to an ecclesiology of visible and invisible Church.’244 In conclusion he summarizes his position: ‘Communio […] should be understood first as the experience provided by the Spirit which places those whom God has called into relationship with God through Jesus Christ. As such, its invisibility is assured. Yet, insofar as the visible Church is composed of those persons who have experienced this communio, it gains visible, structural support.’245

239

Cecil M. Robeck, Jr, (1945) is an American who has served as Professor of Church History and Ecumenics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena (CA), for thirty years, and an Assemblies of God minister. He has published on the early church and on early Pentecostal history, and has represented the Classical Pentecostal movement in the IRCCPD and many other ecumenical forums since 1985. He is chairman of the PSC and has served as co-chair of the dialogue since 1992. 240 Cecil Robeck, ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia’, 24–30 May 1986, DPColl. 241 Ibid., 7. 242 Ibid., 13. 243 Ibid., 17. 244 Ibid., 22. 245 Ibid., 24.

142

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

After the paper, discussion followed.246 In opening, ‘the Pentecostal participants affirmed the need for [the] aspect of visibility to be given greater emphasis in their tradition’. Howard Ervin drew attention to the roots of koinonia in the Septuagint. John Haughey (RC) argued that the perspective on koinonia as objective reality given by God or as subjective expression of a communal experience of God largely determines one’s ecclesiology. Heribert Mühlen questioned the contrast between visibility and invisibility read into the NT text. In answer to a question by Hervé Legrand, Robeck explained that for some Pentecostals institutional ecclesiastical structure is ‘nothing less than a tool of the Antichrist’. A short discussion followed on the benefit or loss of the Catholic charismatic renewal when confronted with authorities who do not share in the experience themselves. Finally, it was stressed that koinonia also involved sharing of material goods.

‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament View of Communion’ (RC)247 In his well-structured paper, Heribert Mühlen works from biblical and constructive theology towards a charismatic understanding of the church and its practical consequences. He formulates his basic thesis as follows: ‘The Holy Spirit enters our human language in the person word (personal pronoun) “we”. In the Trinity he is one person out of and in two persons (out of and in the Father and the Son), in the Church he is one person in many persons (in Christ and in the members of the Church).’248 The rest of his paper discusses this in three main sections. Mühlen opens his first section with a Scriptural argumentation for understanding the Trinity as ‘communion in the Spirit’. Mühlen emphasizes that, in contrast to human communion, ‘the unity of the divine persons is something that precedes their difference’.249 In his second section, Mühlen argues with references to Lumen Gentium and Orientalium Ecclesiarum that the post-conciliar understanding of the church is founded on pneumatology. Mühlen posits that ‘Church as a communion in the Spirit can be described both on the basis of the concrete domestic church and on the basis of the Universal Church. Neither of these two aspects must be absolutized, for they complement and interpenetrate each other.’250 In his final section, Mühlen pleads for two dimensions of the action of the Holy Spirit in the church: the horizontal in the continuity of word, sacrament, and ministry in the Church, and the vertical in the ‘ever new experience of the event of Pentecost and therefore also the gifts of the Spirit’.251 They should not be separated, lest schisms and new churches and confessions will follow. He closes by explaining that ecumenical communion in the Spirit should bring Christian traditions to selfdiscovery, aperture and reception.

246

The archives provide only fragmented summaries of these discussions: ‘First Plenary Session RC/ Pen Dialogue’, 25 May 1986, DPColl. 247 Heribert Mühlen, ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament View of Communion’, DPColl, 46p. 248 Ibid., 2. Underlining is in the text. 249 Ibid., 11. Underlining in the text. 250 Ibid., 24. 251 Ibid., 26.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

143

In the plenary discussion following the paper,252 Mühlen denied that the Holy Spirit is only present in churches legitimately constituted and repeated that schism is always due to an overemphasis and to sinfulness on both sides. Different questions related to Mühlens Trinitarian ecclesiology. Miroslav Volf argued that Mühlen’s paper contained a paradox in combining a Trinitarian pneumatology and ecclesiology with a Christologically based distinction of clergy/laity. John Radano responded that ‘a Trinitarian development of ministry does not necessarily exclude a special role for the priestly ministry’. John Redford and Heribert Mühlen added that the Trinitarian model is but one way to present an ecclesiology. Finally, again discussion on the development of the Charismatic renewal in the Catholic Church emerged.

Continuing plenary discussions The two paper sessions were followed by two plenary sessions of continuing discussion. Again, the minutes list only key contributions.253 The discussion was opened by Cecil Robeck. He outlined Aimee Semple McPherson’s restorationist perspective on church history while adding that some Pentecostals ‘would rather see a rich heritage of continuity of grace transmitted through the historic church’. In response, John Haughey (RC) stressed that the way a renewal movement sees itself is very important in the pursuit of unity. Basil Meeking pointed to the tension between holiness and sinfulness in the church, which is always admitted in the Catholic view but apparently contrary to McPherson’s view. Del Tarr (CP) brought in that in schisms, responsibility always lies on both sides. McDonnell stressed that the church is always God’s people, even if holiness and sin concur. The discussion was brought to the issue of experience by Heribert Mühlen, who stated that personal experience is always conditioned by the historical experience of the greater group. Howard Ervin picked up this theme again later to point out Pentecostals and the Reformers ‘agreed on “God’s Scripture” as the ultimate validating authority over and above personal experience’.254 The role of the Pentecostal movement in church history was discussed as well. Robeck wondered whether the movement had not outlasted its usefulness as a separate sect, since the renewal movement has influenced much of the historic church. While Miroslav Volf (CP) questioned Robeck’s use of the term ‘sect’, Justus du Plessis (CP) argued that ‘each new Pentecostal grouping should […] interpret itself […] as a renewal of that church which was founded once and for all.’ The fourth plenary session discussion focused entirely on the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper. Howard Ervin opened by pointing to the Catholic understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as ‘the point which prevents “full communion” ’ between them. Basil Meeking replied that the question of apostolic order is

252

Fragments of this discussion are found in the archives: ‘Second Plenary Session RC/Pen Dialogue’, 26 May 1986, DPColl. 253 See ‘Third Plenary Session RC/Pen Dialogue’, 27 May 1986, DPColl and ‘Fourth Plenary Session RC/ Pen Dialogue’, 29 May 1986, DPColl. 254 ‘Third Plenary Session RC/Pen Dialogue’, 27 May 1986, DPColl.

144

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

another issue. David du Plessis asked why some ‘Roman Catholics […] who are not properly initiated’ are permitted to eucharistic koinonia, while ‘true believers such as Pentecostals [are] excluded’. In response, McDonnell first acknowledged that in such situations evangelization was needed. He further emphasized the ‘sacramental linkage between the churches which underscored the necessity of not only Eucharistic faith but church life as a prerequisite to “full communion”. ’ On Earl Paulk’s (CP) question of how the Catholics viewed Pentecostal communion, John Redford (RC) answered that he believed ‘there was a meeting with the risen Lord, despite Roman Catholic problems concerning the validity of the act’. Basil Meeting quoted in this connection Unitatis Redintegratio 22. Both Dell Tarr (CP) and Helen Rolfson (RC) acknowledged ‘pain of non-participation’, but participants from both sides also stated that they could not in good conscience participate in the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper of the other tradition because this would imply an acceptance of its faith and order.

Hard questions and answers After the plenary discussions, both teams withdrew in caucus to formulate hard questions. Three questions from each side were exchanged and again in caucus answers were written out.255 The Pentecostal answers were very short, totalling less than 1.5 pages.256 The Catholics provided more detailed answers of 1–4.5 pages each.257 The first Catholic question was built on Robeck’s claim that the visible and the invisible aspects of the church cannot be separated. It was asked in how far ‘this may affect […] one’s idea of church order as not just human organisational structure, but as a spirit-filled visible phenomenon manifesting the presence of the incarnate Christ.’ In response, the Pentecostals acknowledged that ‘[k]oinonia exists at the point of intersection and interpenetration between the invisible and the visible’, thus almost verbally quoting Mühlen. Structure was appreciated when it ‘allows for mutuality and participation, and makes room for the immediate intervention of the Holy Spirit […]’, but not ‘when structures exclude the possibility for the spontaneous inbreaking of the Holy Spirit on all levels of church ministry.’ Moreover, it was said that ‘[t]he Holy Spirit […] can use [a] great diversity of structures’. Second, the Catholics asked whether in Pentecostal perspective the horizontal dimension of koinonia ‘includes the historical dimension so that the present church has an essential koinonia with the church of the past […]’. In response it was recognized that the horizontal includes the historical dimension. It was added that 255

Again all participants were asked to prepare hard questions beforehand: Jerry Sandidge to Pentecostal participants, memorandum, 8 April 1986, Sandidge Archives. The prepared hard questions are absent from the archives at disposal. 256 For the Catholic hard questions, see ‘Hard Questions – Roman Catholics’, 27 May 1986, SanColl. For the Pentecostal answers, see ‘Pentecostals’ Response to Hard Questions from Roman Catholic team’, 28 May 1986, SanColl. 257 For the Pentecostal hard questions, see ‘Hard Questions to Roman Catholics – Pentecostal Team’, 27 May 1986, SanColl. For the Catholic answers, see ‘Answer to Question One. Roman Catholic Team Response’, 29 May 1986, SanColl; ‘Roman Catholic’s Response to Hard Questions from Pentecostal Team – Answer to Question Two’, 28 May 1986, SanColl; ‘Answer to Question Three. Roman Catholic Team Response’, 27 May 1986, SanColl.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

145

‘the present Church does not have the essential koinonia with the Church of the past by virtue of her historical/visible dimension but by virtue of the judging and/or blessing presence of the sovereign Spirit of God in her’. Third, the Catholics asked the Pentecostals to clarify their understanding of the relationship between the experience of the Spirit, its interpretation and the Pentecostal doctrinal understanding. In response, it was stated that ‘[h]istorically the experience of the Spirit comes first, but never stands in isolation from reflection upon the authoritative Scriptures’. As ‘a supra-rational way of apprehending the immediacy of the Spirit engaging the entire person’, experience is considered an indispensable ingredient to a Pentecostal epistemology. A reciprocal relationship was seen between the experience of the Spirit and the ongoing process of reflection. The first Pentecostal question was based on Mühlen’s paper: ‘Does the Roman Catholic paradigm acknowledge the legitimacy of our […] differences?’ And if so, the question continued: ‘what viable suggestions does [it] provide for the restoration of Koinonia?’ In response, the category of communion was considered helpful in this regard: ‘We are already in […] incomplete communion [and] aspire to be in full communion.’ The hope was expressed that both partners would come to see what the Pentecostal churches have to add to ‘the fullness of the communion that we believe the Catholic Church both is and is to become’. With citations from UR 4, the importance of catholicity was indicated as diversity in unity and general suggestions for full restoration were listed. In their second question, the Pentecostals, again building on Mühlen’s paper, wondered what the RCC would ‘require/expect of Pentecostals for them to be included in the Eucharistic koinonia’. In response, it was stressed that this question ‘touches upon the heart of the Roman Catholic faith’. Next, it was explained that ‘Roman Catholic teaching requires that the communicant Christian has […] undergone a process of initiation, called the catechumenate, with its goal the “sacraments of initiation” – Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist.’ The pain of non-participation was acknowledged but interpreted as ‘one of growth rather than of termination’. In conclusion, it was affirmed that inclusion of Pentecostals in the Eucharistic koinonia required ‘apostolic faith, and the acceptance of apostolic order as expression of Koinonia in the Spirit’. In their third question, the Pentecostals started from Mühlen’s definition of the church and arrived at the question what was ‘the scriptural and pneumatological basis of the statement that the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood “differ essentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium 10)’. In response, first Mühlen’s definition was put in perspective. Second, it was said that a local parish cannot have a legitimate Eucharist when being separated from the pastor (bishop). Next, it was explained that in LG 10 the essential difference indicated is not between priests and laity but between their respective priesthoods. Ministerial priesthood, which expresses theologically that Christ himself is acting, was considered ‘a sign, for Catholics, that we are not saved by our own works’. Further, it was pointed out that not all sacraments are only administered by ministers and that normally the Eucharist cannot be celebrated without the presence of other faithful. Scripture nowhere speaks of ministerial or hierarchical priesthood, but

146

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

it attests clearly that no one baptizes himself or pardons himself and it speaks of ‘ministers who are responsible for local churches, in the line of the apostles’. Finally, it was explained that the bishop is the focus of unity within his own church and that together the bishops are the ministers of communion between the churches.

Hard questions discussions The archives attest to further discussion on the basis of the hard questions sessions in the remaining dialogue week.258 The interactions apparently were broad and diffuse. Key discussions are summarized. The second Catholic question caused a long debate regarding the presence of God in the liturgy. The Pentecostals argued that to assume God is always present ‘seems to verge on the mechanical’. One cannot simply take for granted that the Spirit acts, a minister constantly has to ask to be filled with the Spirit. As Pentecostals are aware that in case of disobedience the glory of God can always depart from their person or community, other faith bodies are judged along similar lines. The Catholics explained that for them sacraments and ministry have to do ‘with covenant relationship, not with the worthiness of the church’. God’s fidelity is related to the structures of the Church itself. A sacrament is foremost considered a good given by Christ, containing a promise. David and Justus du Plessis concluded that Pentecostals stand closer to the Catholic perspectives on apostolic succession and on the ex opere operato principle than is often recognized. Robeck pointed to the question of discipleship being, in the Pentecostal perspective, essentially connected to the validation of sacraments. From the Catholic side, however, it was stated by Hervé Legrand (RC) that discipleship and the theology of the sacraments should not be confused. Discussion also emerged concerning the Pentecostal answer to the first Roman Catholic hard question. The Catholics wondered whether the Pentecostals distinguished between purely organizational structures and essential visible elements such as church order. Miroslav Volf turned the question around and asked whether organizational structures necessarily guarantee pneumatological dynamic. In response, it was stressed that while the Catholic minister needs conversion, the efficacy of the sacrament is not dependent on his piety but is tied to the power of Christ. Justus du Plessis brought in that Pentecostals insist on evidence of divine vocation prior to ordination. Both teams were in agreement with the third Pentecostal response to the third question. The minutes add that ‘this was the first time that the Response to any Hard Question had been accepted by all. Praise to the Almighty was rendered for this!’ On the basis of the Catholic reply to the third Pentecostal question, another long discussion evolved with two main lines. Different Pentecostal views on ordination were explicated, diverging on whether or not lay people could administer Holy Communion and on whether ordination was subject to renewal on a regular basis. An inconclusive 258

‘Fifth Plenary Session RC/Pen Dialogue’, 29 May 1986, SanColl; ‘Fifth Plenary Session’, 30 May 1986, SanColl.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

147

discussion followed on the Roman Catholic distinction between potestas and exousia and its relation to preaching mandates in Catholic liturgy. Finally, Vinson Synan opened a new discussion by asking whether Roman Catholics viewed Vatican II documents in a way similar to how Pentecostals viewed Scripture. In response, the importance of Vatican II was recognized, but it was also stressed that ‘the RC Church does not view the documents of Vatican II in any way on a par with Sacred Scripture’.

Final Report III259 While the Final Report of phase III totals 112 paragraphs, the 1986 session on ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia’ takes up only ten (§29–38), distributed under three subheadings. The lack of an Agreed Account is very clear in the analysis of this section of the Final Report. Very few statements of this section of the 1989 report are verbally taken over from written sources of the 1986 session. However, the main themes are linked to the 1986 discussions and sources of specific statements are often recognized. Some 1986 discussions are integrated in other parts of the Final Report. In the composition of the Final Report the main writers, Miroslav Volf and Hervé Legrand, took much liberty in view of producing a report that was well structured and theologically focused. This issue is returned to in the evaluation. At this point, an analysis of the relation between Section II of the Final Report entitled ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia’ (§29–38) is offered, followed by an argument for other influences of the 1986 session on the Final Report. The first subsection of Section II of FR III is entitled ‘koinonia with the Triune God’ and counts five paragraphs. In §29 it is stated that ‘both Pentecostals and Roman Catholics believe that the koinonia between Christians is rooted in the life of Father, Son and Spirit’260 and that ‘this trinitarian life is the highest expression of the unity’ to which they together aspire. 1 Jn 1.3 is quoted to support this central idea and to show the connection of ecclesial koinonia to the koinonia of the trinity. This Trinitarian basis for koinonia was fundamental to Mühlen’s paper. In the discussions it became clear that both groups agreed on a Trinitarian basis, even if the Pentecostals needed to find a way to deal with their Oneness section. The Scripture quotation occurs in both papers. In the next paragraph, it is jointly stated ‘that the Holy Spirit is the source of koinonia or communion’ and that ‘the Church has been gathered in the Holy Spirit’. This dual focus is in line with Mühlen’s paper and came in clear focus during the plenary discussions because of a critical remark by Miroslav Volf. Divergent points of departure and emphases are discussed in the next three paragraphs. Paragraph 31 explains that in discussing koinonia the Catholic ‘point of departure is the baptismal initiation into the trinitarian koinonia by faith, through Christ in his Spirit’. They emphasize also ‘the Spirit-given means to sustain this 259 260

Final Report III was published in the Information Service 75 (1990/IV), 179–191. A footnote is added acknowledging Oneness Pentecostals. Cf. pp. 29–31. and pp. 75–78.

148

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

koinonia (e.g. Word, ministry, sacraments, charisms)’. Mühlen’s paper is obviously behind this paragraph. In contrast, the Pentecostal perspective on koinonia starts from conversion: the Holy Spirit convicts of sin and brings those who repent and believe into fellowship with Christ and one another (§32). This is essentially argued by Robeck based on 1Cor. 1:9,261 and this Scripture passage is referred to. As believers continue to be filled with the Spirit of unity, they ‘should be led to seek greater unity in the faith with other Christians’, the paragraph continues. In line with Robeck’s conclusion, it is stated that ‘the common experience of the Holy Spirit challenges us to strive for greater visible unity […]’. Paragraph 33 concludes that the dialogue ‘has helped both partners to discover and appreciate each other’s specific emphases’, which are believed to be complementary. The three paragraphs under the subheading of ‘Oneness of the Church’ open with a joint declaration of faith in ‘only “one holy catholic apostolic Church” made of all believers (cf. Eph. 4:4–6)’. The reference to the Nicene creed is obvious but the phrase does not appear in the papers nor in the minutes of the sessions.262 Paragraph 34 continues to say that Pentecostals and Catholics have different understandings of the one Church and different views on ‘denominations’. With a reference to LG 8 and in continuity with Mühlen’s paper, the Roman Catholics see denominations ‘resulting from a lack of love and/or divergence in matters of faith as departures away from the unity of the one Church’. In contrast, the Pentecostals view them as ‘more or less legitimate manifestations of the one, universal Church’. In Pentecostal perspective, ‘[t]heir legitimacy depends on the degree of their faithfulness to the fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures’. This statement is only negatively present in Robeck´s paper.263 It can be seen as a counterstatement to the Catholic emphasis on specific external elements as essential for and guaranteeing full koinonia. The contrast was clear in the discussions, when the Catholics pointed out that talking about legitimacy or illegitimacy of differences is ‘unhelpful’, ‘overly sharp’ and ‘inaccurate’,264 which is not reflected in the Final Report. Paragraph 35 discusses the visibility and invisibility of the Church but lacks clarity and precision. The paragraph opens by stating that ‘some Christians distinguish between an invisible Church (which is one) and a visible Church (which is divided)’. Robeck used this distinction but strongly argued against polarization. A reference given to Jesus’ parable on the wheat and tares also occurred in Robeck’s paper.265 The rest of the paragraph has little connection with Robeck’s paper or with the written sources of the 1986 session. It is said that ‘while the distinction can be of use in distinguishing between sincere and insincere members of the church, it can also cause misunderstanding, since both Pentecostals and Roman Catholics affirm that the

261

Cecil Robeck, ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia’, 4–5. It is, however, contextualized as earlier in the FR the Pentecostals are said to ‘believe that some traditions express correctly the saving truth to which Scripture testifies (e.g. Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds)[…].’ (FR III:23). 263 Cecil Robeck, ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia’, 23–24. 264 ‘Answer to Question One. Roman Catholic Team Response’, 29 May 1986, SanColl. 265 Cecil Robeck, ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia’, 22. 262

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

149

Church is both a visible and an invisible reality’. The distinction should not ‘be used to justify and reinforce separation between Christians’. The next paragraph stresses that ‘[t]he essential unity of the Church neither implies nor mandates uniformity’ and that ‘diversity is due to the Spirit’. This is supported by two long quotes from and a reference to 1Cor 12, a passage that also occurs in both papers. The basis of this unity is said to be ‘the Lordship of Jesus Christ’, which no one can confess ‘except in the Holy Spirit’. This statement has no precedent in the written sources of the 1986 session.266 Neither has the final statement, but the spirit of the discussions is recognized: ‘The unity which the Spirit gives must not be identified simply with likemindedness, sociological compatibility, or the felt need for togetherness.’ The final subheading, ‘Koinonia and Gospel Witness’, is strongly reminiscent of Robeck’s perspective that the visibility of the church is essential to her task vis-à-vis the world. The paragraphs that follow (§37–38), however, can barely be linked concretely to anything that has been handed over from the 1986 session. Paragraph 37 states that the present state of visible separation is ‘a contradiction of the unity into which we are called by Christ’ and that all Christians must strive to overcome divisions in fidelity to the concept of koinonia. It is added that ‘we need to discern alertly, and in an on-going way, the character and shape of the visible unity demanded by koinonia’. Paragraph 38 opens with a joint lament of the scandal of disunity between Christians because ‘insofar as koinonia is obscured, the effectiveness of the [Church’s] witness is impaired’. Therefore, it is concluded that ‘the issue of Christian unity must be kept before us’ in line with Jesus’ prayer, after which Jn 17.21 is quoted in full. Although Section II of FR III has the same title as the 1986 theme, some insights and discussions of the 1986 session seem to have been incorporated elsewhere in Final Report III, more specifically under ‘IV. Koinonia in the Life of the Church.’ In §70, ‘various levels [at which] the deepest meaning of the koinonia is actualized’ are indicated. The baptism of believers into Christ’s death is started from as the basic level, bringing together Pentecostal conversionism and Catholic sacramentalism. The next step is said to be their eucharistic sharing in the blood and body of Christ. Without explaining the relation with the former, the paragraph continues to say that all who have koinonia in the eternal life of the triune God ‘are bound together in a koinonia too deep for words’. The passage closes by stating that they ‘look forward to the day when we will also have koinonia in his body and blood’. While these subjects were discussed later as well, the Catholic positions voiced in their 1986 responses and in the plenary discussions can be recognized, arguing (1) that Catholic and Pentecostals share a fundamental koinonia, even if it is not yet ‘full koinonia’; (2) that a Pentecostal celebration of the Lord’s Supper involves a meeting with the risen Lord; and (3) that eucharistic sharing is not yet possible but is an aim to strive for. 266

The importance for the church of confessing the Lordship of Christ was argued for in Robeck’s paper, but not as a basis for unity but as a task by which unity will be shown to the world. Ibid., 17–18.

150

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Obvious influence of the 1986 discussions on the Final Report is also found in §85. All main elements of Pentecostal theology of ministry given here are found in the minutes of the plenary discussion following the RC reply to Pentecostal question 3: (a) one need not be an ordained minister to be allowed to celebrate the sacraments or to lead in the Church, but (b) ordination is valued in the Pentecostal tradition and (c) involves the laying on of hands. (d) Usually, ordination is seen as a recognition of the Spirit or a charism already given, rather than a bestowal of grace sacramentally. Some elements of the 1986 discussion have not been incorporated, such as the fact that ordination can be limited in time and/or be renewed and the divergence regarding whether or not lay people can administer Holy Communion. Third, paragraph 86 is reminiscent of the 1986 session in its exposition of Catholic sacramentology and Pentecostal perspectives on it. The opening statement that ‘[s]ome Pentecostals observe what appears to be a “mechanical” or “magical” understanding of the sacraments’ can be directly connected to the discussion based on the second Catholic question. The exposition of Catholic sacramentology is in line with the Catholic answer to the third Pentecostal question.

Conclusions As was stated in the introduction, dialogue participants and outsiders pointed to the superior theological quality of FR III in comparison to the earlier Final Reports. While other elements definitely have played a role, the development of the dialogue method can be argued to have positively influenced the outcomes of the dialogue in the following ways. First, there was more focus both in the phase as a whole and in each dialogue session. Focus was brought to the whole phase by the early selection of a single overarching theme, koinonia, and of interconnected subjects, which would be dealt with in the first four sessions. The choice to select only one subtheme per session, introduced by only two papers, ensured that each dialogue session was focused. Second, in each dialogue session more time was used for plenary discussion, which thus could reach a deeper level. Time was not only saved by the reduction of the number of papers presented, but also by the changed perspective on reporting of the sessions. The time that was earlier set apart for the writing of an Agreed Account, which listed carefully crafted and balanced statements, could now be used for more profound discussions. Third, the absence of carefully crafted Agreed Accounts necessitated the dialogue team to do an extra effort at the end of the phase. The Final Report could not simply equal a compilation and final edition of the Agreed Accounts but the whole dialogue process needed to be reconsidered. Two theologians played an essential role in the drafting of the Final Report: Roman Catholic Hervé Legrand and Classical Pentecostal Miroslav Volf. Working together and overseeing the whole phase, they could prepare a Final Report that was a theologically integrated whole rather than a collection of statements.267 267

This is confirmed by one of the key drafters: Miroslav Volf to Jelle Creemers, email, 22 June 2013, CrArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

151

As a consequence, however, Final Report III is less than the earlier ones a reflection of the dialogue week discussions. For example, a number of themes that were very important in the papers and/or the discussions in 1986 receive little attention, or are even absent, in the Final Report. In contrast, the Final Report section on ‘The Holy Spirit and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia’ discusses a number of elements that were not present in the 1986 session at all but were in the final stage apparently considered very important. While the discussions instigated by the hard questions became in phase III even more important in the dialogue week, the influence of these discussions on Final Report III was less direct than was the case for FR II.

Phase IV Even before the last session of the third phase, Justus du Plessis sent a personal letter to Johannes Cardinal Willebrands requesting that the next phase would follow without interruption.268 The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) president agreed and phase IV started off in July 1990. The theme of the fourth phase was largely decided by the Classical Pentecostal team. Jerry Sandidge’s suggestion to focus on proselytism met resistance from three key participants: Kilian McDonnell,269 Cecil Robeck270 and Justus du Plessis.271 Yet, when the discussion was brought to the larger group, Sandidge managed to persuade the team to move in this direction.272 Miroslav Volf proposed that the theme be discussed in the context of a broader topic, ‘Perspectives on Mission of the Church’.273 In 1990, an agenda was set with five themes related to evangelization, incorporating a discussion on proselytism in 1994.274 The Final Report explains the focus on evangelization by placing the dialogue in its historical setting: ‘Since many Christians have seen the last decade of the second millennium as one in which to emphasize evangelization, and since significant tensions exist between Pentecostals and Catholics on this issue, it appeared appropriate to concentrate on this topic’ (FR IV:5). The overall theme was later reformulated as ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness’, which became the title of Final Report IV.

268

Du Plessis urged Willebrands not to follow the usual procedure ‘to skip one or two years in order to give the various churches an opportunity to discuss their reports in-depth’ (Justus du Plessis to Johannes Willebrands, 4 April 1989, SanColl). Cf. Justus du Plessis to Johannes Willebrands, 4 April 1989, SanColl; Kilian McDonnell to Justus du Plessis, 10 March 1989, SanColl. 269 Kilian McDonnell considered a dialogue on proselytism unwise, but added that the Catholics should have no objection if the Pentecostals would want to go ahead with it. Kilian McDonnell to Cecil M. Robeck, 25 July 1989, SanColl. 270 Cecil Robeck agreed with McDonnell that the topic of proselytism might be too volatile to handle at that moment. Robeck, ‘When Being a “Martyr” Is Not Enough’, 7. 271 Justus du Plessis argued that the topic ‘Evangelism and Proselytism’ was not in line with the nature and purpose of the RCP dialogue and that it should rather be taken up by the Pentecostal World Conference. Justus du Plessis to Jerry Sandidge, 5 August 1989, SanColl. Cf. his letters to E. C. Thomas, Thomas Zimmerman and Leon Steward of 7 August 1989, SanColl. 272 Robeck Jr, ‘When Being a “Martyr” Is Not Enough’, 7. 273 Miroslav Volf to Cecil M. Robeck, 12 September 1989, RobArch. 274 Handwritten schedule entitled ‘Evangelization’, s.d., SanColl.

152

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

As in phase II, four sessions discussed a single subject each on the basis of two papers, one from each team. General discussion followed as well as discussion based on the exchange and written replies to hard questions. Each session worked towards a concluding Agreed Account. It was originally hoped to finish this phase in a fifth session, as was the custom. This, however, did not work out.

Phase IV: Dialogue process ‘Dialogue sessions’ and ‘Writing sessions’ The fourth phase was originally meant to last five years, but took about eight. Especially the writing of the Final Report took more time than usual. The phase actually consisted of two periods, a first period focusing on papers and discussion (1990–1995) and a second period focusing on the completion of the Final Report (1994–1998), with an overlap of close to two years. That the fourth phase would exceed the five-year limit was already clear in the first dialogue session (1990). The team did not manage to sufficiently come to terms with the assigned subject and to close with an Agreed Account.275 Therefore, a first tentative six-year schedule was worked out, involving five years for papers and discussion and one year for the completion of the Final Report.276 This difficult start induced two discussions on the organization of the dialogue week, which are discussed later. In 1994, the team was not able to fully cover the assigned subject either and it was decided to change the process. The discussions were bogged down on the sensitive topic of proselytism. After two and a half days of plenary discussions on the presented papers, the hard questions on the papers were dropped. Instead, caucus meetings were held to provide definitions of essential terms, such as proselytism, witness, persuasion and evangelization/evangelism. The results of the caucus meetings were discussed in plenary and brought together in an Agreed Account.277 Notwithstanding this turn of events, the session was well appreciated by both Catholics and Pentecostals.278 In 1995, the discussions on proselytism were continued. The other theme that had been agreed upon, ‘Common witness’, was discussed as well.279 After six sessions involving papers and discussions, it took another three years, including a mid-year drafting session and two plenary dialogue sessions, before the Final Report was completed and approved. The team had already started preparing the Final Report in the year intervening the fifth and sixth dialogue

275

See Cecil Robeck to Jerry Sandidge, 19 April 1991, SanColl. See the handwritten (tentative) schedule for RCP dialogue 1990–1995 (SanColl). 277 ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: Questions’, 23–30 July 1994, RobArch. 278 See Kilian McDonnell to Cecil Robeck, 2 August 1994, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to James Jenkins, 12 August 1994, RobArch. 279 Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, 12 August 1994, RobArch. 276

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

153

session (1994–1995).280 Based on the annual Agreed Accounts and available minutes, partial reports were drafted by three participants and sent to someone from the other team to suggest additions and revisions. In the 1995 session, the draft was discussed the first time but the report could not be finalized. Hence, new mixed drafting teams were asked to rewrite chapters in the following year. Everything was sent to the PCPCU, which would ensure that the compiled draft report would again be forwarded to all participants. All were requested to study it and comment on it in view of the 1996 meeting, which was planned to be the final year.281 The work throughout the year, however, proved to be rather difficult to organize and draft assignments were shifted and late.282 By the end of the 1996 dialogue meeting, the Final Report was still not finished and in between sessions a drafting meeting was organized in January 1997. The Joint Steering Committee was involved and processed it in the following months.283 The eighth plenary meeting of June 1997 discussed and agreed on five out of six chapters of the Final Report. It was decided that the report was to be completed and finalized by the Joint Steering Committee in November 1997 with the incorporation of comments from other participants.284 Thereafter, only editorial changes were admitted.285 Due to extensive disagreement on some details of the present version and a number of suggested but heavily contested improvements, the final version was however not released until 1 July 1998.286 The writing of Final Report IV was a difficult and slow process because of the long discussions related to the sensitive subject of proselytism. Even at the very last instance, Pentecostals were still struggling with how the Report was to be finalized and, most importantly, how it would ‘be perceived by a segment of the very people for which it was designed’.287

280

Heinz-Albert Raem to Cecil Robeck e.a., FAX, 18 October 1994, RobArch. ‘Report & Process’, 20 July 1995, RobArch. 282 Especially the unexpected withdrawal of Miroslav Volf impeded the process. See Miroslav Volf to Ronald Kydd, 14 March 1996, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to Ronald Kydd, FAX, 19 March 1996, RobArch; and subsequent discussions. 283 John Radano to Cecil Robeck, 27 September 1996, RobArch; Heinz-Albert Raem to Ronald Kydd, 17 October 1996, RobArch; Steve Overman to Cecil Robeck, FAX, 30 October 1996, RobArch. Kilian McDonnell was unable to join in because of illness. Ron Kydd to Members of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team, Memorandum, 3 March 1997, RobArch. The preparation of the draft report for the 1997 meeting happened largely via extensive exchange via letters and FAX. 284 Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Minutes of Joint Steering Committee, 8–9 November 1997, RobArch. At least one outsider to the dialogue could share his comments to the document, the Classical Pentecostal specialist on South-American Pentecostalism Juan Sepulveda. ‘Message from Marta Palma’, Maria-Rosa Giovannini to Cecil Robeck, email, 5 November 1997, RobArch. 285 Cecil Robeck to Juan Usma Gómez, email, 19 November 1997, RobArch. 286 See Cecil Robeck to Juan Usma Gómez, email, 19 November 1997, RobArch, and subsequent correspondences. The discussions in the last months prior to the official publication focused on what turned out to be paragraph 31. See correspondences between Cecil Robeck, Kilian McDonnell, John Radano and Ronald Kydd between 5 March 1998 and 5 May 1998, RobArch. 287 Del Tarr to Ron Kydd, 18 September 1997, RobArch. 281

154

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The organization of the dialogue weeks During the period of discussions (1990–1995), the dialogue week was organized in basically the same way as in the third phase.288 Each session lasted six days, including a Sunday with a worship service, a mid-week excursion and a concluding joint worship service.289 The dialogue week was preceded by a Pentecostal team meeting day involving a ‘business session’, a ‘brief look at the two papers’ and ‘a good deal of administrative work’.290 In the first two days of the dialogue session, two papers were read and discussed in plenary, one from each side, on virtually the same subjects. Discussion was general and based on questions of clarification followed by questions of substance.291 Two to three days were used for preparing and discussing hard questions in separate caucuses that pinpointed key questions and areas of discussion, followed by in-depth discussions in plenary. Notes were taken by secretaries from both sides in the form of minutes, from which by the end of the week an Agreed Account was drawn.292 After Catholic mass, each day started with a moment of joint prayer and devotion (15–20 minutes) and the daily work sessions ended with a fifteen-minute prayer moment, alternately led by each team.293

Discussion on week schedule As has been said above, in the first session (1990) the dialogue team did not manage to fully cover the assigned subject, which ignited two discussions related to the organization of the dialogue week. They are discussed further in this and the following subsection.294 First, discussion arose concerning the total time spent in work sessions per dialogue week leading to a serious increase of the labour hours in the following years. The 1990 session had a maximum of five hours per day allotted to work sessions, amounting to a total of about twenty-five hours.295 Heinz-Albert Raem, who was 288

See Cecil Robeck to Everett Wilson, 12 May 1992, RobArch; ‘Minutes of the Third Session of 4th Quinquennium’, 18–25 July 1992, RobArch; ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Accueil Maison Nicolas Barré, Paris, France’, 24–31 July 1993, RobArch. 289 See Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue Daily Schedule for 14–21 July 1991, RobArch; Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue Daily Schedule for 18–25 July 1992, RobArch; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Daily Schedule for 24–31 July 1993, RobArch; Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue Daily Schedule for 23–30 July 1994, RobArch; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Daily Schedule for 15–22 July 1995, RobArch. Later daily schedules are missing in the archives. 290 Cecil Robeck to the Pentecostal Dialogue Team, 16 June 1992, RobArch. There was no preparation day in 1996. Ron Kydd to the Pentecostal Dialogue Team, memorandum, 16 February 1996, RobArch. 291 Thus it is explained in the Minutes of the Third Session of the 4th Quinquennium, 18–25 July 1992, RobArch. See also the Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, 15–21 July 1991, SanColl. 292 See the Agreed Accounts of 1990–1993 (RobArch). 293 See, e.g. Cecil Robeck to the Pentecostal Dialogue Team, 16 June 1992, RobArch. Cf., e.g. Information Service 89 (1995/II-III), 95. 294 Cecil Robeck to Jerry Sandidge and Justus du Plessis, 19 April 1991, SanColl. 295 Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Daily Schedule, 14–21 July 1990, RobArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

155

newly appointed to the dialogue by the PCPCU as co-secretary, together with Classical Pentecostal James Jenkins suggested to shorten the week and economize the days using longer work sessions and evening sessions.296 This proposal came up three times in the course of phase IV and met approval from some other dialogue participants297 but was argued against by the co-moderators, Kilian McDonnell and Cecil Robeck. The latter argued partly out of deference for McDonnell, for whom the current schedule was already quite heavy. He was in his early seventies at the time. Robeck also feared that a shorter dialogue week would lead to rush and loss of quality.298 The free evenings were also seen as important by him as moments of rest and socializing.299 Apparently an early compromise was found in a slight intensification of the dialogue week in 1991. There were still no evening sessions fixed in the programme, but the work sessions per day were longer and the total week schedule counted about 30.5 hours. All following dialogue sessions in phase IV counted between 27.5 and 31 working hours.300

The hard questions method under discussion Second, after the 1990 session the hard questions method came under serious criticism. As the dialogue session could not conclude satisfactorily, the new Catholic co-secretary Heinz-Albert Raem questioned the developed method in a letter to Kilian McDonnell.301 He suggested a ‘modified working style in our Pentecostal–Catholic dialogue in addition to our hard question work’, comprising of five elements. First, ‘at the end of the papers, the two experts should present a summary of 5 to 10 theses: those theses should contain the essentials of the paper in a systematic order and could be the base of a future agreed account’. Raem expected that these theses would be ‘a kind of guide towards a clearer understanding of the partner in the dialogue’. Next, ‘after the presentation of a paper, there should be a short discussion (questions for further clarification and deeper understanding of the content)’. This discussion should be focused on central issues and not get too scattered. Presumably, Raem meant that the theses were to be taken as starting points. Third, ‘after the presentation of both papers the two sides [should] meet separately to discuss the theses of the other sides and other issues that came up

296

See Cecil Robeck to James Jenkins, 12 August 1994, RobArch. Steve Overman to Cecil Robeck, 28 October 1994, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to Miroslav Volf, 12 August 1994, RobArch. 298 Cecil Robeck explains his argumentation in a letter to James Jenkins. Cecil Robeck to James Jenkins, 12 August 1994, RobArch. 299 Cecil Robeck to Thomas Trask, 14 December 1993, RobArch. 300 See Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue Daily Schedule for 14–21 July 1991, RobArch; Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue Daily Schedule for 18–25 July 1992, RobArch; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Daily Schedule for 24–31 July 1993, RobArch; Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue Daily Schedule for 23–30 July 1994, RobArch; Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue Daily Schedule for 15–22 July 1995, RobArch. Later daily schedules are absent from the archives. 301 ‘Some suggestions for a modified working style […]’, attachment to a letter from Cecil Robeck to Justus du Plessis and Jerry Sandidge, 19 April 1991, SanColl. 297

156

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

in the discussion’, thus compiling ‘questions, comments and supplements’. The team should then come together again in plenary to ‘discuss the results of the submeetings: working out an agreed account by reworking and systemating [sic.] the theses from both sides’. At the end of the week, ‘both groups could meet separately to put questions and theses on the issue of the next year. Those questions and theses might be a help for the experts of the next year to work out their papers.’ Raem offered his suggestions to Jack Radano and Kilian McDonnell, both of whom asked Cecil Robeck for his opinion.302 The latter attributed Raem’s suggestions largely to frustrations with regard to the 1990 session, as the discussions were not focused and the session did not close with an Agreed Account. Robeck also argued that Raem probably wanted to show that he had something to contribute. He did not doubt Raem’s good intentions but noted that, being new to the dialogue, Raem probably did not recognize that the 1990 meeting was largely exploratory. Robeck believed his suggestion of having five to ten thesis statements as a kind of summery to the papers could help clarify things. He suggested to inform Bill Menzies, who would prepare the Pentecostal paper for the 1991 session, that ‘a series of theses by way of conclusion would be helpful’. Robeck saw no reason to change the format of the plenary discussions following the paper presentations and was clearly opposed to spending more time in separate caucuses. Concerning the fourth item, he opined that ‘our discussion and our conclusions could move beyond whatever theses our paper writers produce’. On the final point, Robeck gave his personal preference for the current format, i.e. having the agenda set by the Steering Committee and agreed to by all. Robeck agreed with Raem that there indeed needed to be ‘some kind of agreed account each year’. As the hard questions discussions were continued in the manner developed in phases II and III, it seems that Robeck convinced his fellows on this point. McDonnell was more inclined to implement the suggestion of offering some statements at the end of each paper to start discussions than Robeck.303

Phase IV, Session 2 (1991): Analysis of the dialogue process In the second session of phase IV, the theme was ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’. As in the third phase, the session opened with the presentation and discussion of two papers. Karl Müller (SVD) presented the first paper. The second paper was prepared by William Menzies (AG). After discussing the papers, the teams withdrew in caucus to prepare hard questions for one another, exchanged them and withdrew again to provide answers. Next, they came back to discuss the hard questions together and to write an Agreed Account capturing the main conclusions of the week. The 1991 Agreed Account became

302

Cecil Robeck shared this and his opinions with Justus du Plessis and Jerry Sandidge in the letter just cited. 303 See, e.g. Ron Kydd to Natina Diano, 22 February 1993, RobArch; Forwarded message: Juan Usma Gómez to Cecil Robeck, email, 20 November 1999, RobArch. Cf. Robert D. Duggan, ‘Conversion and Christian Initiation: Biblical and Patristic Perspectives’, 7–14 July 2000, RobArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

157

the basis for the Final Report section on ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’ (§22–27).304

‘The biblical and systematic foundation of evangelization’305 Karl Müller’s 18 page paper counts five sections.306 While opening with biblical considerations, it leads to an elaborate summary of the missionary encyclical Redemptoris Missio, which had been published recently. Müller opens with a section on ‘The Mandate to Proclaim’ in which he follows the apostolic letter Evangelii Nuntiandi in identifying the divine message of salvation as proclaimed by the Messiah with the good news to be proclaimed.307 In his second section on ‘Proclamation and Salvation’, he argues that the New Testament and the early church emphasize God’s universal will to save but that this faded away later.308 He can, however, point to different twentieth-century conciliar declarations and decrees that speak positively about other religions.309 The third section is entitled ‘Knowledge of God Outside of Christianity’.310 Müller asserts the uniqueness of Christianity as the religion in which ‘God has a human face’ but stresses that divine revelation is also found in, e.g. Hinduism, Islam and primitive religions.311 Section four focuses on ‘The Holy Spirit [as] Principal Agent and Constant Power of Evangelization’.312 After explaining that in the OT the Spirit was already inspiring and moving people, Müller argues that in Acts the spread of the Gospel is essentially described in ‘Pentecostal acts [which] demonstrate dynamic faith, missionary witness, growth of the Church in the power of the Holy Spirit’.313 Consequently, thus Müller, Evangelii Nuntiandi correctly asserts that ‘[e]vangelization will never be possible without the action of the Holy Spirit’ (75). The final section summarizes Redemptoris Missio in five pages. Paragraph 55 is quoted at length, ending with the statement that God ‘does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression, even when they contain “gaps, insufficiencies and errors” .’314

304

The 1991 session has been analysed earlier by Juan Usma Gómez in his doctoral dissertation and by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen. Kärkkainen offers in his footnotes references to the genealogy of the Final Report, which parallels the analysis offered here. See Kärkkäinen, Ad ultimum terrae, 91–131. 305 Karl Müller, ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. 306 Karl Müller (SVD, 1918–2001) was a German Catholic missiologist. He worked most of his life in Sankt Augustin and served as director of the Missiological Institute. He is the author of Missionstheologie – Eine Einführung (1985, Eng. 1987). Müller participated in five sessions of the IRCCPD phase IV (1990–1994). 307 Ibid., 2–3. 308 Ibid., 4–5. 309 Ibid., 7, quoting Gaudium et Spes 22. 310 Ibid., 8–11. 311 Ibid., 8–10. 312 Ibid., 11. 313 Ibid., 12. 314 Ibid.

158

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Discussions followed based on questions for clarification and substantial questions.315 The minutes are brief but indicate that ‘[a] significant amount of time was devoted to the salvation of non-Christians (infants and adults), with a number of Pentecostals expressing discomfort’ with Müller’s position and with Redemptoris Missio. The Catholics responded by emphasizing ‘that the documents assume the necessity of a permanent proclamation’ and that ‘Catholic teaching is that people may be saved.’

‘The biblical basis for missions and evangelism: An Evangelical/Pentecostal perspective’316 In twenty-seven pages, William Menzies317 draws a picture of mission and evangelism from both the Evangelical and the Pentecostal perspective, building on the similarities and indicating distinctions of these groups. His first chapter deals with God, who is defined as the ‘sending God’ in both Old and New Testament. His ‘missionary concern for the world’ becomes visible through Israel, but this is only ‘preliminary to the full disclosure of God’s purposes in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ’.318 Menzies concludes that the biblical mandate for mission ‘is grounded […] in the character and activity of God Himself.’319 Second, Menzies describes ‘the Problem of Man’. He places the Evangelical/Pentecostal perspective strongly in the Reformed tradition starting with the ‘teaching of the Total Depravity of man’.320 His next chapter explains the primary insistence in Evangelical/Pentecostal mission on the spiritual lostness of man.321 Salvation is possible because of Christ’s sacrificial death. His resurrection affirms the effectiveness of His mission, guarantees our resurrection and is the basis for his commissioning of the apostles. ‘Pentecostal missiology’, so Menzies explains, ‘is grounded in the hermeneutical methodology of attempting to reconstruct the pattern for the beliefs, experiences, and practices of the individual and of the Church today on the model of Jesus Christ, and later, on the picture of the life of the Apostolic Church.’322 Under the heading ‘the Holy Spirit in Mission Theology’, Menzies explains that the Holy Spirit also ministers an ‘expressive’ domain through the baptism in the Spirit.323 All believers are called by the Spirit for mission service, which has as its goal the ‘proclamation of the 315

‘Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 15 July 1991, SanColl. William Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism: an Evangelical/Pentecostal Perspective’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. 317 William Menzies (1931–2011) was an American Assemblies of God pastor and educator in AG seminaries in the US and in the Philippines. Having been involved in the establishment of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, he was the first editor of its journal Pneuma. Menzies participated in the IRCCPD only in 1991. 318 Ibid., 3–4. 319 Ibid., 6. 320 Ibid., 7–8. 321 Ibid., 9. 322 Ibid., 10. 323 Ibid., 13–14. 316

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

159

gospel’ unto repentance and belief ‘sealed by baptism’.324 The next chapter discusses the church as ‘the instrument of the Kingdom’, which therefore needs to take seriously the empowering of the Spirit.325 In his final chapter, Menzies points to two typical Pentecostal elements of mission theology in contrast to other Evangelical perspectives. First, Pentecostals emphasize that the book of Acts is both a historical account and a valuable theological construction. Consequently, Pentecostals emphasize that each believer needs a personal infilling of the Holy Spirit to be empowered for mission.326 Second, Pentecostals focus on ‘power encounter’ and healing as central elements of the proclamation of the Gospel. This is seen as the reason for the Pentecostal effectiveness in mission, at least in some parts of the world.327 After Menzies’ paper, questions of clarification followed. The general discussion focused on ‘[r]evelation and interpretation of Scripture among Pentecostals (literal interpretation balanced with scholarly interpretation’, different views on sin and total depravity, and the role of the laity in evangelism. Specific convergences were found in (a) approaches to Scripture and the supernatural, (b) the view on revelation of God in creation, (c) the conviction that ‘God takes the initiative in the work of human salvation’ and (d) the Christological statements that could be found in Menzies’ paper (p. 9).328

Hard questions and answers After the plenary paper discussions, both teams withdrew in caucus to formulate hard questions for the other team. Three questions from each side were exchanged and again in caucus answers were written out. Both teams wrote answers of 1.5–2.5 pages each. The first Pentecostal question to the Catholics was based on the Catholic recognition that their Church ‘has difficulty in generating enthusiasm for active evangelism’.329 The Pentecostal team asked where the difficulty was and how it could be overcome. The Catholics first pointed to sociological reasons, such as the size of the Catholic Church and her tendency to relate to the whole population. Consequently, people relate to the Church in different ways. Second, a possible theological reason was offered in a focus on the pastor rather than on the ‘fishermen’. A need to emphasize the role of the laity in evangelization based on a recognition of charisms was acknowledged. The answer concluded with references to positive examples. 324

Ibid., 15. Ibid., 18–19. 326 Ibid., 20–21. 327 Menzies offers the Philippines as an example in case. Ibid., 22–23. 328 ‘Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 16 July 1991, SanColl. 329 The list of Pentecostal questions can be found in ‘Questions from Pentecostal team’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. The Catholic answers can be found in ‘Catholic Response to Pentecostal Questions’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. 325

160

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Second, the Pentecostals asked how in the Catholic perspective the proclamation of Christ relates to dialogue with other world religions and secular movements. In addition, it was asked whether, and if so, how, confrontation with the powers of darkness is an essential part of evangelism. The response clarified first that ‘proclamation is directed not to religions or movements but to individual persons’, explaining key passages from Nostra Aetate and Evangelii Nuntiandi. Further, it was argued that ‘for some religions may be a help to arrive at the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord in this life’ while ‘for many others they are a barrier’. In response to the second question, the Catholics professed that ‘the confrontation with the powers of darkness is an essential part of evangelism’ indeed. It is understood as a need to ‘fight for more freedom, and oppose structural sin and evil’. Third, the Pentecostals asked why people in the Roman Catholic Church, as they hear, ‘do not have a sense of belonging to a community’. The Catholics answered first by pointing to three sociological truisms that can explain these impressions: (a) ‘No community perfectly socializes all who would be members of it’, (b) ‘People come to a community with many different needs’ and (c) people do not always give off clear signals that they are dissatisfied. The Roman Catholics admitted that ‘several factors peculiar to Catholicism can militate against a sense of community’ and listed four: (a) the size of parishes often creates a feeling of anonymity, (b) the training of pastors lacks attention for stimulating others’ initiatives, (c) the emphasis on sacraments adds to an overconcentration of the parish’s activities in their clergy and (d) there is often a lack of recognition of the people’s gifts/charisms. Finally, two remarks were added. First, Catholics often have ‘an experience of God and Christ through their parishes’ celebrations of the mysteries of God’. Second, Catholics see the ideal communion of Father, Son and Spirit, being realized to some degree in parishes. The first Roman Catholic question asked how evangelists are kept accountable to the koinonia and how the authenticity and exercise of their gift should be discerned.330 The Pentecostals stated that in Pentecostal perspective, ‘evangelism occurs mainly through the simple witness of each believer’. Evangelists are recognized ‘as a gift of God to the Church’. They must be accountable to local congregations and to associations that sponsor their ministries. Authenticity is demonstrated by ‘conformity of their teaching and lifestyle to biblical principles’ and ‘the fruit of the ministry’. The Pentecostals admitted to numerous difficulties, e.g. when success with numbers and entertainment are valued more than content. Independent evangelists can bring disgrace by ‘morally questionable behaviour’ and ‘doctrinally dubious teaching’. ‘Given the nature of modern society and of Pentecostal ecclesiology, attempts to control these evangelists have not always been effective.’ Catholic question two built on the joint recognition of ‘the reality of the demonic in the life of persons’. It was asked whether psychological and theological skills are deemed necessary in order to distinguish between natural illness and demonic power 330

The list of Catholic questions can be found in ‘Roman Catholic questions to Pentecostals’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. For the answer, see ‘Pentecostal Answer to Question Number One from the Roman Catholics’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

161

and how Pentecostals dealt with evil in oppressive social structures. The Pentecostal answer affirmed both distinctions between the demonic on personal and on structural level and between psychological illnesses and demonic possession.331 The task of the church was said to be ‘not primarily to exorcise demons but also to […] heal and work toward changing all oppressive structures.’ Confrontation of the demonic is the responsibility of those in leadership with the praying support of others. Pentecostal training in spiritual warfare is informal. Third, the Roman Catholic team wondered how the Pentecostals provided for growth of new converts ‘beyond conversion to the fullness of the Christian life’. The Pentecostals explained that when someone is converted, he or she ‘becomes a part of the body of believers and is nourished by other Christians through songs, personal testimony and personal example’ and ‘a range of ministries’.332 Acknowledging the difficulties of effective Christian socialization of youth in Western countries, it was stated that ‘as a populist movement’, Pentecostals have been good at contextualizing the Gospel message because of their ability to respond to ‘the deepest longings of common people’. It was added that its ‘experience-oriented ethos has often caused Pentecostals to minimize their own history’, affecting both continuity and identity and impeding them to learn from the larger church. The answer closed with two examples of how edification of the believer takes place in Brazil and in the United States.

Hard questions discussions The discussion of the hard questions is summarized in a five-page report divided in six sections – one for each hard question.333 Under the title ‘dealing with evangelists’ (cf. Catholic HQ 1), it is first explained that while Pentecostals have a ‘ “holiness” code of behaviour’, they ‘are being challenged by the implications of upward social mobility’. Second, the extending of credentials for Pentecostal ministers (such as evangelists) is being compared to the Roman Catholic practice of calling to Holy Orders. Third, it is again admitted that while denominations have clearly defined methods of discipline, there is no control of individual itinerant ministers who function outside such structures. Regarding ‘dealing with the demonic’ the main elements of Catholic hard question two are repeated. It is added that ‘[i]n the Western world, Classical Pentecostals seem to be weak in identifying the demonic in social structures’ while ‘[i]n the third world, Pentecostal Congregations seem to join prayer and social concern more effectively than their Western counterparts do’. The discussion of Catholic HQ3 adds that Catholicism appears to have greater emphasis on ‘the ordinary’ and on solitude and silence than Pentecostalism. The discussion on ‘lay evangelization’ (cf. Pentecostal HQ1) noted that Catholic and Pentecostal perspectives regarding the relationship between pastor and people and in the ministerial focuses differ substantially. Regarding ‘world religions’ 331

See ‘Pentecostal Answer to Question Number 2 from Roman Catholics’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. See ‘Pentecostal Answer to Question Number 3 from Roman Catholics’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. 333 ‘Discussion of “Hard Questions” ’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl. 332

162

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

(cf. Pentecostal HQ2) only one sentence is written down in the minutes: ‘We are agreed that structures – even the Church, do not mediate salvation. Anyone who is saved, is saved through Christ.’ In view of the third Roman Catholic answer, Catholics and Pentecostals acknowledge one another’s strengths and admit to have weak senses of respectively ‘community’ and ‘communion’ that need to be addressed.

The Agreed Account of 1991 After the hard questions discussions, an Agreed Account of the 1991 session was prepared. The first part of the 1991 Agreed Account counted nineteen paragraphs in agreement and listed three areas of disagreement and four needing clarification. To these twenty-six statements, the aforementioned summarizing document ‘Discussion of “Hard Questions” ’ was added in the final version. In the course of three drafts, the areas of general agreement grew, based on convergence of Pentecostals towards Catholic positions and vice versa. A new feature of this Agreed Account, in comparison with earlier phases, is that in a number of the statements direct references to the papers, to hard questions sessions or to key Roman Catholic documents are mentioned between brackets. While references to Scripture are limited to four, no less than eighteen other references surface in AA 1991.334 A close look reveals, however, that the references to other documents from the dialogue session are far from complete. Virtually all statements of the Agreed Account under ‘I. Areas of General Agreement’ can be linked back to the papers and the preceding discussions. AA 1991-I.1 places the focal point of evangelization firmly in Jesus Christ, who is said to be ‘the Good News of God in person’. Menzies’ and Müller’s papers accentuated this as well.335 The next statement posits the unicity of the gospel by quoting Evangelii Nuntiandi, thus echoing Müller.336 In AA 1991-I.3, both dialogue partners agree that evangelization is based in ‘the character of the divine nature and mission of the Father in sending his son into the world’, which is strongly reminiscent of Menzies’ paper.337 The discussion on the understanding of Scripture, which was also triggered by Menzies’ paper, has led to AA 1991-I.4, in which basic agreement is expressed ‘on the necessity of the Holy Spirit for the proper understanding of Scriptures’. A growing convergence is pointed to as well, involving increasing Pentecostal appreciation of historical and redaction criticism and the Catholic rediscovery of ‘the importance of “narrative” hermeneutics’. AA 1991-I.5 states agreement on ‘the necessity of proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers’. This explication was triggered by the Pentecostal concerns over Müller’s statements regarding possible salvation for

334

One or more references to Müller’s paper, Menzies’ paper, hard questions and answers, Redemptoris Missio, Evangelii Nuntiandi, and to Kilian McDonnell’s then recent study Fanning the Flame appear in AA 1991-I.2, AA 1991-I.7–8, AA 1991-I.10–14, AA 1991-II.1–2 and AA 1991-III.2–4. Scripture references can be found in AA 1991-I.8 and in AA 1991-I.16–17. 335 Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism’, 10; Müller, ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’, 2–3. 336 Ibid., 3. 337 Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism’, 3–5.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

163

all people.338 The next statement posits the unicity of Christ as ‘the Revealer of the face of God’, who cannot be known apart from revelation. Seeds thereof can be found again in both papers.339 The same goes for AA 1991-I.7, in which it is agreed that ‘human salvation is not accomplished outside of Christ’.340 An agreement that God’s existence and will can be known through creation and conscience (AA 1991-I.8) is taken over from Menzies’ paper and underlined with two Scripture references (Rom. 1.19–20; 2.14–16) and a literal quote from the paper: ‘Light responded to brings further light; light rejected turns to further darkness’.341 The Agreed Account further indicates agreement that the initiative in the work of salvation is always God’s while the human person only responds to this preceding grace. This was explicitly emphasized in Menzies’ paper and also surfaced in Müller’s, and was also a topic of subsequent discussion.342 The next two paragraphs are largely quotations from Evangelii Nuntiandi and Redemptoris Missio. They also appeared in Müller’s paper, while Menzies’ paper contained the same basic content. AA 1991-I.10 posits the Holy Spirit as ‘the principal agent and constant power of evangelization’ (EN 75), while AA 1991-I.11 points to the mandate given by Christ as the central motive for evangelization. The statement infers that ‘the lack of missionary drive is a “sign of a crisis of faith” ’ (RM 2).343 The importance of faithful proclamation and an upright life of the evangelizer is highlighted in AA 1991-I.12 in line with Müller’s paper and a Pentecostal answer. The next statement notes the agreement that ‘the whole church has been entrusted with the missionary task of evangelization.’344 AA 1991I.14 summarizes a list of Christological statements on the person and functions of Jesus Christ in relation to salvation and church from Menzies’ paper (pp. 9–10). As was noted earlier, the Roman Catholics agreed.345 Both also see incorporation of each new convert into the local church for nourishment and edification as the purpose of evangelization. This agreement, taken up in AA 1991-I.15, refers back to Pentecostal responses 1 and 3. The next statement posits the joint conviction that evangelists are a gift of God to the church and must be accountable to their respective churches (cf. Pentecostal response 3). AA 1991-I.17 is the only paragraph in the Agreed Account that cannot be traced back to one of the papers, the hard questions and answers, and the discussions. It reflects the opening paragraph of Unitatis Redintegratio and is definitely essential to the topics under consideration in this phase: ‘Since the unity of Christians is important for mission (Jn 17:21) we agree that the divisions of Christians, which prevent them from being in communion 338

See ‘Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 15 July 1991, SanColl; ‘Questions from Pentecostal team’, 14–21 July 1991, SanColl (esp. Question 2). 339 See Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism’, 14; Müller, ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’, 8. 340 Cf. Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism’, 9; Müller, ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’, 8. 341 Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism’, 6–7. Quote from p. 7. 342 Ibid., 7–9; Müller, ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’, 8; ‘Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 16 July 1991, SanColl. 343 Cf. Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism’, pp. 6 and 5, respectively. 344 Underlining in the text. 345 ‘Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 16 July 1991, SanColl.

164

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

with one another, are a scandal putting obstacles in the way of evangelization.’ Interestingly, AA 1991-I.18 appropriates an agreement with an Assemblies of God doctrinal statement quoted by Menzies: both dialogue partners ‘identify as a primary purpose of their existence the “evangelization of the unevangelized” .’346 The ‘Areas of General Agreement’ section is closed with a nineteenth paragraph dealing with the demonic, which is described as ‘one dimension of the evil in this world’ that can be observed ‘on personal and structural levels’. Distinction must be made ‘between psychological illnesses and demonic possession of persons’ and thus not only exorcism but also counselling is a task of the church. The Pentecostal answer to the second Catholic hard question is very recognizable. In the next section only three areas of disagreement are indicated. Two are directly linked to the aforementioned extensive discussion on the possibility of salvation for people adhering to other religions. AA 1991-II.1 states that both sides agree that the Spirit is at work preparing non-Christian peoples for the Gospel, but ‘Catholics tend to be more optimistic about these workings than most Pentecostals.’ Reference is made to Müller’s paper (p. 17). According to AA 1991-II.2, Catholics are hesitant to speak of ‘signs and wonders […] as accompanying the preaching of the Word in the evangelical task’, which is a typical Pentecostal expectation. AA 1991-II.3, on the other hand, describes the Pentecostal unease with the possibility of salvation for those who have not explicitly accepted Christ but also notes some Pentecostal appreciation for the Catholic position. The 1991 Agreed Account has four more paragraphs brought together under the heading ‘Areas needing clarification; Possible challenges; convergences’. The first (AA 1991-III.1) simply notes in line with the earlier minutes that ‘[f]urther discussion and clarification are needed about our respective views regarding the relationship between the orders of creation and redemption.’347 Also, regarding the relationship between prayer and evangelization the discussions were not satisfying, reports AA 1991-III.2. Third, the discussion on the effects of original sin is signalled and introduced. It is stated that the majority of Pentecostals follow the Arminian-Wesleyan theological tradition while Catholics ‘prefer to speak of the “woundedness” of human nature as a result of “the Fall” .’348 Finally, it is noted that both partners ‘seem to be finding more common ground in [their] respective understanding of Baptism in the Spirit.’ It is clear that the 1991 Agreed Account builds upon both papers, the discussions and the hard questions and answers of the dialogue week. Several other conclusions can be drawn from this genealogical analysis as well. First, it is obvious that the papers have provided buildings blocks for the Agreed Account in comparable proportions. There is no indication in the Agreed Account of a Catholic theological preponderance, as was undeniably present in the first two phases. 346

Cf. supra. See Menzies, ‘The Biblical Basis for Missions and Evangelism’, 1. Cf. ‘Minutes of the Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 15 July 1991, SanColl. 348 Ibid. 347

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

165

Second, it is noteworthy that references to and citations from authoritative Catholic documents are present throughout the Agreed Account while Scripture references are few and citations are absent.349 Third, theological statements and perspectives in the AA build largely on the papers, while the hard questions sessions seem to have brought focus on the practice of evangelization (e.g. AA 1991-I.13, AA 1991-I.15–16, AA 1991-I.19). This is in line with the earlier observation that the hard questions sessions tend to bring the discussion to the level of ecclesial praxis.350

The Final Report of phase IV As has been said earlier, the dialogue team needed more time than expected to complete the Final Report of the fourth phase.351 Between 1995 and 1997, different drafts were written of different sections, in which development towards the Final Report is seen. The archives do not suffice for a fair description of the development from AA 1991 to FR IV, as the process cannot be well traced and the drafts available are not complete. Therefore, Final Report IV will be directly compared to AA 1991. Final Report IV is entitled ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness’ and counts twenty-seven pages (excluding appendices) and 130 paragraphs. The second chapter of the Report bears the title of the 1991 session theme: ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’. This section counts only six paragraphs (22–27). Obviously, the 1991 session has strongly influenced these paragraphs. The two preceding paragraphs (20–21) under the heading of ‘Mission and Evangelization’ are also strongly reminiscent of the 1991 session. The rest of FR IV bears no traces of the 1991 session, except for two references to the fact that separation of churches implies a ‘scandal of divided witness’ (FR IV:9, 10). A parallel can be found in AA 1991-I.17. Yet, this statement is such an ecumenical truism that the necessity of this connection can hardly be argued for. The influence of the 1991 dialogue session on said paragraphs in FR IV is again much less obvious than was the case for FR I and FR II, which can be attributed to the length of the drafting process. FR IV §20–27 contains few literal citations from either AA 1991 or from papers or hard questions and answers, so influences can be argued for but not claimed. Most paragraphs do, however, contain three or more elements strongly reminiscent of the 1991 session, as will be demonstrated. FR IV §20 is by far the longest of the eight paragraphs under consideration. Six phrases seem to be influenced by the 1991 session. Reference can be made in particular to AA 1991. The paragraph states in agreement that ‘the Holy Spirit prepares individuals and peoples for the reception of the Gospel, despite the fallen condition of humankind.’ Influences from respectively AA 1991-III.3 and AA 1991II.1 are recognized. Next, Rom 1.20 is quoted to argue that the existence of God can 349

Cf. pp. 233–239. Cf. pp. 133–135. 351 Cf. pp. 152–153. 350

166

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

be deduced from creation. This reference is also found in AA 1991-I.8. The paragraph continues to explain that ‘perspectives diverge over the existence and/or meaning of salvific elements found in other religions’ while both dialogue partners agree that ‘those who are saved have been saved without exception through the death of Jesus Christ.’ We recognize here traits of respectively AA 1991-II.3 and AA 1991-I.7. Finally, also the sentence explaining that according to the Catholics ‘the Spirit may be at work in other religions “preparing the way for the Gospel” ’ and quoting EN 53 is strongly reminiscent of AA 1991-II.1. FR IV §21 begins with a reference to ‘demonic elements’, which may be a reminder of AA 1991-I.19. Interestingly, however, the sentence explains that Pentecostals point to the presence of demonic elements in other religions, which is not explicated anywhere in the 1991 session documents. The paragraph further repeats that Pentecostals ‘generally do not acknowledge the presence of salvific elements in non-Christian religions’, adding, however, that ‘some Pentecostals would see a convergence […] in that the Holy Spirit is at work in non-Christian religions.’ Both of these elements can be found in FR 1991-II.3. FR IV §22 points to ‘the biblical foundation of evangelization of all people’. References to the universal significance of the election of Abraham and of Israel, the focus in Jesus’ ministry on Israel while not excluding others, and Paul’s emphasis on the universal meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection – all can be brought back to Menzies’ paper (p. 4). The statement that ‘Jesus pours out the […] Spirit as the agent through whom the work of redemption is being carried out throughout the whole world until the end of time (cf. Acts 2:33)’ is clearly based on AA 1991-I.6 and AA 1991-I.10. FR IV §23 opens with the double statement that ‘[t]he content of the message of salvation is Jesus Christ himself […]; he is the Good News (cf. Gal. 1:16), which he entrusted to his disciples (cf. Mt. 28:19f).’ All elements of this statement can be found in AA 1991-I.1. The paragraph continues to say that the Holy Spirit ‘giv[es] the inner dynamism of the process of evangelization and salvation’. While both papers and some fragments from AA 1991 also point to the role of the Holy Spirit in evangelization, it is too general to claim probable influence. The consequent statement that evangelization ‘consists in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead others to faith in him’, however, is clearly present in Müller’s paper (pp. 3–4). FR IV §24 first points to the necessity of the proclamation of Jesus Christ (in line with AA 1991-I.5) because ‘all are subject to “the fall”, all are “lost” ’. The latter reflects AA 1991-III.3, where different positions on the consequences of ‘the Fall’ are presented. The paragraph closes by stating that ‘deliverance from oppression and domination of “the principalities and powers,” including exorcism’, is in the eyes of both Catholics and Pentecostals ‘an important part of Gospel proclamation’. This is clearly building on the Roman Catholic answer to their second hard question, the theme of which was also taken up in AA 1991-I.19. FR IV §25 emphasizes that the initiative in the process of salvation is always taken by God ‘The only role humans have […] is to respond positively.’ This is clearly echoing AA 1991-I.9. It is added that God ‘acts through the Word and through the exercise of “signs and wonders” ’, which was most probably inspired by AA 1991-II.2.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

167

Direct influence on FR IV §26 from the 1991 session cannot be conclusively argued for, but the focus on the Church as ‘the ordinary context in which salvation is worked out’ has a clear parallel in AA 1991-I.5. Finally, FR IV §27 mentions ‘the baptism in the Holy Spirit’ and introduces the charisms in connection to evangelization. Both elements were also present in the 1991 session, respectively attested to in AA 1991-III.4 and in the Roman Catholic answer to their first hard question.

Conclusions The organization of the dialogue weeks has not significantly changed in the course of phase IV.352 There were some discussions on the week schedule and the hard questions method came under serious criticism, but in conclusion no changes were deemed necessary. The only major difference compared to phases I–III is the fact that the dialogue process seriously slowed down after the dialogue sessions as three years, including three (drafting) sessions, were needed to complete the Final Report. During the three-year writing process in which the Final Report was prepared, the text went through a considerable development. While AA 1991 was quite representative of the complete dialogue session and gave a clear overview of agreements, disagreements, convergences and areas for further study, and incorporated the hard questions discussions, the Final Report reflects the dialogue meeting only in a limited way. This observation triggers three considerations. First, the analysed chapter of FR IV is theologically more integrative than were the analysed chapters of FR I and II. This may well be due to the slow redaction process, which was absent in phases I–II. On the other hand, when the analysed chapters of FR III and FR IV are compared, the redaction process in phase IV was not as farreaching as it was in phase III. FR IV still reflects clearly the documents that came from the 1991 dialogue session and a process of further theological refinement cannot be argued for. While FR IV is less theologically conclusive than FR III, it is more representative of the dialogue discussions. Second, in the redaction of the analysed chapter, the focus is exclusively on the biblical and systematic foundations of evangelization. This corresponds to the title, but implies that much of what came up in the discussions has been left out. This chapter is by far the shortest section in the Final Report and cannot be said to be theologically strong.353 It could by consequence be argued that the hard questions method is less useful to discuss theology in depth, which is in line with the earlier suggestion that the hard questions tend to bring the discussions to the practical and ecclesial level. 352 353

See pp. 152–156. This is obvious to the critical reader and is explicitly remarked by Thomas McAlpine in his response to the document: ‘The second section […] is curiously weak.’ Thomas H. McAlpine, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 70. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen does not give a critical evaluation but focuses on the positive elements. Kärkkäinen, Ad ultimum terrae, 91–131.

168

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Third, as has been previously noted, in the redaction process all references to official Roman Catholic documents in this section have been removed. Many other such references appear in other sections of the document, but only when Catholic positions are spelt out (e.g. §20, 49–51).354 Apparently, in the redaction process the removal of these references was deemed necessary in order to turn the chapter into a ‘foundation’ both traditions could accept.

Phase V In the fourth phase, defining limits between evangelization and proselytism had proven to be precarious due to the different understandings of what it means to be a Christian. This observation led to the theme of the fifth phase: ‘On Becoming a Christian’.355 A breakdown in annual subtopics was suggested by the Joint Steering Committee and finalized during the first dialogue session in Bolton, Ontario in 1998.356 The incorporation of themes such as ‘the role of experience in Christian life’ and specifically ‘baptism in the Spirit’ under the earlier mentioned general heading is not surprising from the Pentecostal perspective, but also had a Catholic incentive in an antecedent publication by the Roman Catholic co-moderator Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries, in 1991.357 As the earlier phases, the fifth phase was originally planned to last five years. It took, however, nine. In 1996, preparations for this phase were started by the cochairmen with a request to the PCPCU that the dialogue could continue without the usual two-year break between dialogue phases.358 The request was honoured and the fifth round of discussions started in June 1998, a few weeks before the official release of the Final Report of the previous phase.

Phase V: Dialogue process Continuation of fixed dialogue process As phase IV, the fifth phase consisted of a period of dialogue meetings with papers and discussion (1998–2002) and a writing period focusing solely on the composition of the Final Report (2003–2007). 354

See, in more detail, pp. 233–239. See also Kärkkäinen, who lists ‘the nature of conversion’ as one of the three main divergences of the fourth phase. Kärkkäinen, Ad ultimum terrae, 248–249. 356 For the suggestion, see Ron Kydd to Cecil Robeck e.a., email, 4 April 1998, RobArch. See, for the finalization: ‘Pentecostal–Roman Catholic Dialogue: Topics for the 5th Quinquennium’, 23–30 June 1998, RobArch. 357 While the writing of this monograph was stimulated by the earlier history of the dialogue, the suggestion to use it as a starting point for this next phase seems to have come from John Radano. John Radano to Kilian McDonnell, 22 May 1995, RobArch. 358 For the correspondence regarding the start of the next phase, see Kilian McDonnell to Cecil Robeck, 7 April 1996, RobArch; Cecil Robeck to John Radano, 10 April 1996, RobArch; John Radano to Cecil Robeck, 18 April 1996, RobArch. The official release date of FR IV is mentioned in a letter by Cecil Robeck to David Slavenwhite, 27 July 1998, RobArch. 355

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

169

The dialogue meetings (1998–2002) followed the format that was set in phase IV. The 2001 week programme gives a good impression of how the time together was being used and also shows how important the hard questions had become. On the first and second day, two papers were read and there was time for questions of clarification and some discussion on content. On the third, fourth and fifth day, hard questions were formulated, exchanged, answered and discussed. By the end of the fifth day and on the final day, the Agreed Accounts, which were written on a daily basis (see infra), were collected and finalized.359 Two papers were to be presented at each of the five initially planned annual sessions, one from each team, but on two occasions this was slightly adapted.360 In the first session, Ralph Del Colle wrote at the request of Cecil Robeck a short paper to help new participants understand the particularities of this dialogue. The paper was entitled ‘Theological Suggestions for Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue’ and was discussed on the penultimate day of the session.361 Second, in the 1999 session three papers were presented as the Pentecostal paper was cut into two. One partial paper dealt with faith and Christian initiation in a general Pentecostal perspective, while the second paper focused on patristic literature on the subject.362 It is notable that many of the papers (see infra) were much longer than intended.363 Week schedules counted between 26 (2000: Vienna, Austria)364 and 32.5 working hours (2003: Rottenburg, Germany),365 both in plenary and in caucuses. Evening sessions were experimented with again since long. It is probably no coincidence that this came up again after the withdrawal of McDonnell. In the 2002 programme, there was one long afternoon session of two hours and fifteen minutes and after dinner a final work session was planned from 6:30 pm till 8:00 pm.366 It seems not to have been a success, as in the 2003 programme the final work session again ended at 6:15 pm. It was, however, remarked that evening sessions could be added if needed.367 In 2004 the work days again ended at 6:00 pm.368

359

Probably also the press releases were prepared, but this is not explicated in the archives. Summaries and analyses of the papers are available in the dissertation of Murphy, ‘On Becoming a Christian’. 361 Ralph Del Colle, ‘Theological Suggestions for Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue’, discussed 29 June 1998, RobArch. In slightly reworked form it was published as: Del Colle, ‘Pentecostal/Catholic Dialogue’. 362 See infra. 363 Already in the third phase, it was decided that the papers should not be too long (cf. 4.5). This was repeated early in the fifth phase by Kilian McDonnell. Forwarded email: Juan Usma Gómez to Cecil Robeck, email, 20 November 1999, RobArch. 364 Pentecostal–Catholic Dialogue Week Schedule, 7–14 July 2000, RobArch. The schedule of the meeting in Torhout (2004) had only twenty-five work hours, but this was during the ‘writing period’. Daily work sessions were longer than usual (over 6 hours) but the meeting lasted one day shorter. See International Roman Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue Week Schedule, 26–30 June 2004, RobArch. 365 Pentecostal/Catholic International Dialogue Week Schedule, 15–22 July 2003, RobArch. 366 International Roman Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue Week Schedule, 12–19 July 2002, RobArch. 367 ‘Pentecostal/Catholic International Dialogue Rottenburg’, 15–22 July 2003, RobArch. 368 ‘International Roman Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue Torhout’, 26–30 June 2004, RobArch. 360

170

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The integration of the Church Fathers A unique feature of the fifth phase of the IRCCPD is the agreement that both dialogue partners would incorporate in their papers and in the discussions a study of the relevant subject in the writings of the early Fathers. According to Karen Murphy, the impulse for this choice was that the patristic texts were also included in the aforementioned book by McDonnell and Montague.369 This is discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Change of reporting mode (Agreed Accounts) The five annual meetings continued using the format that was determined in the preceding phase, but the reporting of the discussions and the conclusions was done in a different way. Agreed Accounts were not written jointly at the end of each week, as was the case in phases I, II and IV, but throughout the week multiple Agreed Accounts were written, on a daily or two-day basis. Rather than being a series of theological statements on which there was agreement, disagreement or convergence, these accounts had the form of minutes, in which the discussions of the past day(s) were summarized, in a way comparable to phase III. They also contained summaries of the hard questions discussions. The Agreed Accounts were prepared by the co-secretaries and agreed upon by the gathered teams.

The finalization of Final Report V After the first five plenary sessions, the dialogue team was still far from a Final Report and it took five more years, involving four more plenary six-day sessions dealing each with one or two chapters before it was finished. 370 The annual plenary sessions were prepared by a smaller drafting committee that met three times for four days in the course of this writing period.371 After the fifth dialogue meeting (2002), a Drafting Committee consisting of John Radano, Juan Usma Gómez, David Cole and Cecil Robeck met on 23–26 February 2003, in Amsterdam, to prepare the Final Report.372 They started from drafts prepared by three other participants of the dialogue, who, remarkably, were

369

Murphy, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 83. It was decided in the Pentecostal team that only those who had participated in at least two of these plenary sessions would be invited for the ‘drafting session’ in 2003. Cecil Robeck to Matthias Wenk, email, 30 January 2002, RobArch. As the writing of the FR turned out to take much longer than expected, this decision was not totally kept, as can be seen in the involvement of Huib Zegwaart (2001, 2003–2006), Stephen Parker (2002, 2003, 2004, 2006) and Clayton Endecott (2001, 2003, 2004 (experience group), 2005). 371 The Press Releases of 2003–2006 were brief, mostly indicating that ‘[t]he entire work of this year’s session was devoted to working towards constructing a report which will point out both convergences and divergences between Pentecostals and Catholics.’ Information Service 113 (2003/II-III): 79. Cf. Information Service 115 (2004/I-II): 62; 119 (2005/III): 142; 122 (2006/II): 67. 372 Juan Usma Gómez to Cecil Robeck, 23 January 2003, RobArch; Minutes of RCPD Drafting Group meeting, 24 February 2003, RobArch. 370

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

171

all Roman Catholic.373 It was agreed that clear definitions of specific terms such as ‘Christian Initiation’, ‘Conversion’ and ‘experience’ were needed. The elements each team wanted to have discussed and mentioned in the Final Report, and the possible points of both convergence and divergence that had come up in earlier Agreed Accounts, were listed.374 The conclusions and suggestions of this 2003 drafting group meeting were in the months following reworked by different participants and integrated in a summary document, which also included a draft chapter on ‘conversion’ by David Cole. This total package was brought to the next plenary session in Rottenburg, Germany, in July 2003.375 In the plenary the dialogue team discussed the material that had been prepared by going through the texts paragraph by paragraph. Two participants made notes on the discussions and revised the drafts.376 By the end of the week, sections were assigned to individuals or small groups to prepare drafts by midDecember 2003, which were to be discussed during the next Drafting Committee meeting in February 2004.377 The drafting group again reworked earlier drafts in preparation of the 2004 meeting in Bruges.378 This was integrated into a single Final Report draft and sent to all the participants of the 2004 plenary session. There again the team was split up into small groups, each working on one specific chapter of the Report. The difficult question of what role experience can and should play in Christian life was taken up by a small group as well.379 The Drafting Team met again in November 2004 to discuss the chapter-in-progress on ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Christian Initiation’. This was a difficult meeting, largely because the team was not balanced. Cecil Robeck was the only Pentecostal present and discussing the sensitive subject of Spirit baptism with three Catholics in Urbe proved to be quite a challenge.380 In July 2005, the eighth plenary meeting took place in Prague, during which the introductory chapter and the conclusion were discussed. Particular attention was 373

Drafts were prepared by Hans Gasper, William Henn and Maria Koo. Minutes of RCPD Drafting Group meeting, 24 February 2003, RobArch. 375 See Pentecostal/Catholic International Dialogue Drafting Committee Meeting: Tasks/Decisions, 23–26 February 2003, RobArch. See also the Minutes of RCPD Drafting Group meeting, 24 February 2003, RobArch; Juan Usma Gómez to Cecil Robeck, 14 May 2003, RobArch; Juan Usma Gómez to Cecil Robeck, 27 May 2003, RobArch; Minutes of the Roman Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue, 16 July 2003, RobArch. 376 Minutes of the Roman Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue Minutes, 16 July 2003, RobArch. 377 See Decisions/Tasks, July 2003, RobArch. Note that the composition of the drafting group was different in 2004 since Cecil Robeck was not present but William Henn (RC) and Gary McGee (CP) were. 378 See the draft versions of these chapters in the RobArch (‘RCPD 2004 Section 3 (VI).doc’ and ‘RCPD Baptism II.doc’, attachments to email from Karen Murphy to Jelle Creemers, 30 September 2010, CrArch). 379 This group was later referred to as ‘the Experience Group’ and consisted of William Henn, Clayton Endicott, David Cole, Huibert Zegwaart, Maria Ko and Ralph Del Colle. 380 This is explained in Cecil Robeck to Clayton Endecott, email, 8 January 2005, RobArch, and Cecil Robeck to David Cole e.a., email, 14 January 2005, RobArch. 374

172

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

given as well to the chapters on ‘Baptism in the Spirit’ and ‘Christian Experience’.381 In the final plenary session of 2006 in Bose, the Report was roughly completed, needing only editorial changes.382 However, these final changes were not made until 2008, at which time it was published.383 The Catholic delegation gave its view as to why the process of finalizing this fifth phase was so slow at the annual report to the PCPCU Plenary Meeting in 2004: ‘Besides the difficulties due to the little familiarity with the patristic writings, there are those created by discussions around specific themes, which remain open both within the Catholic Church and among Pentecostal communities (especially concerning the Baptism in the Spirit and Christian Initiation). […] There are also deep discrepancies concerning the intrinsic value and the authority that patristic writings have on the life of the Church.’384

Phase V, Session 2 (1999): Analysis of the dialogue process With the advance knowledge that it was not the most logical choice from the perspective of the ordo salutis, the first session of phase V focused particularly on baptism of the Holy Spirit.385 The second session focused on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation: Biblical and Patristic Perspectives’. Exceptionally, in this session three papers were presented rather than two, one Roman Catholic paper by William Henn and two Pentecostal papers.386 Harold Hunter discussed the patristic component with a paper entitled ‘Faith and Christian Initiation: Patristic Literature. A Pentecostal Perspective.’ The second, prepared by Thomas Pratt, was entitled ‘A Pentecostal Perspective of Faith and Christian Initiation.’ In this order, the papers were presented and discussed in about 1.5 day. The discussion continued as usual based on hard questions. As has been said above, an Agreed Account was written during the week as a summary of all discussions. The 1999 session came to be Chapter 2 of the Final Report. The first draft was prepared by William Henn on the basis of his own paper and Henn remained to be involved in the writing of this chapter until the final editorial stage. Even though the 381

Information Service 119 (2005/III), 142. In this final editing process, Ralph Del Colle, Hans Gasper, John Radano, Juan Usma Gómez, David Cole, Steve Overman and Cecil Robeck were involved (see the Appendix to the Final Report). There were no Drafting Committee meetings anymore, most of the final editing work was done via correspondences between July 2006 and June 2007. See Cecil Robeck and John Radano to the Dialogue Team, 7 July 2007. 383 Information Service 129 (2008/III), 162–215. 384 Information Service 115 (2004/I-II), 62. 385 One of the reasons the team agreed was in deference to Kilian McDonnell and his age (he was 79 at the time). Cecil Robeck to Mattias Wenk, email, 18 February 2000, RobArch. Disagreements on whether or not the order of the sessions was wise is obvious from correspondences between Cecil Robeck and Cheryl Bridges Johns. Cheryl Bridges Johns to Cecil Robeck, email, 17 February 2000; Cecil Robeck to Cheryl Bridges Johns, 25 February 2000. 386 The Pentecostal Steering Committee had already contacted a number of potential presenters, who had not accepted the invitation to read the 1999 paper, before Thomas Pratt agreed. As time was short, Pratt requested that a second presenter be sought for the patristic section. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 19 July 2013, CrArch. 382

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

173

theme (involving questions of faith and baptismal theology) was difficult and the discussions were emotional, the chapter turned out to be one of the shortest chapters of FR V, counting ‘only’ thirty-three paragraphs.387

‘Faith and Christian initiation: Biblical and patristic perspectives’ (RC)388 The Catholic paper by William Henn389 totals thirty-one pages and offers a clear overview of key biblical and patristic texts on both practice and theology of Christian initiation. The first section focuses on the New Testament and begins with a systematic discussion of the nine events in the book of Acts that can be seen as ‘Christian initiations’. Henn concludes that ‘[t]he pattern among these accounts is rather similar […]. Usually there is a proclamation of the message about Jesus Christ, followed by its acceptance in faith, the laying on of hands, the gift of the Holy Spirit and entrance into the community.’390 Consequently, Henn discusses the place of faith within New Testament theology by drawing on the synoptic narratives of Jesus’ baptism and on Pauline epistles. He argues that faith is essentially linked to baptism, but does not necessarily precede it. In his second section, Henn discusses patristic perspectives on faith and Christian initiation. Building on Joachim Jeremias’ research, Henn argues that during the third century ‘positive evidence of and support for the baptism of infants […] continues to grow.’391 In summarizing the fourth century, Henn points to the fundamental stages in the process of Christian initiation that continued to be developed and practiced. He notes that ‘[s] tudies about the catechumenate during the early centuries generally remain silent about the formation in faith of children baptized as infants’.392 In conclusion, Henn states that ‘Christian initiation [is to be defined] in terms of growing in faith and being inserted into the Church’, pointing to the important role of the community for ‘imparting [God’s] healing gift of faith’.393 A plenary discussion followed Henn’s presentation. The minutes thereof hold the following key sentences: Initial discussion […] dealt with the reciprocity of baptism and faith, the issue of stopping at the Fourth Century, faith as a verb and noun, and the complex 387

An introduction to the 1999 session, including an explanation on the sensitivity of the subject, is found in Murphy, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 169f. This third chapter of Karen Murphy’s dissertation also offers summaries of the papers, which have been very helpful for writing the next sections. 388 William Henn, ‘Faith and Christian Initiation: Biblical and Patristic Perspectives’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch. 389 William Henn (1950) is a Capuchin priest and professor at Gregoriana in Rome. Holding the Robert Bellarmine Chair of Ecclesiology and Ecumenism, he publishes in particular in these fields, notably on the notion of the hierarchy of truths. Henn participated in the complete fifth phase of the IRCCPD. 390 Ibid., 8. 391 Ibid., 23. 392 Ibid. 393 Ibid., 29.

174

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

reality of faith in the New Testament. Further questions were raised regarding baptism practice in Jesus’ own time. Discussion continued around the meaning of initiation. It was observed that initiation included baptizing and setting forth persons into the mission of the Church. […] The relationship between faith and love was discussed. […] It was observed that a main issue between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics was the meaning of baptism within Christian initiation. […] For Pentecostals salvation is not sacramentally linked to baptism. Both Roman Catholics and Pentecostals agreed that there should be an emphasis upon the process of initiation. […] Both traditions need to move toward placing importance on the whole process of Christian initiation. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the nature and character of assurance [which] in turn led to a discussion of free will. It was agreed that both Pentecostals and Roman Catholics place an emphasis on free will. […B]oth held while it is possible to walk away from Christ, the sense of union with Christ makes it difficult to comprehend such action.394

‘Faith and Christian initiation: Patristic literature. A Pentecostal perspective’395 The paper by Harold Hunter396 is a collection of new and earlier written material totalling over fifty pages.397 It elaborately gives Hunter’s perspectives on a wide variety of themes but lacks integration. The long and diffusive introduction draws attention to what Hunter calls ‘Enthusiastic Pneumatomania’,398 a long tradition of which the Pentecostals are considered a recent development.399 Hunter’s paper then integrates an earlier written response to the baptism section of BEM. On page 32, Hunter arrives at a ‘Patristic Literature’ section, which he opens with two criticisms of Henn’s work. First, Hunter is not convinced of Henn’s translations of the Fathers.400 Second, he prefers a definition of faith involving ‘knowledge, assent and trust’ in line with Melanchthon over ‘Henn’s emphasis on the “noetic dimension” of faith’.401 Thereafter, Hunter brings to mind that writers from the patristic era have ‘a pastoral rather than 394

‘Agreed Account for Saturday, 24 July 1999’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch. Harold D. Hunter, ‘Faith and Christian Initiation: Patristic Literature. A Pentecostal Perspective’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch. 396 Harold D. Hunter (1948) is a Pentecostal scholar active in the International Pentecostal Holiness Church and director of the IPHC Archives & Research Center. He has taught at different learning institutes around the world and is author of Spirit Baptism: A Pentecostal Alternative (1998/2009). Having been involved in numerous ecumenical projects, he participated in the IRCCPD only once, in 1999. 397 See also Murphy, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 176–180. See ‘Agreed Account for Saturday, 24 July, 1999’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch. 398 Harold D. Hunter, ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’, 5. 399 Those who are said to embrace ‘Enthusiastic Pneumatomania’ are, according to Hunter, restorationist rather than focusing on apostolic succession or teaching, sects but not cults, ‘expressions of popular religiosity’, and growing in influence. Hunter further believes that they have a debatable and complex historical lineage and that they are not necessarily Christian or orthodox. Ibid., 5–12. 400 Ibid., 32. 401 Ibid., 33. 395

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

175

academic orientation.’402 The patristic sections that Hunter quotes and discusses largely deal with the relation between baptism and the gift of the Spirit.403 While alluding to ongoing discussions and criticizing readings of McDonnell and Henn, Hunter barely interacts with or reflects on the texts himself. In his conclusion, Hunter states that ‘the foregoing provides some points of contact between pneumatologies enunciated by various Fathers and Mothers and those commonly found among Pentecostals’.404 More specifically, he affirms the commonality of ‘a distinct work of the Spirit which empowers acts of service for the body of Christ’, which is to be distinguished from the reception of the Spirit at baptism.405 Hunter’s paper was not read completely during the dialogue week, but he offered the dialogue participants a brief synopsis. Thereafter, the Agreed Account states, discussion opened ‘regarding the various experiences with the Holy Spirit as recorded on the patristic literature in relation to initiation’. In this discussion, Hunter observed that discussions with Protestants may at times be facilitated by appropriating dogmatic categories from the Reformed version of the ‘ordo salutis’ to explain Pentecostal soteriology. There was disagreement among Pentecostals as to the appropriateness of utilizing such a paradigm. […] A Catholic comment was that one does not think in terms of naming the steps of salvation. The day concluded with discussion as to the usefulness of agreed statements such as Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry and One Faith for Roman Catholic-Pentecostal discussion.406

‘A Pentecostal perspective of faith and Christian initiation’407 Thomas Pratt, then professor at Bethany College (CA),408 prepared a thirty-page paper with an introduction, four sections and a summarizing conclusion. Pratt sought to do justice to the breadth of the Classical Pentecostal movement by integrating perspectives from no less than eleven denominations.409 He also entered into dialogue with Roman Catholic theologians such as Bernard Lonergan and Donald Gelpi, and integrated Reformed and Holiness insights. After an introduction in which the earlier reached agreements and disagreements on faith and Christian initiation are listed (notably referring to FR III:43–54), the first section is entitled ‘Metaphor, Experience, and Christian Initiation’.410 Pratt broadly discusses Classical 402

Ibid., 34. Ibid., 34–48. 404 Ibid., 49. 405 Ibid. 406 ‘Agreed Account for Saturday, 24 July 1999’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch. 407 Thomas Pratt, ‘A Pentecostal Perspective of Faith and Christian Initiation’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch. 408 Thomas D. Pratt (1944–2013) was an Assemblies of God minister and founder of Rhema Ministries, Inc. of California, whose lifetime commitment was to Pentecostal theological education. After teaching at Bethany College (CA), he co-founded the Rhema Bible College in Lautoka, Fiji. 409 Ibid., 4–5. 410 Ibid., 5–12. 403

176

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Pentecostal use of language, the importance of metaphors in religious discourse and the importance of experience in the Classical Pentecostal approaches to theology. The second section is more focused and confronts the question of a ‘fixed order of salvation’.411 Pratt proposes that while ‘Classical Pentecostals have at times bought into the process of salvation as a series of linear successive experiences[, t]here have been others […] who have opted for a more unitary experience [or for] two-stage and three-stage soteriologies.’412 Section three, entitled ‘the Role of the Holy Spirit in the Process of Salvation’, discusses different key soteriological terms and argues in line with the Westminster Confession of Faith that ‘the Holy Spirit is “the only efficient agent in the application of redemption” ’.413 Attention is finally directed to ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’ in a fourth section, which focuses on the meaning of faith. It is emphasized that Christian initiation is ‘God’s work of grace’ and it is characterized by ‘ a sense of awe’, ‘a sense of need’, ‘a natural awareness’, ‘a greater desire for life’ and ‘a sense of innocence’.414 Pratt ends with an honest Pentecostal self-critique. He admits that Pentecostals have a ‘constant temptation of reducing the Christian life down to a destination point and/or a series of destinations’, of which the baptism of the Holy Spirit is located centrally.415 After the presentation, questions and discussion followed. According to the minutes in the Agreed Account, [q]uestions were raised as to the paper’s presentation of the Catholic stance on conversion and baptism, on the ‘ordo salutis’ and on faith and initiation. […] Some dissatisfaction was expressed from the Roman Catholic side over the use of only two theological models, those of Lonergan and Gelpi, as hermeneutical models […]. Discussion followed on the question of theology from experience and theology from a cognitive perspective […]. Both sides agreed that although it is possible to comprehend each other on a cognitive level, this is not necessarily the case as far as the experiential level is concerned. Discussion of models for the description of the ‘ordo salutis’ raised the question of hermeneutics and the Pentecostals agreed that they do not yet have a conclusive viewpoint. […] There was an appeal from the Pentecostal side to build on the foregoing discussion with a view to the conversion of all the participants in the dialogue, in the sense of trying to understand each other without being unfaithful to their own traditions.416

The discussion continued the next morning and opened with the fundamental question ‘what counts as experience?’417 While the Roman Catholics warned against a ‘tyranny of experience’, Pentecostals noted that ‘there is also a tyranny 411

Ibid., 12–16. Ibid., 14–16. 413 Ibid., 16–23, quote from pp. 16. 414 Ibid., 27f. 415 Ibid., 29. 416 ‘Agreed Account for Sunday, 25 July 1999’, RobArch. 417 ‘Agreed Account for Monday, 26 July 1999’, RobArch. 412

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

177

of the objective’. In the course of this discussion, the Catholics acknowledged ‘that when Pentecostals speak of experience they are not normally talking about raptures but a personal encounter with God and Catholic tradition would concur with this’. Thereafter, the discussion turned to different views on initiation and faith. It was noted by a Catholic that ‘there was not a necessary polarization between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics on the theology of faith but that initiation remains an ambivalent and problematic term’. A possibility of convergence was found in seeing initiation as a process.

Hard questions and answers After having discussed the papers in plenary, both teams withdrew in caucus to formulate hard questions for the other team to answer. As in phase IV, three questions from each side were exchanged and again in caucus answers were written out. Both teams wrote answers of about one page, the Catholic answers being slightly longer than the Pentecostal ones. The first Catholic hard question asked their dialogue partners to explain ‘whether and how the Church and its faith is present and active for Pentecostals in Christian initiation’.418 In response the Pentecostals first acknowledged that particularly in the West they ‘relegated the Church and its faith as present and active in “Christian initiation” to a lesser place than our biblical understanding’. But for Pentecostals the Church often ‘becomes the focus of a person’s life’ and ‘transformation of life occurs as the Holy Spirit operates in and through the worshipping community to re-order a convert’s life’. The second Catholic hard question asked how Pentecostals explain and justify ‘their seeming conviction that an event of grace is effected in the life of an individual only when there are signs or evidence of conversion’. The Pentecostal answer first explained ‘the rejection by Pentecostals of a set of rites as the principle context for the reception of saving grace’. Consequently, it was stated that ‘[i]t is not the conviction of Pentecostals that events of grace are effected in the life of an individual only when there are signs or evidence of conversion’. They will only reject someone’s profession of faith ‘upon Biblical evidence of the contrary’. Third, the Catholics asked what Christian initiation means to Pentecostals. In response, it was first pointed out that ‘this terminology […] and related paradigms […] did not grow out of and is not a part of Classical Pentecostal spirituality […]’. In Pentecostal perspective, ‘it is possible to place water baptism as an integral part of Christian Initiation while excluding this from a given version of ordo salutis.’ The exceptional Oneness Pentecostal perspective was briefly explained as well. Finally, it was stated that in practice many Classical Pentecostals consider conversion as the means of entry into the invisible church and ‘link entrance into the visible church with a public confession of faith before the congregation when one enrolls in a church membership’. 418

Catholic hard questions and the Classical Pentecostal answers are found in ‘Catholic Hard Questions to the Pentecostals and Pentecostal Reponses’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch.

178

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The first Pentecostal hard question went as follows: ‘In what way is the freedom of the Spirit made evident in the rites of initiation, especially of infants, and how that infant is assured that the Spirit has acted?’419 The Catholics opened their response with two preliminary comments. The first one placed the Pentecostal presupposition of the freedom of the Spirit in the context of the divine economy of creation and redemption, a second one argued for a Trinitarian rather than a pneumatological perspective on the creation of the Church. Next, it was explained that ‘[i]n accordance with the incarnational economy, the Spirit brings about the transformation of the individual through the instrumentality of the Church’. In this process, ‘transformation and formation are correlative activities’. In the sacramental economy, the divine and human normally cooperate, but the baptism of infants is said to be ‘a singular testimony to the sovereignty of grace’. The Catholic tradition ‘asserts the freedom of the Spirit to confer in advance the inheritance the child later appropriates’. The second Pentecostal hard question problematized that ‘the patterns and processes of fourth century initiation [were made] normative for interpreting Christian Scripture, tradition, faith, and praxis’. This involved, for example, that ‘the current rite restrict[s] the exegesis of Biblical texts on baptism’. The Catholics explained with a citation from Dei Verbum 8 that, in their perspective, tradition ‘comes from the apostles[,] develops in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit [and] is under the judgment of the Word of God’. The different elements of the rites of initiation are said to be rooted in the New Testament. Quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church §1229, ‘certain essential elements’, which always have to be present, are listed: ‘proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion’. Third, the Classical Pentecostals asked what the Catholics considered to be the theological significance of a ‘standard testimony of many people who have left Roman Catholicism for Pentecostalism’, who say that they have had a saving confrontation with the Gospel for the first time in a Pentecostal church. The Catholic response began with the recognition that indeed Catholics are known to leave the Catholic Church to join another community. It was suggested that these people perceive differently ‘authentic participation in Christian life’. Also the warm style of Pentecostal pastoring, the element of newness and ‘a kind of proselytism’ were pointed to as potential reasons for this migration. It was agreed that the major issue for each person is ‘the question of faith and conversion or of a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ’. But theologically it was added that, from a Catholic perspective, (a) leaving the Catholic Church is a very serious thing, even if the Church is yet still ‘on the way’; (b) real conversion in a Pentecostal church would be seen ‘as a kind of renewal of the grace of baptism’ and a change of allegiance ‘would deprive the person of access to [the] full range of salvific means’; and (c) within the church ‘pastoral efforts everywhere are to be made to strengthen a real personal life of faith’. 419

Pentecostal Hard questions and the Catholic answers can be found in ‘Pentecostal Hard Questions to the Catholics’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

179

Discussions on the hard questions and answers The discussion on the hard questions and answers took at least two days.420 The Pentecostal responses prompted four topics to be further discussed. First, the Catholics asked if for Pentecostals faith contained a doctrinal component, and if so, which. Pentecostals explained that they were not anti-creedal and had various doctrinal statements but that they understood ‘creedal truth within a soteriologically effective framework’. Second, it was asked if Pentecostals saw tradition as something negative. In response, Pentecostals said that they accepted tradition but subjected it to the authority of Scripture, which involved an ecclesial process. Consequently, the variations in Pentecostal ecclesial polities was discussed. Third, Catholics asked if Pentecostals could recognize the faith of Christians who do not speak of ‘a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior’. The answer was qualified, some saying that this was an essential criterion while others would accept professing Christians unless something proved to the contrary. The Catholics then explained that they identified the issue of accepting in good faith the profession of faith of Roman Catholics by Pentecostals as central and decisive for the dialogue. Fourth, water baptism was discussed. The Pentecostals explained that they practiced baptism in obedience to Christ’s command and in the expectation of an encounter with God, while insisting that regeneration precedes water baptism. When asked about Spirit baptism, the Pentecostals denied that it was considered part of Christian Initiation. The Catholics explained that in their baptismal theology, ‘adult baptism in the RCIA is now the normative model’. The Catholic responses were discussed next and also revolved around four themes. First, there was a long discussion on sacramental theology. The Pentecostals repeated their question of how the Spirit should be considered free ‘if he is trapped or always necessarily present in the Church’s sacramental rites’. The Catholics responded (a) that God was free to commit himself to the church in a covenantal way; (b) that the work of the Spirit could not be separated from the Father and the Son; and (c) that it could be expected God would answer the prayers for the invocation of the Spirit, which were present in all sacraments. In the Catholic perspective, ‘the Spirit orders the church in its sacramental and pastoral structures and in the distribution of charisms and graces. They are complementary […]’. While Pentecostals would seek to discern the presence of God in congregational worship, Catholics believe grace is offered in the sacraments even if ‘authenticity in the sense of attentive and intentional prayer and faith being operative among the ministers and congregation’ are lacking. Second, the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ in Catholic perspective was briefly discussed. Third, ‘a major discussion arose over the relationship between scripture and tradition’. The Catholics explained to the Pentecostals that for them, ‘the Word of God is one and that it proceeds from both scripture and tradition’. Fourth, the Pentecostal concern was expressed over the ecclesial status of their churches: ‘are they the Church and if not what are they?’ The Catholic response explained that ‘the possibility exists that 420

The discussions are summarized in two documents: ‘Agreed Account for Tuesday, 27 July 1999’ and ‘Agreed Account for Thursday, 29 July 1999’, RobArch. It is not clear what happened on the day in between. Possibly half a day was used for discussion and half a day for an excursion.

180

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Pentecostals will be recognized as ecclesial communions[, which] means that they possess elements of the Church and are means of grace for salvation – no small thing!’

Draft versions of Final Report chapter The chapter in the Final Report on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’ was largely prepared by William Henn.421 It took six draft versions. In an undated letter, Henn explained how he wrote the first draft: [P]rior to writing this, I looked over the papers by Harold Hunter and Thomas Pratt, the agreed accounts and the hard questions and their respective responses from the session on Venice on 23–30 July 1999. I was instructed to use my paper as the basis for this first draft.422

Henn continued to say that in his draft he made a distinction between ‘completely new’ material, ‘which was not in my paper but which seemed either to reflect our discussions […] or necessary in order to put the material in a form which would seem appropriate for a final report’ and ‘the rest of the material’ that was taken from his earlier paper. Regarding Harold Hunter’s paper, Henn stated that some of his material about the Fathers (pp. 32–49) is reflected in his draft. Most of Hunter’s quotations, however, were deemed ‘more suitable for enriching the first section of our final report’. While he saw Thomas Pratt’s paper ‘not […] as a study of biblical or patristic sources, but rather as a systematic perspective on the relation of faith to Christian initiation’, some of the biblical material on pages 2–4 and 16–29 were used in the draft. He suggested Pratt’s paper could also enrich other elements of the FR. The first draft of Chapter 2 consists of an introductory paragraph, eighteen paragraphs on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation in the New Testament’, and eleven paragraphs on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation According to Patristic Writings’.423 It is indeed for the most part a summary of Henn’s own paper. It has, however, some obvious additions and changes, some of which can be related to the other papers or the hard questions sessions. The newly written introductory paragraph introduces the section and opens with the general agreement that there is ‘an intimate relation between faith and Christian initiation and that becoming a Christian is not comprehensible apart from faith’. In the NT section, twice a comment is added, which accentuates the ‘powerful divine initiative’ in the conversion stories. This was explicitly pointed to by Thomas Pratt.424 The NT section ends with two new paragraphs. Paragraph 18 stresses the common conviction ‘that it would be contrary to the biblical witness to isolate faith from Christian initiation; in particular, baptism and faith go together’. Paragraph 19 mentions the discussion 421

See pp. 170–172. William Henn to ‘those who will receive this first draft’, s.d., RobArch. 423 This document is entitled ‘RCPD Draftchap2.doc’ and came as an attachment to: Karen Murphy to Jelle Creemers, email, 30 September 2010, CrArch. 424 See Thomas Pratt, ‘A Pentecostal Perspective of Faith and Christian Initiation’, 25. 422

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

181

on the ordo salutis, a key theme in Pratt’s paper, and explains that it is not easy to discern in the New Testament a single pattern or ‘order of salvation’. The paragraph mentions that ‘the whole church is involved in the initial and continuing formation of its members’ – a comment reminiscent of the Pentecostal answer to the second Catholic hard question– and closes to say that ‘we have been unable to overcome these disagreements on the basis of the Bible alone’. The Patristic section opens to say that the respective attitudes of both dialogue partners towards the writings of the patristic era vary considerably (§20). In what follows again the argument of Henn’s paper is followed. Some elements are accentuated while others are left out. Notably, no traces can be found of either Hunter’s or Pratt’s paper, nor can clear influences from the discussions be indicated. The final paragraph summarizes the whole, leading to the closing joint affirmation that ‘both faith and Christian initiation are intimately related to the Church’s essential nature as communion and mission’. The next two drafts refined Henn’s text and brought more balance. The first draft was discussed in the drafting group meeting in February 2003, leading to a second version with added remarks from that meeting.425 Apparently, the draft was much appreciated, as the remarks are few. Most changes are reformulations or translations in terminology (§4, 5, 9, 19, 22, 25, 26), suggestions for shortening the text (§6, 18, 20), and relocations of sentences (§11, 17, 21). Sometimes Pentecostal perspectives are suggested or added to what appear to be the Roman Catholic interpretations (§3, 4, 10, 27) or questions that need to be taken up later (§12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 30) are simply added in italics. The third draft was prepared for distribution at the 2003 joint drafting session. It picked up virtually all of the questions that were left open in the previous version with additions probably suggested by Cecil Robeck.426 Translations and/or explanations were provided for terms unfamiliar to Pentecostals such as presbyteroi, catechumenate and redditio symboli. In five instances the text was lengthened by three to seventeen lines to allow for a suggested interpretation of a difficult Scripture passage (§19), to contextualize and interpret patristic positions (§21, 24, 25) and to explain a statement by adding a patristic quote (§30). A reformulation of §27 was offered to meet Pentecostal concerns. None of these changes can be argued to be inspired by earlier material. Interestingly, one reference to an interpretation by Joachim Jeremias is also added.427 Draft four brought considerable changes to the chapter, mostly in the form of enlargements and new paragraphs. It was most probably as a result of the plenary session in Rottenburg (2003), during and after which all the participants could

425

This document was saved as ‘RCPD Draftchap2Rev.doc’ and came as an attachment to: Karen Murphy to Jelle Creemers, email, 30 September 2010, CrArch. 426 This third draft was saved as ‘RCPD 03 section2 (Henn).doc’ and came as an attachment to: Karen Murphy to Jelle Creemers, email, 30 September 2010, CrArch. 427 Reference is made to Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, Library of History and Doctrine (London: SCM Press, 1960), 43–55.

182

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

comments on the chapter.428 Interestingly, footnotes were added in the document, not only explaining the use of the term ‘Christian Initiation’ (§1) but also referring to earlier IRCCPD documents (§10, 14, 30). The NT section was seriously enlarged. Scripture passages were put in the broader NT context (§2, 4, 10, 13) and Pentecostal and Catholic perspectives on or interpretations of Scripture passages were added (§6, 10, 18). These important new sections brought an added focus on baptism: a paragraph on NT references to baptism was seriously elaborated on (§15a), Catholic and Pentecostal interpretations were added (§15a–c), and paragraphs on the communal dimension of baptism (§16) and on the role of faith in Christian initiation in both traditions (§20 [1, p. 8]) were rewritten. One unresolved discussion was pointed to in a note to the draft committee to be taken up later (§16). The Patristic section was given an introduction on how the texts were valued by both traditions (§20 [2, p. 9]). Apart from minor clarifying additions, a long section was added providing possible reasons for the different third-century views on delaying baptism (§24a, b). In the closing section, particular attention is given to possible ways to rethink different views on the sacraments on the basis of the patristic data. The next two drafts of FR V’s chapter on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’ added very little new information. The fifth draft was probably prepared by the drafting committee meeting in February 2004 in preparation of the 2004 plenary meeting in Bruges and has only minor changes compared to the previous one.429 The question that was left open in the fourth draft led to a short addition to the relevant paragraph in which Pentecostal perspectives on two Pauline uses of the term ‘baptism’ are explained (§20). The sixth and final draft was an editorial brush-up.430 The only new information was that the patristic works were dated.

The Final Report of phase V When the section on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’ was integrated into the Final Report, two modifications were made. First, a new structure was used, involving the relocation of paragraphs. Second, the paragraphs were shortened. Also smaller changes were integrated, such as reformulations of sentences and the use of a different Bible translation (New Revised Standard Version, 1989).431 ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’ became the second chapter of the Final Report and came to consist of 37 paragraphs. In FR V’s final version of the chapter, the first paragraph is headed ‘A. Introduction’. It opens with the fundamental agreement undergirding this chapter that ‘becoming a Christian is not comprehensible apart from faith’ (§60). Two sections follow the introduction with the expected titles of ‘B. New Testament Perspectives on Faith 428

The fourth draft was saved as ‘RCPD DraftChap2(III).doc’ and came as an attachment to: Karen Murphy to Jelle Creemers, email, 30 September 2010, CrArch. 429 The fifth draft was saved as ‘RCPD 2004 Section2(IV).doc’ and came as an attachment to: Karen Murphy to Jelle Creemers, email, 30 September 2010, CrArch. 430 The sixth draft was also saved as ‘RCPD 2004 Section2(IV).doc’ and came as an attachment to: Karen Murphy to Jelle Creemers, email, 30 September 2010, CrArch. 431 There is no uniformity in nor clarity regarding translations of the patristic texts.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

183

and Christian Initiation’ (§61–78) and ‘C. Patristic Perspectives on Faith and Christian Initiation’ (§79–85). The first largely follows §2–23 of the sixth draft version, while the second largely follows §25–32, but some paragraphs have been recomposed or transferred to section D (see infra).432 In comparison to the sixth draft, most of the paragraphs of parts B and C have been reduced in a variety of ways. Short explanatory clauses or phrases deemed obsolete have been erased. Also, longer proleptic references were regularly deleted433 and digressions considered non-essential.434 This implied, e.g. that some of the typical elements of the rite of Christian initiation as developed in the early church were removed from the document, including two anointings, the renunciation of Satan and the kiss of peace.435 All references to patristic literature from the fourth century were also deleted and the relevant information was summarized.436 As a result the Patristic section was seriously trimmed. Most deletions were one to three sentences, but in one instance over three hundred words were removed.437 While the paragraphs are seriously shortened, they also contain a number of additions in comparison to the sixth draft. Phrases and sentences are added to facilitate easy reading by contextualization,438 to clarify a theological position439 or to point to a shared opinion that was present but not yet expounded.440 The final section of Chapter II is entitled ‘D. Contemporary Reflections on Faith and Christian Initiation’ (§86–96). It discusses the consequences of the given perspectives for both traditions. Most of the paragraphs were already present in the sixth draft, but were moved to this section to separate informative readings from consequential reflections. A newly written paragraph (§90) discusses the ‘different presuppositions to our interpretation of individual passages’ and earmarks hermeneutics ‘as a topic for serious consideration in a future phase of Pentecostal– Catholic conversations’. The paragraph contains elements from the Catholic response to the second Pentecostal Hard Question and from the discussion of the first Catholic Hard Question.441 Adaptations to existing paragraphs are limited, but it is noteworthy that one paragraph marking a disagreement is reformulated carefully to first indicate as much commonality as possible before communicating the disagreement.442 Notably, 432

§4 of the sixth draft is divided over §63 and §64, and in the latter also §5 of the sixth draft is integrated. §28 of the sixth draft is similarly divided over §82 and §83, and in the latter also a remnant of §29 is integrated. §30–31 are brought together in §84. The following paragraphs are transferred to the new section D: §17, 18, 19, 21, 24. See infra. 433 See, e.g. in comparison to the equivalents in the sixth draft, §61, 64, 65. 434 See, in comparison to the equivalents in the sixth draft, §63, 80, 81, 82, 83. 435 Compare §81 with §27 of the sixth draft. 436 Compare §84 with §30–31 of the sixth draft. 437 The long section that was deleted came from §29 of the sixth draft. 438 See, e.g. in comparison to the equivalents in the sixth draft, §66, 79. 439 See, e.g. in comparison to the equivalents in the sixth draft, §70, 75, 76, 79. 440 See, e.g. in comparison to the equivalents in the sixth draft, §76. 441 See ‘Pentecostal Hard Questions to the Catholics’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch; ‘Agreed Account for Tuesday, 27 July 1999’, 23–30 July 1999, RobArch. 442 Compare §33iii of the sixth draft with §93.

184

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

the term ‘order of salvation’, one of the few remnants of Pratt’s paper, was eliminated in the very last instance from paragraph 73.443

Conclusions When comparing FR V with the earlier Final Reports, the difference in length is very obvious. In its genesis and in its internal structure, FR V witnesses to the experimental nature of ecumenical method in the IRCCPD. McDonnell and Montague’s book on Spirit baptism in the early church was not only an important incentive for the theme of this phase, but also for the historical focus and the series of subthemes of ‘becoming a Christian’. Moreover, the attention for both biblical and patristic perspectives comes from this book and is fundamental to a uniform structure in the Final Report absent in earlier reports. Each chapter opens with an introduction, then has two sections on biblical and patristic perspectives intended to be historically descriptive, and closes with a section providing interpretation or appreciation from the two traditions. The overall structure of the dialogue weeks during the fifth phase largely followed the format from the preceding phases. The only major difference was that the dialogue partners did not work out an Agreed Account at the end of the week. Instead, minutes were taken of all work sessions. The overview of the 1999 session shows that the minutes were poorly integrated. As a consequence, these Agreed Accounts were not useful as building stones for the Final Report as was the case in earlier phases. It was therefore decided that the different chapters would be prepared by drafters and be discussed further in writing sessions, which made phase V much longer than anticipated.444 Consequently, the verbal influence from the dialogue sessions on the content of the Final Report was very limited, as could be clearly demonstrated in the analysis of the 1999 session. As did other drafters, William Henn used a position paper – his own – as starting point for the chapter on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’. The poor theological quality of the Pentecostal papers in 1999 and the absence of a carefully crafted Agreed Account left him few other options. The subsequent process from the draft chapters to the Final Report assured that corrections and balances could still be made. In the case of Chapter 2, the analysis could indicate only very limited propinquity with documents from the 1999 dialogue session. Substantive continuity with earlier statements and discussions thus seems not to have been sought. Adaptations were rather formulated ad hoc by the participants involved in this final stage.

Concluding reflections: Development of dialogue method in the IRCCPD In conclusion, the different elements of dialogue method in the IRCCPD can be summarized and evaluated from the perspective of the end product: the Final Report. 443 444

See §73 in comparison to §23 of the sixth draft. The process was also slowed down because some of the issues discussed required careful handling – notably ‘experience’ and ‘baptism in the Spirit’.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

185

Evaluations are based in first instance on the analyses. Second, the estimations of dialogue participants are incorporated. Elements of the dialogue of which no tangible reports are present, such as interpersonal relations and collateral activities, are discussed as well, as they are said to have contributed indirectly to the results. As only a selection of dialogue sessions have been scrutinized, the related reflections are indicative rather than conclusive.

Pentecostal preparations When Sandidge became the secretary of the Pentecostal Dialogue Team during the preparations of phase III, he actively sought to further strengthen the Pentecostal team by two initiatives: the organization of an annual Preparation Day for the Pentecostals on the day prior to each dialogue session, and a Notebook with relevant reading material that was sent beforehand to all participants. When Sandidge could no longer participate in the dialogue, the Steering Committee continued both initiatives. Robeck valued the preparation days primarily because they allowed the team to discuss the papers beforehand and detect any internal divergences. He did not appreciate ‘surprises’ during the actual dialogue session.445 Robeck also continued to send all Classical Pentecostal dialogue participants a package of reading material some time before each dialogue session. New participants were given a longer reading list on ecumenical dialogue and on the history of the IRCCPD in advance and were expected to attend the preparation day.446 Both elements were instrumental to a better starting position of the Pentecostal team at the beginning of each dialogue session.

The dialogue week agenda A dialogue session usually lasted five or six working days, averaging between twentythree and thirty-three working hours. Each day had a long early afternoon break and evening sessions were exceptional. The total work load may seem light, but a number of arguments can be given. First of all, the intensity of the work sessions should not be underestimated as one is constantly required to shift between both team’s theological positions.447 Second, quite a number of participants were (long) past retirement age. As was signalled in the case of Kilian McDonnell, the working schedules were deliberately adapted for their comfort. Third, a too heavy schedule would be counterproductive, McDonnell argued, as it would bring stress to the dialogue. Finally, the open spaces were considered to have value in themselves: they gave room to strengthen relations, they allowed both teams to organize (extra) caucus meetings if necessary, and they could be used to finalize interim reports and/ or to prepare upcoming work sessions. The dialogue weeks included particular occasions for building interpersonal relationships and for spirituality. Each day, three meals and at least two coffee breaks 445

Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 16 July 2013, CrArch. Ibid. 447 This at least was the experience of the author when present at the 2013 dialogue session. 446

186

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

were planned, in which all dialogue participants were expected to participate.448 From 1986 on, each dialogue week had one free afternoon for an excursion and/ or a visit to (a) local church leader(s).449 In addition, the week schedules had two daily joint prayer moments to open and close each working day. The shared prayer sessions helped the teams to get to know one another’s spiritual traditions. Each year the participants attended either a Roman Catholic or a Pentecostal mass or worship service.450 The relational and the spiritual elements were appreciated by the participants of both teams and were considered essential to the ecumenical progress of the dialogue because of its focus on spirituality.451

Papers, responses and discussions Each Catholic–Pentecostal dialogue session opened with position papers that were prepared by experts from both ecclesial families and sent to all participants in advance. The paper presentations were read and discussed together and were especially in the first phase fundamental to the theological interaction. It took some time before the teams decided on the amount, organization and breadth of the papers. Particularly in phase I, a good equilibrium was difficult to find because of the number of themes that were put on the agenda and because not two but three dialogue partners were involved. The teams experimented with singular and dual response papers in addition to the position papers. In phase II it was decided that each session would deal with two themes, each introduced by one paper per team, totalling in four papers per week. In phase III this was further reduced to one theme and two papers per session, which remained the standard practice in phases III, IV and V. The papers lost some of their weight after phase I, but every single dialogue session of the IRCCPD was opened by paper presentations and discussions on the basis thereof, filling at least one day. The selective analyses demonstrate in an exemplary way that the length, structure and theological quality of the papers have fluctuated over the years. Particularly the Classical Pentecostal papers have not always been strong theologically, but a general

448

The archives do not mention the shared meals but this is confirmed by current and past participants: Sandidge, ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 44. Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch. 449 It is not exactly clear from the archives when this tradition began. Sandidge mentions in passing a cultural outing in the 1980 session: Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 218. Since 1986, outings were mentioned in the Press Releases of the third phase. All week schedules of phases IV-V had a time slot for excursions/field trips/free time. Cecil Robeck ‘cannot remember a week in which there was not one afternoon in which the whole dialogue did something different together’. Cecil Robeck to Jelle Creemers, email, 26 May 2014, CrArch. 450 This cannot be substantiated with written sources for phase I, but it can be expected that it was custom since the beginning of the dialogue. This is confirmed by Cecil Robeck: ‘[A]ll days […] have begun and ended with a time of prayer/Bible reading/singing and/or a short homily. That has always been the structure of the day.’ Cecil Robeck to Jelle Creemers, email, 26 May 2014, CrArch. 451 Interview by Jelle Creemers with David Cole, 17 July 2013, CrArch; Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 15 July 2013, CrArch; Interview by Jelle Creemers with Francesca Teresa Rossi, 18 July 2013, CrArch; Interview by Jelle Creemers with Maria Ko, 18 July 2013, CrArch.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

187

positive development can be asserted. This can be directly connected to the growing participation of scholars to the dialogue team.452 The influence of the papers on the content of the Final Reports has differed substantially over the phases. The analyses of the 1973 session and the 1999 session suggest that the papers in phases I and V bore substantially on the Final Reports. The analyses of the dialogue process in the other years (1979, 1986 and 1991) demonstrates that other factors have played significant roles as well, such as the integration of the hard questions sessions, different modes of reporting and the particularities of the redaction process (see infra). The analyses did not indicate a clear influence of the discussions that followed the paper presentations on the Final Reports. This does not imply, however, that they were redundant. The minutes demonstrate that the discussions promoted a better understanding of the papers and of the positions of both traditions, which in turn impacted the subsequent hard questions sessions (since 1979).

The hard questions sessions Hard questions were already used to promote discussions in the second preparatory meeting in 1971 but were first implemented in the IRCCPD dialogue sessions in 1979. Since then, hard questions sessions have remained an essential element of the dialogue weeks. The method developed slightly in the second phase, but by the beginning of the third phase it was fixed as a simple four-step process of preparation, exchange, answering and discussion, taking two to three days. As a first step, both teams met in caucus to prepare the hard questions for the other team to answer. The analyses showed that questions were simply taken over from the ones prepared beforehand, adapted or newly formulated, based on the presentations and initial discussions. From the third phase on, when each session came to concentrate on a single theme introduced by two papers, usually three questions were prepared by each team. Next, the teams came together again to present, explain and exchange their hard questions. While this is an obvious step in the process, no reflections of these exchanges are present in the archives. Third, the teams split up again and took ample time to answer each of the questions. The analysis of 1979 suggests that at that time the Classical Pentecostal team put limited effort in this exercise, and this was still the estimation of Miroslav Volf in 1987.453 The growing length and quality of the answers in the 1991 and 1999 session suggest that by phase IV the Classical Pentecostal team was more conscious and/or convinced of the importance of this theological exchange. As a final step, the teams came together again to discuss each answer at length. Questions could now be asked that aimed at a deeper understanding and parallels and similarities came to surface. In phases III–V, not only the hard questions and answers were reported in the dialogue reports but also the minutes of the subsequent discussions. From the evaluation of the dialogue sessions, the following influences of the hard questions sessions on the IRCCPD dialogue process can be argued. 452 453

Cf. pp. 53–55. Miroslav Volf to Jerry Sandidge, 16 May 1987, SanColl.

188

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

First, the hard questions necessitated all participants to come better prepared to the dialogue sessions as everyone was expected to have read the papers of the other team beforehand and to have formulated a number of critical questions. Second, the hard questions brought the discussions directly to elements estimated to be most important, thereby giving equal value to the perspectives of both dialogue partners. Both teams were completely free to select issues they considered pivotal and to decide on a specific focus or angle. The discussion could thus move easily beyond the limitations and scopes of the position papers, which Cecil Robeck considered an essential achievement of the hard questions method.454 Third, in case the presented papers were unequal in theological weight, the dialogue could be ‘levelled’ again in the hard questions sessions, as was noted appreciatively by Juan Usma Gómez.455 The hard questions method thus seriously limited the possibility of a preponderance of one partner for the duration of an entire dialogue session. Fourth, the analysis suggests that the hard questions allowed focus to shift from theological argumentation, which was the primary mode of communication in the papers, to more narrative-based discussions on experiences of spirituality and questions of ecclesial praxis. Both Catholic and Pentecostal hard questions brought the dialogue frequently from the theoretical to the phenomenological level. The Pentecostals in particular considered this an important strength of the hard questions method.456 Fourth, the separate caucus meetings allowed each team to discuss in private the breadth of theological positions and opinions within their ranks, before the confrontation with the dialogue partner. For this reason, David Cole ‘marvelled at the work of the dialogue itself. It is really three dialogues at once. Pentecostals dialogue with fellow Pentecostals as they struggle to come to consensus […]. Roman Catholics do the same thing amongst themselves. And then of course is the exchange which takes place between these groups.’457 Recognizing the inner diversity was sometimes difficult and painful, but allowed each team to really think through what they could and could not say in common.458 The realization of breadth in the own ranks opened up space for finding commonalities with the dialogue partner. Fifth, as ample time was taken to craft questions and answers, both teams could formulate their positions in a more careful and clear way than an oral discussion would allow. The written questions and answers demonstrate that the dialogue teams sought to speak the other’s language, which is exemplified in the Classical Pentecostal 454

Cecil Robeck to Justus du Plessis and Jerry Sandidge, 19 April 1991, SanColl; cf. pp. 155–156. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Juan Usma Gómez, 18 July 2013, CrArch. 456 This is explicitly recognized by Cecil Robeck when asked about the importance of the hard questions method: ‘[At a certain time,] the hard questions became very hard and they had to go and do all this sophisticated theological work in order to come back with a response while that was not what we were really after. It was kind of like “if you were a pastor, how would you apply this kind of stuff.” That’s really the kind of level we’re looking at.’ Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 19 July 2013, CrArch. 457 David Cole to Ray Smith, 15 November 1993, RobArch. 458 This was the case for both dialogue partners. Regarding the Classical Pentecostal team, see, e.g. pp. 121–122. Similar situations in the Roman Catholic caucuses are indicated by Cecil Robeck. Cecil Robeck to Jelle Creemers, email, 15 November 2011, CrArch. 455

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

189

questions that referred to Roman Catholic official teaching documents.459 It thus improved mutual understanding and rapprochement. A careful comparison of the hard questions and answers shows, however, that the second step of exchanging the questions has regularly been undervalued. At times, the focus of the hard questions was not understood and answers were formulated that did not get at the heart of the issue. The discussion that followed made it possible then to reformulate questions and/ or press the dialogue partner to provide more clarity. Sixth, it is striking that, while the relative weight of the hard questions sessions in the dialogue weeks continued to grow from phase II to phase V, the analysis suggests that their direct influence on the Final Reports did not grow consequently. The influence is most clear in FR II and quite clear in FR IV, but few traces of the 1986 and 1999 hard questions sessions could be found in FR III and FR V. This can be attributed to factors that weighed more heavily on the formation of these two Final Reports. The strong redaction of FR III by two team members in the final session (1989) should not be underestimated. Regarding phase V, the slow redaction process has been pointed to, as well as the fact that the chapter based on the 1999 session clearly started from one of the papers rather than from the dialogue week reports. Maria Ko, Roman Catholic participant in phase V, suggests that the hard questions sessions in that phase should be considered as stepping stones rather than as building stones for the Final Reports. They were important for bringing ‘a new mindset or […] perspective [from which] we started our work for the Final Agreement’.460 Finally, from the two instances at which the hard questions method came under criticism, it can be argued that its confrontational nature required a context of good interpersonal relations. Both criticisms came from first-time participants, while the method was defended by participants who had been involved for a much longer time. The fear that it would have a negative effect as it would distance the partners from each other was unwarranted. The fear that hard questions sessions would slow down the discussions turned out to be sometimes true but was apparently considered collateral damage for a good cause.

Towards an Agreed Account Every dialogue session aimed at a written report in which the discussions and/or outcomes of the dialogue week were brought together. It was seriously regretted when a dialogue week ended without such an account.461 This report was usually named the ‘Agreed Account’, but its content evolved considerably over the phases. The archives do not provide any rationale for this evolution.

459

See, e.g. pp. 144–146. This is also mentioned and appreciated by Maria Ko: ‘[We were] challenged by the other with a question pointing on that, we were pressed to justify and also, in a new way, not selfreferential. And this is the biggest challenge for me, to elaborate things which I have studied [and] to present it in a new way[, ...] going into the perspective of the other.’ Interview by Jelle Creemers with Maria Ko, 18 July 2013, CrArch. 460 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Maria Ko, 18 July 2013, CrArch. 461 See pp. 155–156.

190

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

In phases I and II, Agreed Accounts were collections of carefully crafted synthesizing statements. The analyses of AA 1973 and AA 1979 demonstrated that they brought together what was considered essential from the papers and the discussions (including, in phase II, the hard questions discussions). Important agreements and disagreements on the considered topic(s) were indicated. As a result, the Agreed Accounts served well as building blocks for the Final Reports.462 In phase III, Agreed Accounts were not crafted at the end of the week, but the papers, the minutes of all plenary sessions, and the written hard questions and answers were collected annually. Hence, the dialogue sessions did not end with a clear, agreed and filtered summary of the main conclusions. The writing of the Final Report needed therefore to be done in a completely different way, which is discussed below. In phase IV, the Agreed Account was again carefully crafted, as the analysis of the 1991 session demonstrated.463 It brought together agreements and disagreements in collected statements with the summary of the hard questions discussions. As the archives trace the development of the AA, it is shown that in this process the teams sought for clarity on both agreements and disagreements. The AA was again a very useful tool for the writing of the Final Report, but a long redaction process made the continuity less obvious. The Agreed Accounts of phase V consisted of daily or two days’ minutes in which the discussions of the week were summarized. They were probably written jointly by the two co-secretaries of the teams, and were kept together with the papers and the collected hard questions and answers. As in phase III, they seem to have had a rather limited influence on the Final Report.

Towards a Final Report In the five phases of the IRCCPD under consideration, the dialogue processes leading to the Final Reports have been diverse. The final editing processes that have led to the officially published Final Reports are discussed here, building on the preceding. In phase I, the composition of the Final Report was a very straightforward process that implied a compilation of the Agreed Accounts and a final editing of the whole. Consequently, the Final Report is basically a list of carefully composed statements and paragraphs. The strong Catholic preponderance during the dialogue process has been recognized in the analysis of the final editing process and in the Final Report, but specific Pentecostal concerns were clearly discussed as well. Interestingly, in the finalization of the report, the Pentecostals insisted that the theological positions would be more clearly contrasted. In phase II, the composition of the Final Report again consisted largely of a compilation of the Agreed Accounts, which served as building blocks. The analysis demonstrated the strong continuity in the development from the papers over the discussions (including the hard questions and answers) to the Final Report. Due to the 462 463

Cf. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 79–80. Remember that this was explicitly discussed after the team could not manage to arrive at an Agreed Account at the end of the 1990 session.

Dialogue Method in the IRCCPD: The Hard Questions

191

hard questions sessions, there was no need to accentuate differing positions in the final editing as they were already very explicit. The finalization of Final Report III went through a process very different from the earlier ones. As the third phase dialogue sessions did not work towards carefully crafted Agreed Accounts, all relevant documents were simply stacked, including papers, minutes of the plenary sessions, and the hard questions and answers. Because of the absence of clear reports listing points of agreement and of disagreement, much analytical and synthetic work was still needed for the dialogue team to arrive at a Final Report. The initial hope to have a draft prepared before the fifth session did not materialize. Therefore, the team decided to seek efficiency by combining in that session work in small teams, caucus sessions and plenary sessions. The team also relied heavily on the ‘two most theologically minded individuals’ present, one from each side, who both were specialized in ecclesiology.464 Hervé Legrand and Miroslav Volf drafted documents and brought them to their respective teams and to the plenary. By the end of the session a draft was finished, which was brushed up in the months following and approved by the plenary in 1990. The Final Report was more theological coherent than the preceding ones, but reflected less the actual discussions of the dialogue sessions. The composition of Final Report IV took much longer than anticipated. The theme and the chosen procedure can sufficiently explain this tardiness. The subtopic of ‘proselytism’ was especially sensitive and mutual understanding and agreements could only be arrived at slowly and with great care. Sections of the Final Report were drafted by mixed pairs and then discussed substantially in plenary, which probably is the main reason for the slow process. Moreover, the material at disposal for the drafts was substantial. The analysis of the 1991 section suggests that the drafters did not simply start from the Agreed Accounts but sought to incorporate elements of the papers and the minutes of the discussions (including the hard questions and answers) as well. Consequently, the relevant section in the Final Report reflects well the content of the dialogue discussions even if the Agreed Account cannot be easily recognized. The redaction process leading to FR V has been even slower and more complex than the preceding one. Four main reasons can be given. First, FR V went in many ways through the same difficult process as FR IV, also having to deal with very sensitive topics (notably experience and baptism in the Holy Spirit) and seeking a procedure to deal with them in a careful way. Second, the dialogue team had the same disadvantage as was noted in phase III, namely the absence of carefully drafted Agreed Accounts. Third, the overarching theme was very broad and required a good structuring and discussion of many interrelated subjects. Finally, the express choice to incorporate perspectives from the patristic era in the papers, discussions and Final Report seriously added to the difficulty of the final work that needed to be done. To deal with this complexity, it was decided that some chapters would be prepared by single drafters (Maria Ko, Hans Gasper and William Henn) who could largely start from their own papers. The first drafts of other chapters were prepared in the

464

Citation from Miroslav Volf to Jelle Creemers, email, 22 June 2013, CrArch.

192

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

plenary sessions. Drafting teams were then given the task to elaborate and refine the documents and to bring them back to the plenary.465 Most chapters needed to be sent back to drafting committees, until after almost ten years all draft chapters could be brought together and finalized. The analysis related to the 1999 session suggests that Final Report V is again theologically strong but reflects the actual discussions during the dialogue meetings only in a limited way.

465

Interview by Jelle Creemers with Maria Ko, 18 July 2013, CrArch.

5

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

Introduction The frequent lack of a clear theological method in ecumenical dialogue can be frustrating to systematic theologians. Some urge ecumenists to develop a refined theological method before any dialogue takes place, in other words, to thoroughly consider theological method in advance.1 More often than not, however, questions of theological method cannot be answered beforehand in an ecumenical encounter. Even more than in tradition-specific theological work, ecumenical dialogue involves a complex hermeneutical and historical process.2 In line with Gillian R. Evans, who was quoted earlier in this regard,3 Roman Catholic ecumenical theologian, Oliver Schuegraf, explains: The road towards visible unity is a process in which the churches are called to come together creatively. This process can draw on virtually no earlier models from church history. Thus there are no generally accepted criteria for how it should best proceed. On the contrary, the criteria themselves have to be part of the necessary agreements.4

1

2

3

4

Pentecostal theologian, Wolfgang Vondey, partially fell in this trap in a 2001 article. He indicated ‘five areas that should be addressed before official dialogue can focus on the actual issues that unite or divide the churches’. See Wolfgang Vondey, ‘Presuppositions for Pentecostal Engagement in Ecumenical Dialogue’, Exchange 30, no. 4 (2001): 344–358. In a later reuse of this article, Vondey is less pressing and speaks of ‘rules of engagement’. Vondey, Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, xxi. A key text that discusses hermeneutics in ecumenism is the Faith & Order paper entitled ‘A Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An Instrument for an Ecumenical Reflection on Hermeneutics’. For an influential analysis of hermeneutics as ecumenical method, see Miikka Ruokanen, Hermeneutics as an Ecumenical Method: In the Theology of Gerhard Ebeling, Schriften Der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft B13 (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Society, 1982). Gillian R. Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology : The Lessons So Far (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 149. See the introduction of part B. Oliver Schuegraf, ‘Finding Bilateral Agreement: The Rules of the Game’, Ecumenical Review 55, no. 3 (July 2003): 264. He is the author of Oliver Schuegraf, Der einen Kirche Gestalt geben: Ekklesiologie in den Dokumenten der bilateralen Konsensökumene, Jerusalemer theologisches Forum 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2001).

194

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The dialogue partners, therefore, need to deal with matters of theological method both in the beginning and all throughout a dialogue process. While many methodological suggestions have been offered in the past decades to facilitate progress in theological dialogue, the archives and Final Reports of the IRCCPD do not mention any theological method or methodology that was consciously predetermined, developed or taken over for their ecumenical encounters.5 Obviously, however, different elements related to ‘theological method’ came up in preparatory discussions and played a role in the composition of the Final Reports. This chapter aims to bring together such elements in view of an analysis of the development of theological method in the IRCCPD. In contrast to the previous chapter, this chapter does not aim to describe the development of theological method within each phase. This choice is imperative because much more than dialogue method, theological method is integral to theological discourse. Theological dialogue implies a confrontation of not only theological perspectives but also of theological methods that are both numerous and relative to the respective theological traditions and even to the participating individuals. Theological methods largely remain under the surface of theological texts and arguments. Describing and analysing their confrontation in the course of the IRCCPD is arguably impossible in se and certainly not possible in the scope of this work. For the analysis of theological method in the IRCCPD Final Reports, a common sense approach is used involving three guiding questions. This has been opted for two obvious reasons. First, as the IRCCPD does not utilize an existing theological methodology, no analytical framework offered by the dialogue partners themselves is available. Second, borrowing a framework from a respected systematic theologian may imply a scrutiny of the dialogue reports for elements that are not central or even absent. A basic analysis starting from three guiding questions allows for a straightforward discussion of (elements of) the theological method as they present themselves in the IRCCPD Final Reports. The three key questions are the following: (1) Which theological aims are the dialogue partners trying to achieve with a particular document? (2) Which sources for (theological) knowledge are taken into consideration in view of this and how are they being used?6 (3) Which approach has been used to 5

6

Key examples are (a) understanding theology as fides quaerens intellectum, (b) understanding theological dialogue as an ‘exchange of gifts’, (c) an refocusing of an ecumenical dialogue’s aim from full ‘consensus’ to ‘reconciled diversity’ or a ‘differentiated consensus’ and (d) the ‘historical method’ aiming at ‘purifying memory’. See Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004); Ryan Scruggs, ‘Faith Seeking Understanding: Theological Method in Thomas Merton’s Interreligious Dialogue’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46, no. 3 (June 2011): 411–426; O’Gara, The Ecumenical Gift Exchange; Risto Saarinen, God and the Gift: An Ecumenical Theology of Giving (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005); Pieter De Witte, Doctrine, Dynamic and Difference: To the Heart of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Differentiated Consensus on Justification, Ecclesiological Investigations 15 (New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2012); Minna Hietamäki, Agreeable Agreement: An Examination of the Quest for Consensus in Ecumenical Dialogue, vol. 8, Ecclesiological Investigations (London: T&T Clark, 2010); Gillian R. Evans, ‘Ecumenical Historical Method’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31, no. 1–2 (Winter-Spring 1994): 93–110; Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology, 117–147. The use of sources and argumentations in the FRs are taken at face value during the analysis and in the conclusion the valuation(s) of such sources are brought together. A helpful description

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

195

achieve this goal? They resemble the questions Catholic theologian Avery Dulles asks in his article ‘Ecumenism and Theological Method’.7 Answering these questions of theological method in the IRCCPD is impeded in two ways. First, while elements of theological method underlie the Final Reports, only some elements are discussed explicitly, usually in only one or two paragraphs. Therefore, a careful analysis of the Final Reports in view of uncovering choices and applications of theological method is needed. A second difficulty pertains to the long time span of the dialogue. Questions of theological method cannot be answered in a univocal way, as the IRCCPD has gone through five consecutive phases, each closing with very different Final Reports. Each of these reports is therefore discussed separately and the analysis demonstrates a variety and development in theological method. The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. First, a priori considerations of theological method are discussed. Next, five subchapters uncover (elements of) the theological method in each of the five phases by a careful analysis of the explicit paragraphs on method in the Final Reports as well as the underlying choices regarding method. Each subchapter explicitly focuses on the three questions stated above. A final subchapter offers a concluding overview of the variety and development in theological method in the IRCCPD.

A priori considerations of theological method in the IRCCPD A critical and comparative look at the reports from the preparatory meetings and the Final Reports demonstrate the absence of a well-defined and a priori established theological method undergirding the IRCCPD. However, elements of theological method were discussed beforehand in the search for a good starting point and goal for the future dialogue in the preparatory meetings of 1970 and 1971.

The 1970 preparatory meeting At the first preparatory meeting in 1970, a proposal was written out that described ‘the nature and purpose of a possible dialogue between a group of Pentecostals and Roman Catholics under the sponsorship of The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity’.8 The three-page document opens with a long citation from the SPCU’s Reflections and Suggestions concerning Ecumenical Dialogue. A Working Instrument at the Disposal of Ecclesiastical Authorities for Concrete Application of the Decree on Ecumenism, which had recently been published.9 This text is introduced as ‘the Roman Catholic ideal for ecumenical dialogue’ and is worth to be quoted in length:

7

8 9

of what is sought for, is offered the report of the bilateral commission of the German National Bishops’ Conference and the Church Leadership of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany, ‘Communio Sanctorum: Die Kirche als Gemeinschaft der Heiligen’ (2000), which speaks of ‘instances of knowing and testifying to revealed truth’ [‘Erkenntnis- und Bezeugungsinstanzen’]. See, esp. §7, 40–73. Avery Robert Dulles, ‘Ecumenism and Theological Method’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 17, no. 1 (Winter 1980): 40–48. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 27–29. Information Service no. 12 (1970), 5–11.

196

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Through dialogue, Christians, though still separated, can learn to advance together in their sharing in the reality of the mystery of Christ and of His Church. Together they can discern common elements in their different ways of approaching the revealed mystery and of translating it into their thought, life and witness. Since ‘the brethren who believe in Christ, are Christ’s disciples, reborn in baptism, sharers with all people of God in very many riches’, and since these riches, such as – ‘the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity, along with the interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements’ – are accessible to all those who have been baptized, Christians are in a position to communicate to each other the riches that the Holy Spirit develops within them. The Holy Spirit in fact is always acting in such a way as to lead the Christian people to live the witness of the Holy Scriptures and to understand it better, and so to accomplish its prophetic role. Those who take part in this ecumenical dialogue recognize one another as existing in Christ, since they have been baptized in Him, born again – ‘not from any mortal seed but from the everlasting word of the living and eternal God’ (1.Pet. 1,2) and are able through the Holy Spirit to hear their brethren tell them of the marvellous works of God.

The post–Vatican II Roman Catholic theological framework for ecumenical dialogue is easily recognized. The text promotes dialogue between ‘separated’ Christians. Other Christians are fraternally approached due to their baptized state and there is a willingness to exchange in dialogue the riches that each has received from God. The statement contains literal quotes from and references to especially Lumen Gentium (e.g. §11, 15) and Unitatis Redintegratio (e.g. §3, 4, 22). After this citation, the proposal contains six numbered statements. First, it is briefly explained how the introductory text is valued.10 For the SPCU, it forms the ‘context’ in which Catholic–Pentecostal dialogue can be encouraged (thesis 1). The dialogue partners jointly state that the dialogue must take place ‘in the spirit of the aforementioned Roman Catholic document on Ecumenical Dialogue’ (thesis 2). Bittlinger understands this to mean not only that the Roman Catholics accept the Pentecostals as Christians according to these principles, but also that ‘the Pentecostals who participate in the dialogue acknowledge the Catholics who participate in the dialogue as born-again Christians’.11 In retrospect, however, both claims must be disputed. The dialogue would make clear that the conversionist Pentecostals actually do not agree with positing baptism as the foundation for the recognition of the other as ‘existing in Christ’. Not baptism but ‘a common faith and experience of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior through

10 11

Cf. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 28. “Daß der Dialog im Geist der katholische Erklärung zu oekumenischen Dialogen geführt werden soll heißt, daß die am Dialog beteiligten Pfingstler die am Dialog beteiligten Katholiken – also auch die Vertreter des Vatikan (die ja bis vor nicht allzulanger Zeit von vielen Pfingstlern als Mitarbeiter des Antichristen angesehen wurden und z.T. noch werden) – als wiedergeborene Christen anerkennen.” Ibid., 30.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

197

the Holy Spirit’ is in their perspective the foundation of Christian unity (FR III:55).12 The a priori acceptance by Catholics of Classical Pentecostals as Christians on the basis of their baptism is seriously challenged in dealing with the Oneness segment of Classical Pentecostalism. Their baptism in the name of Jesus only, if implying a rejection of the historical understanding of the Triune God, is not accepted by Roman Catholics (FR III:54).13 While the baptismal agreement was foundational to the start of the dialogue, its reconsideration in a later stage seems not to cause major upheaval. The impossibility of the Pentecostal participants to speak for their respective churches is implicitly recognized in the document as well. Thesis 2 states that the dialogue ‘must be in accord with the ecclesiastical allegiance of those who are Pentecostals’. Bittlinger understands this to imply that, while they were only present in a personal capacity, in their composition the Pentecostals sought to represent the essential concerns of the movement of which they are part.14 Thesis 3 states that the dialogue should therefore relate ‘realistically to Pentecostalism which appears as a movement, a spirituality, rather than a systematic theology’. While not formally related to the theses, the third part of the document under consideration explains this in greater detail and is discussed as an interlude before continuing to Thesis 4. The closing paragraph on ‘the essence of Pentecostalism’ was written by the Pentecostals – and possibly by David du Plessis alone15 – in the following way: The essence of Pentecostalism is the personal and direct awareness and experiencing of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, by which the risen and glorified Christ is revealed and the believer is empowered to witness and worship with the abundance of life as described in Acts and the Epistles. The Pentecostal experience is not a goal to be reached, nor a place to stand, but a door through which to enter into a greater fullness of life in the Spirit. It is an event which becomes a way of life in which often charismatic manifestations have a place. Characteristic of this way of life is a love of the Word of God, fervency in prayer and in witness in the world and to the world, and concern to live by the power of the Holy Spirit.16

This concise text focuses immediately on the level of spirituality and most particularly on the importance of a particular experience for the Christian life.17 Described as a ‘personal and direct’ experience of the indwelling of the Spirit, i.e. neither mediated nor 12 13 14 15

16 17

Cf. pp. 16–17. Cf. pp. 29–31. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 29. David du Plessis is named the sole author in Vondey, ‘Presuppositions for Pentecostal Engagement’, 351. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 29. The definition has been appropriated outside of the dialogue. The first line of the text is quoted in Vondey, ‘Presuppositions for Pentecostal Engagement’, 351. Vondey states that it is ‘a frequently quoted definition’, but provides no examples. In the context of the IRCCPD, the same reference is used in McDonnell, ‘Five Defining Issues’, 113.

198

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

communal, it is said to reveal to the believer the triumphant Christ and to empower her for Christian service. The reference to ‘Acts and the Epistles’ as historical precedents in which this ‘abundance of life’ is described brings to mind the restorationist perspective of Pentecostals.18 In the second sentence, the Pentecostal experience is said to be readily available and momentary. By depicting it as a door through that one can enter into ‘greater fullness of life in the Spirit’ the importance of this experience is both emphasized and put in perspective: it is an entrance that discloses greater fullness of life but it is of passing value as ‘only’ a portal. The Pentecostals do not claim that one needs the Pentecostal experience to have any access to life in the Spirit, but it goes without saying for them that it complements the spiritual life. The third sentence again modifies the former by pointing to a lasting value of the experience: it can become ‘a way of life’ in which other charismatic manifestations can be expected. Finally, the experience is put in perspective again by making it instrumental to ‘a love of the Word of God, fervency in prayer and in witness in the world and to the world, and concern to live by the power of the Holy Spirit’. No specific charismatic manifestations such as speaking in tongues are mentioned as necessary for entering in or living a Pentecostal way of life. Interestingly, this statement is not accompanied by a similar statement on ‘the essence of Roman Catholicism’. Possibly, both partners regarded this statement as necessary to help the Roman Catholics to understand the ‘essence of Pentecostalism’ and to also serve as a point of orientation for the ‘Pentecostal’ team, which consisted at the time of both Classical Pentecostals and Charismatic Protestants.19 The text on the essence of Pentecostalism also balanced the introductory statement, which presented a Roman Catholic perspective. The understanding of Pentecostalism put forward here is fundamental to the remaining theses, in which the outlines for future dialogue are drawn. Because Pentecostalism is understood primarily as a spirituality, the dialogue should ‘concern itself, initially at least, with the life and spiritual experience of Christians and the Church’ (thesis 4). Further, the thematic focus should be on ‘fullness of life in the Holy Spirit’, ‘the gifts of the Holy Spirit as manifested in the ministry of the Church’ (thesis 5) and ‘the need for a renewal of the life of prayer’ (thesis 6). In the first instance, it ‘would look […] at the unity already existing between those who belong to Christ, and strive to walk in the fullness of the Spirit’. While later references to this text are absent in official publications, all of these areas have indeed been covered extensively in the IRCCPD discussions in phases I–V. Only the topic of ‘Renewal of the life of prayer’ has received only limited attention (FR I).20

The 1971 preparatory meetings In two follow-up meetings, the contours of the future dialogue were further discussed.21 The second preparatory meeting in Rome on 22–23 June 1971 made a 18

See pp. 24–29.

19

Cf. pp. 47–48. Note, however, the importance of prayer in the dialogue meetings. Cf. pp. 139–140. See, for a historical overview and analysis, Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 31–49.

20 21

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

199

serious shift in focus. The report emphasizes strongly the ‘new Pentecost’ that the dialogue participants saw taking place in ‘the charismatic or pentecostal renewal which is now occurring in areas of Christendom’ (thesis 2).22 The participants ‘believe [them]selves to be summoned to continuing and responsible dialogue’ (thesis 8) in order to ‘testify to the “wonderful works of God”, and to talk carefully about the many theological and practical aspects of this renewal’ (thesis 9). Thus, they aim ‘to seek after understanding […] of what is genuinely of His Spirit’ (thesis 10). This report apparently indicates the spread of the charismatic renewal throughout Christianity as both the main incentive and the central theme of discussion in the dialogue, which contrasts with the former. The report and press release of the third preparatory meeting of 25–26 October, 1971, which was the first Steering Committee meeting, are again in line with the earlier emphases but incorporates the insights from June 1971.23 The document, entitled ‘Reasons for dialogue on world level’, opens by explaining that the dialogue should be ‘a dialogue on spirituality’ and ‘concerned with the centrality of prayer’. They are observing that a spiritual renewal is manifesting itself in all churches, which leads to ‘de facto informal sharing of prayer and theological reflection’. Therefore, it is appropriate that ‘prayer, spirituality and theological reflection be shared concerns at the international level in the form of a dialogue’. The dialogue is based on ‘the unity already existing between us’ and seeks to explore ‘the life and spiritual experience of Christians and the churches’. This basis and aim are considered the ‘framework’ with which ‘the dialogue will give special attention to the meaning for the Church of “fullness of life in the Holy Spirit” ’, but an explanation of the unity already existing is absent. It is further specified that attention will be given to ‘both the experiential and theological dimensions of that “fullness of life” ’. In addition to this thematic focus, two aims of the dialogue are spelt out, while two other aims are explicitly dismissed. The dialogue hopes ultimately to expand the basis for ‘a united Christian testimony, to indicate in what manner the sharing of truth makes it possible for us to grow together’. In that view, the dialogue aims at ‘mutual exchange of information’, through which the dialogue partners can ‘expos[e] the areas of real doctrinal disagreement’ and ‘eliminate imagined difficulties’. Hence, it is stressed, ‘the more immediate concern of this international dialogue is mutual information rather than action’.24 The text continues to say explicitly that the dialogue aims not to ‘concern itself with the problems of

22

23

24

The origin and status of this document is unclear. Bittlinger introduces it as the report of the 1971 meeting in Ibid., 40–41. Sandidge makes no reference at all to this document but quotes part of another document, which he calls the ‘report’ of the 1971 meeting (and which Bittlinger also uses): Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:70. This document can also be found in his archives: ‘Report of the second Catholic/Pentecostal Meeting’, 22–23 June 1971, SanColl. The document Bittlinger mentions cannot be found in the archives at disposal. While both documents have the same basic content, the press release is actually clearer and better structured than the internal document. Therefore, the latter will be read from the perspective of the former. See, for both documents, Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 47–49. This quotation calls into question Peter Hocken’s historical reconstruction of the dialogue’s beginning, which contrasts an original aim of sharing ‘principles of the life of prayer and principles of life in the Spirit’ with statements by SPCU officials after 1980, which ‘located the purpose of this dialogue in increased mutual understanding’. Hocken, ‘Dialogue Extraordinary’, 210.

200

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

imminent structural union’ nor to be ‘directly concerned with the domestic pastoral problem of the relationship of Catholic Pentecostalism to the Roman Catholic Church’.

Conclusion Taken together, the internal reports of the preparatory meetings do not provide a clear theological method for the dialogue, but they do give a fair basis on which the IRCCPD could be initiated. Sources from which they hope to draw in their theological discussion are not listed, but in passing, Scripture and experience are mentioned. It is laudable that, before the start of the dialogue, purposes of the dialogue have been discussed. The theological aims remain, however, vague. The caution that action and imminent structural union are not aimed at, nor a discussion of the challenge of the charismatic renewal within the Catholic Church, is certainly helpful to avoid wrong expectations in both dialogue teams and their constituencies. As Kilian McDonnell rightly stated, beforehand ‘[t]he purpose of the dialogue [was] carefully limited’ – rather than carefully defined.25

Theological method in Final Report I The Final Report of the first IRCCPD consisted of forty-six paragraphs distributed unevenly over twelve sections. The longest section is the introductory section, which in ten paragraphs introduces the dialogue and the report. These paragraphs require particular attention as they discuss matters of theological method. More insight is gained from a careful analysis of the rest of the Final Report. As indicated earlier, the focus is respectively on theological aims, sources and approach.

Theological aims of FR I The first five paragraphs of FR I generally introduce the dialogue as ‘a serious theological discussion’ (§2). Borrowing heavily from the reports of the preparatory meetings, paragraphs 4–5 explain that the immediate scope of the dialogue ‘[…] was not “to concern itself with the problems of imminent structural union,” although of course its object was Christians coming closer together in prayer and common witness. Its purpose has been that “prayer, spirituality and theological reflection be a shared concern” […]’. Thus, after a negative aim, a positive purpose is given by quoting from the report of the earlier meetings. Paragraph 5 continues in the same style: The dialogue has sought ‘to explore the life and spiritual experience of Christians and the Churches’, ‘to give special attention to the meaning for the Church of fullness of life in the Holy Spirit’, attending to ‘both the experiential and theological dimensions’ of that life. ‘Through such dialogue’ those who participate ‘hope to share in the reality of the mystery of Christ and the Church, to build a united testimony, to indicate in what manner the sharing of truth makes it possible … to grow together’. 25

McDonnell, ‘Improbable Conversations’, 25.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

201

The purposes and hopes of the dialogue are thus explained on the basis of the original agreements of 1970 and 1971. The Final Report does not give clarity to its own particular status and purpose, but a reference to its theological aims is given in paragraph 6: Certain areas of doctrinal agreement have been looked at with a view to eliminating mutual misunderstandings. At the same time, there has been no attempt to minimize points of real divergence. One of these, for example, is the importance given to faith and to experience, and their relation in Christian life.26

This dual focus of ‘eliminating mutual misunderstandings’ and indicating ‘points of real divergence’ is in agreement with the aforementioned most ‘immediate concern’ of the dialogue. As was said earlier, specifically the Pentecostal team stressed that the Final Report should not only focus on agreements but also clearly indicate oppositions.27 This introductory paragraph does just that, by explicitly providing an example of a point of ‘real divergence’.

Theological sources in FR I In two complementary ways, insights are gained from the Final Report regarding the use and importance of particular sources for theological reasoning. On the one hand, information can be found in the paragraphs dealing explicitly with shared and divergent perspectives on the use and appreciation of such sources. On the other hand, the implicit use of sources in the document is scrutinized. This subchapter combines both in a systematic discussion of all relevant sources found in the document and closes by a summary thereof. In first instance, it must be noted that the report largely consists of short paragraphs of only a few sentences. While statements and positions are argued for in a variety of ways throughout FR I, most theses in agreement are simply boldly stated. Consequently, many paragraphs that do not contain contrasting views completely lack argumentative support. In these instances, the dialogue partners apparently agreed that their constituencies would easily accept these claims. A first basis for theological claims thus can be found in the agreement of the dialogue partners. Scripture is, unsurprisingly, a second yet fundamental source for theological knowledge in both traditions. Three times, an account of the New Testament teaching regarding a topic is presented as fundamental to its right understanding (§11, 20–21, 38). The principal importance of Scripture is clearly evidenced as well by the many references put in brackets behind a sentence or paragraph. In total, forty-one Scripture references occur in the text but none are quoted or critically discussed. All are from the New Testament and over half of them are Pauline. Notably, twenty-seven out of forty-one references are present in five paragraphs (§11–15) under the heading ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit’. 26 27

FR I:6 Cf. p. 118, see Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 138–139.

202

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The authority of Scripture is discussed in relation to three other theological sources, first among which is tradition.28 After a joint acknowledgment that ‘the church is always subject to Sacred Scriptures’, FR I indicates that there was ‘considerable disagreement as to the role of tradition in interpretation of Scripture’ (§28). This disagreement is not further discussed, but two paragraphs are added that point in agreement to the interrelatedness of tradition(s) and hermeneutics. First, it is noted that the Pentecostal and charismatic movements ‘challenge the exegetes to take a new look at the Sacred Text in the light of the new questions and expectations the movement brings to Scripture’ (§29). On the other hand, it is agreed that churches must be discerning as to developments in church history. How this discernment should take place is not explained (§30). Thus, the priority of Scripture is balanced with the recognition that its interpretation is informed by tradition. Two paragraphs indirectly give value to the history of the church. In the section on baptism in the Holy Spirit, it is explained that ‘during the nineteen centuries other terms have been used to express this experience […]’. Hence, the Pentecostal ‘expressions should not be used to exclude traditional understandings of the experience of and faith in the reality of Christian initiation’ (§14). The Pentecostal experience is put in broader perspective by stating that the Spirit has manifested itself ‘throughout the entire history of the Church’ (§16). The history of the church is in these instances not given priority over what is accentuated in ‘times of spiritual renewal’ (§17) but is being used to put the latter in perspective. The charismatic manifestation of the Spirit is the second source of theological knowledge that FR I brings in relation with Scripture. The value of charisms is jointly acknowledged (§38–39) and it is clarified that manifestations of the Spirit can be misinterpreted (§40). Therefore, the genuine operation of the Spirit is to be confirmed and authenticated by external criteria. These criteria ‘must be based upon the scriptural foundation of the Incarnation, the Lordship of Christ and the building up of his church’ (§40). It is added that both the community of the church with its leaders and the individual believer are involved in the process and the guidance of the Spirit is considered essential (§40–41). Scripture thus again receives a fundamental position, while it is simultaneously put in a reciprocal relationship with the workings of the Spirit. Third, the authority of Scripture is connected with our experience of the Spirit in §42–44. In contrast to the former, the emphasis is here on the sensory aspects of the individual believer’s encounter with the Spirit. It is said that ‘[t]he Bible must always be a control and a guide in the Christian experience; but on the other hand, the spiritual experience itself constantly invites us to read the Bible spiritually [… ]’ (§43). So, again Scripture is prioritized as the prime authority for the believer while the importance of the reciprocal relationship between experience and Scripture is also indicated. The place of experience in the Christian life and its importance for the Pentecostal movement, focusing particularly on the experience of Spirit baptism, is also discussed in §11–15. While its importance is acknowledged, more stress is laid 28

The Final Reports usually write ‘tradition’ with a small ‘t’. This usage is taken over in this chapter. The few instances in which a capital ‘T’ is used are discussed further in this chapter.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

203

on ‘faith, hope and charity as sure guides in responding to God’. Again, the need of discernment is noted, in which ‘the spiritual authority in the church has its own specific ministry’ (§15). Two potentially important voices in theological argumentation are implicitly recognized as such. First, ecclesial authorities are not explicitly considered as a source for theological knowledge in FR I, but they are attributed an important role in discernment in the examples afforded earlier. Paragraph 31 argues in similar lines if it adds to the valuation of the charismatic movement in the historic churches that the movement ‘should recognize the church authorities’. Second, science is discussed in view of the examination of charismatic phenomena (§35–37). Acknowledging the presence of both a divine and a human aspect in all charismatic phenomena, it is stated that ‘so far as concerns the human aspect, the phenomena can rightly be subject to […] investigation […]’. The other aspect, however, ‘ultimately escapes a purely scientific examination’. Therefore, science is said to have ‘inherent limitations, particularly with regard to the dimensions of faith and spiritual experience’ (§35). The paragraphs seek to give room to both ‘science and faith’ and acknowledge that ‘further in-depth study’ is needed (§37). In short, seven sources are discussed or used in FR I in relation to establishing theological positions. In case both dialogue partners agree, argumentation for the theological position is generally deemed unnecessary. Scripture is a fundamental source for theological positioning and precedes but stands in reciprocal relation with three other sources of theological knowledge: tradition, charismatic manifestations and experience of the Spirit. Ecclesial authorities and science are considered important for discernment but are not given an authoritative voice in the argumentation of the FR.

Theological approach of FR I A singular theological approach cannot be pinpointed for FR I, due to three notable characteristics. First, key terms are only defined in concise and pragmatic ways. Second, discussions were only at a superficial level, which led to a quite positive report indicating but not going into ‘points of real divergence’ (§6). Third, different approaches were used in the dialogue weeks, which is reflected in the variety in the Final Report. The breadth of themes discussed in phase I and the strong dependence on the Agreed Accounts can be indicated as the main reason for this limited integration.

Definitions of terms In Final Report I, definitions of essential terms are concise, partial and pragmatic. They aim not to give a full description of the subject under consideration but to enhance the reader’s understanding of the general usage of a term in a particular context. A clear example is the term ‘baptism’. It is introduced in paragraph 16 but its theological meaning is discussed only in paragraph 19. There, it is explained that ‘[b]aptism involves a passing over from the kingdom of darkness to Christ’s kingdom of light, and always includes a communal dimension of being baptized into the one Body of Christ’.

204

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

This statement comes closest to a definition and is marked as a ‘concord’ of which ‘the implications […] were not developed’. Other terms that both teams use and receive a short joint definition are ‘charismatic renewal’ (§31), ‘prayer’ and ‘praise’ (§42). The superficiality and provisionality of the definitions are not surprising in view of the fact that the first dialogue phase consciously sought to treat a wide variety of subjects, which could, of course, only be done in an introductory way.29 The ad hoc way in which the dialogue team has defined key terms involves a lack of recognition that the meaning and connotations of words or expressions (can) vary in different contexts. Terms typical for one of the traditions in particular are heavily loaded with meaning and cannot be simply transposed into another theological system. The Pentecostal expression of ‘baptism in the Spirit’ demonstrates this well. It is discussed in §11–15. First, related terminology in the New Testament is discussed (§11). Then, the Pentecostal understanding of the term is said to refer to a specific experience ‘distinct from conversion whereby the Holy Spirit manifests himself, empowers and transforms one’s life, and enlightens one as to the whole reality of the Christian mystery (Acts 2:4; 8:17; 10:44; 19:6)’ (§12). It is consequently brought in direct relation with Christian initiation with the acknowledgment that other traditions use other expressions to understand ‘this experience’ (§14). While ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ is typical Pentecostal phraseology, ‘Christian initiation’ is familiar for Catholics but not commonly used by Pentecostals.30 It is concisely defined in §16 by a simple listing between brackets of three elements essential to it, without any explanation: ‘baptism, laying on of hands/chrismation, eucharist’. In Bittlinger’s words, the Catholics tried in this dialogue to understand ‘how that which the Pentecostals were seeking to express could be interpreted in the experiential world of Catholic spirituality’.31 As Spirit baptism was understood to imply the conveyance of (power of the) Holy Spirit, the term was directly related to the concept of ‘Christian initiation’. The completely different theological paradigms in which the terms occur make the easy connection, however, disputable (cf. FR V:218–262). FR I’s definitions of ‘mystical experience’, ‘charismatic experience’ (§17) and ‘common worship’ (§34) have comparable weaknesses. In summary, the central importance of hermeneutics inecumenical dialogue was not sufficiently recognized.

Clarity on agreements and disagreements As stated above, the desire of the Pentecostal team to be explicit about disagreements between the dialogue partners was integrated in the formulation of the aim of FR I.32 In the further composition of FR I, this concern is dealt

29 30 31

32

Cf. pp. 104–120. Cf. FR V:15. Sie versuchten ständig zu ertasten, wie das, was die Pfingstler meinten so ausgedrückt werden könne, daß es in die Erfahrungswelt der katholischen Spiritualität passe. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 55. See pp. 200–201.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

205

with in an interesting way. While agreements in the Final Report far outnumber disagreements, they are not explicated as ‘agreements’.33 The text simply presents the agreed perspectives on matters of spirituality, theology and church life. The divergent views or disagreements that are explicitly indicated as such thus stand out. Disagreements are not dealt with in a uniform way. FR I sometimes simply mentions disagreements without indicating who holds which position (§18, 21, 23, 28). At other times, positions of the dialogue partners are explained. Classical Pentecostal, Charismatic Protestant and Roman Catholic perspectives are specified in two (§18, 37), one (§26) and four paragraphs (§27, 32, 33, 41), respectively. Quite frequently, a ‘Pentecostal’ particularity is pointed to, which typically is to be interpreted as an umbrella term for the Classical Pentecostal and Charismatic Protestant positions (§12, 14, 16, 21, 36, 39, 45). In some instances, however, the reference is clearly to the Classical Pentecostal perspective (§29, 32).34 The different position receive little attention in the report, but in the penultimate paragraph (§45) eleven ‘topics for further discussion’ are listed. Paragraphs 27 and 37 also indicate disagreements requiring further study. As a consequence of this strategy, an irenic and positive tone prevails in the Final Report due to the overwhelming majority of statements in accord, while the disagreements and matters of discussion are very clear as well.

Different approaches in the dialogue sessions It has been demonstrated earlier that Final Report I strongly resembles a collection of the annual Agreed Accounts.35 Consequently, the different theological approaches of the dialogue sessions are also reflected in the Final Report. This is pointed to in paragraph 10: At the first meeting of the dialogue […] an exegetical approach was taken in order to study ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ in the New Testament, its relation to repentance and the process of sanctification and the relation of the charismata to it. [T]he second meeting was devoted to the historic background of the Pentecostal movement, the relation of baptism in the Holy Spirit to the rites of Christian initiation, and the role of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit in the mystical tradition. The third meeting […] focused on the theology of Christian initiation, the nature of sacramental activity, infant and adult baptism. At the fourth meeting […], the areas of public worship (especially eucharistic celebration), the human dimension in the exercise of the spiritual gifts, and discerning of spirits were the main concern. [T]he final session was devoted to the topic of prayer and praise.36

33

34 35 36

One exception can be found in §30, which states: ‘It was agreed that every church has history, and is inevitably affected by its past.’ Cf. pp. 47–48. See pp. 108–119. FR I:10, italics added.

206

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The said exegetical approach in studying baptism in the Holy Spirit (1972) is recognizable in the Final Report by the large number of Scripture references in the relevant section (cf. Chapter 5). The historical approach in 1973 is discerned by the references to and argumentations from church history in the relevant passages.37 In comparable ways, the theological focus of 1974 and the practical questions related to personal and public spirituality discussed in 1975 and 1976 can be argued to have been determinative for the systematic theological approach of §18–30, a long section completely void of Scriptural references, and the descriptive style of §31–44, respectively. This strong dependence of FR I on AA 1972–1976 is the third reason why it is impossible to speak of singular theological approach that developed or was opted for in phase I. Rather than an integrated theological document with an underlying theological method, Final Report I is a collection of quasi-independent theses on a variety of topics, a witness to important discussions reflecting an early stage. Jerry Sandidge argues that the dialogue encountered only few disagreements because of the selected themes.38 This, however, must be put in perspective. The positive tone can also be attributed to the limited depth of the discussions and the pragmatic use of simple definitions, due to the broad variety of topics that passed in review.

Theological method in Final Report II The second Final Report of the IRCCPD counts 98 paragraphs, which is almost double of FR I. The report is divided into 25 sections of one to thirteen paragraphs each, all provided with a short heading on the same level. While combinations of sections clearly connect to the themes selected for the annual sessions, this overarching structure is not made visible.39 Of all Final Reports of the IRCCPD to date, this report presents the contrasting theological views of the dialogue partners in the sharpest way. More than half of the paragraphs offer either a perspective of one of the partners or two opposing views. Statements in agreement are present, but the irenic tone of FR I is no longer predominant. Insights into matters of theological method are found again by an analysis of the paragraphs dealing explicitly with the related issues and a careful screening of all the paragraphs in the Final Report for other relevant elements.

Theological aims of FR II As did the first report, FR II explains that the dialogue took place ‘according to the indications agreed to […] in 1970’ (FR II:1, cf. FR I:2–3). It is repeated that ‘[g]rowth in mutual understanding of classical Pentecostal and Roman Catholic theologies and 37 38

39

Cf. pp. 108–119. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:126. Cf. Robeck Jr, ‘Specks and Logs’, 81. The clearest example is §58–76, which is spread over eight short sections. All deal however with Mariology, the topic to which the 1981 session was devoted. See Sandidge, Roman Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1:234–252.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

207

spiritual practice rather than organic or structural unity is the special object of these bilateral conversations’ (FR II:2, cf. FR I:4). A significant twist in comparison to FR I can be found in in the explanatory paragraph 3: It is a concern of the dialogue to seek out those areas where classical Pentecostals and Roman Catholics represent divergent theological views and spiritual experiences, and in this way to foster mutual understanding in what distinguishes each partner, such as faith/experience and its role in the Christian life. Without minimizing these differences the dialogue also seeks common theological ground where ‘the truth of the Gospel’ is shared (Gal 2:14).

Whereas FR I:6 stated that the teams looked at ‘areas of doctrinal agreement’ without attempting ‘to minimize points of real divergence’, FR II:3 reverses the order. It lays emphasis on seeking out areas of ‘divergent theological views and spiritual experiences’ to understand ‘what distinguishes each partner’, while it is added that ‘the dialogue also seeks common theological ground’. At the end of the report, paragraph 94 repeats this aim of honest opposition when it is stated that in the dialogue, the participants ‘seek to reflect in all fidelity the doctrine of their church and at the same time to learn from their opposite partners in dialogue what their true faith stance is’. The analyses below demonstrate that this changed emphasis is reflected in the Final Report’s theological method.

Theological sources in FR II Final Report II again explicitly and implicitly values a variety of sources for theological reasoning. Much more than FR I, strong oppositions between the dialogue partners in this respect are evidenced as the dialogue partners let out all the stops in order to defend their respective positions on topics of theology and spirituality. Both dialogue partners agree on the fundamental importance of Scripture for the church (§49). A joint statement on Christian glossolalia underlines that ‘[e]very discussion […] should be founded on Scripture’ (§10; cf. §17, 70). About thirty Scripture references are simply put between brackets to substantiate a statement or paragraph, which is less than that in FR I. Almost half of them occur in the paragraphs based on the 1977 session (§8–17). Although Scripture is mostly used to underline statements in agreement, both teams also refer to Scripture in order to back their particular stances (§27, 46, 51, 72). Argumentative appeals to Scripture in FR II are more cautious than in FR I. It is expressly acknowledged by the dialogue partners that interpretation processes are involved (§52). Regarding methods of exegesis and principles of biblical interpretation (§22–27), it is explained that Roman Catholic scholarship uses the historical-critical method. Pentecostals currently ‘reject the underlying philosophical and theological principles of form and redaction criticism’ (§23) – a position admitted to need further reflection (§30). For Classical Pentecostals, Scripture is ultimately the only authority. Opposing Roman Catholic teachings, they refrain from firm theological positions ‘in the absence of biblical evidence’ (§76; cf. §57, 66, 68, 70, 83) and

208

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

‘insist that they cannot go beyond the clear meaning of the text which is normative for any and all later doctrinal development’ (§59). The main ‘clash’ in FR II concerns, unsurprisingly, the differing perspectives on tradition. The 1979 and 1980 sessions dealt particularly with tradition in relation to Scripture and the distinction between Tradition and traditions. In the conflicting views on sensitive topics such as Mariology or ministry in the church, the authority of tradition and of the historical church appears time and again as a matter of disagreement. Tradition is defined and circumscribed in particular by the Catholic team.40 Paragraph 55 describes its breadth and diversity in Catholic perspective, defining tradition as ‘everything that is being and has been handed down; the once for all revelation made by God in Jesus Christ, the word of God proclaimed in written and oral form, the whole of the Spirit-filled community response to the truth of the Gospel’. Tradition is considered an ‘unfolding’ of the Word of God (§68) and Scripture and tradition are said to ‘cohere in each other and, thus, transmit the Word of God’. The Catholics further explain that ‘a tradition of living faith’ is ‘experienced by the whole Church, guided by Church leaders, operative in all aspects of Christian life, and on occasion expressed in written form […]’ (§19). In this regard, ‘Tradition’ with capital T is distinguished by the Roman Catholic team from ‘traditions’ (§55–57).41 To describe traditions as ‘various ways of practice and teaching whereby Tradition is transmitted’ is typical in ecumenical theology, but the addition that ‘these traditions become binding only when they are made the object of a special decision of Church authority’ is obviously Catholic (§55). Traditions are acknowledged to have accumulated in Pentecostal history as well, but the Pentecostals ‘would say that these traditions, apart from Scripture, have little authority in the Church’ (§57). Classical Pentecostals ‘would not place the same value upon Tradition (or tradition) as Roman Catholics’ (§57) and are reluctant even to describe their ‘broad […] consensus of what is fundamental’ as a form of ‘tradition’ (§20). The uncompromising ‘Scripture alone’ stance of the Pentecostal team implies an a priori suspicion regarding teaching or practices that cannot build on ‘scriptural evidence’. This Pentecostal position is understood by the Catholics as a lack of appreciation of the fullness of Christian theology (§73). The meaning of tradition and its relation to Scripture is twice considered a topic ‘still needing clarification in this dialogue’ (§30, 93). Most of the other (but often related) sources, which are discussed or appealed to, are valued by one of the traditions and disparaged by the other. Catholics have a high estimation for the history of the church, in line with their appreciation for tradition. In defence of doctrines highly opposed by Pentecostals, it is simultaneously stressed that doctrines are fundamentally based on Scripture. The doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception is said to be ‘founded on the church’s reflection on the Bible’ and because of its ‘explicit development […] in the life of the church’ defined ‘by Pope

40

41

In dealing with particular paragraphs of the Final Report, the choices made regarding the use of ‘Tradition’ or ‘tradition’ is followed. Final Report II is not at all consistent in its use of ‘Tradition’ with capital T, as other instances, which clearly refer to the one Tradition of the Church, speak of ‘tradition’. See, e.g. §7, 19.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

209

Pius IX in 1854’ (§72). In a comparable way, the doctrine of Mary’s assumption is ‘in accordance with basic biblical doctrines’ and is ‘explicitly affirmed in the Fathers of the church as early as the sixth century’ (§75). The threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon is argued for in similar ways (§82, cf. §85). Notably, in two instances Pentecostals explicitly agree with an appeal to church history to support Christian doctrine. First, it is jointly acknowledged that the early church accepted the books of Scripture as inspired (§18). It is explicitly added that the ‘light of the Holy Spirit’ was key to this insight. Second, the Mariological title ‘Mother of God’ is historically connected to ‘the Christological disputes at the Council of Ephesus (431 AD)’. It is jointly explained that Mary ‘is not the Mother of God in his eternal triune existence, but the Mother of God the Son in his Incarnation’ (§62). While completely absent in the previous Final Report, FR II contains twelve references to authoritative texts from the Second Vatican Council.42 In six paragraphs (§14, 26, 30, 48, 65, 92), references to Ad Gentes, Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, Gaudium et Spes, Dei Verbum and Unitatis Redintegratio are added. They characteristically serve to substantiate Roman Catholic positions. As an exception, in §92 a joint statement is complemented with a reference to UR: ‘Each partner to the dialogue recognizes that God is at work through the ministry of the other and recognizes that the body of Christ is being built up through it (Unitatis redintegratio, §§3 and 22)’. The teaching office also receives authority particularly in Catholic theological argumentation. Both traditions ‘recognize the existence of a process of theological discernment in the on-going life of the church’ (§52), but only in the Roman Catholic tradition this process is said to be effectively carried by a teaching office (§52–53, cf. §56). While the Roman Catholic Church sees the interpretative authority through this office as ‘an expression of the activity of the Spirit in the Church’ (§52), the Pentecostals rather emphasize ‘their characteristic experience of direct dependence upon the Holy Spirit for illumination and interpretation of Scripture’ (§54). In two paragraphs, the particular value given by the Roman Catholics to systematic theological coherence is evident. In relation to the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate conception, the Catholic team believes that ‘a basic distortion takes place when this doctrine is considered in isolation’. Therefore, ‘(f)urther clarification […] would entail a wider discussion by us of pneumatology, Christology and ecclesiology’ (§74). The Pentecostals’ refusal to find any value for salvation in this doctrine is perceived as ‘a failure to appreciate fully the implications of the incarnation and the power of Christ’s saving and sanctifying grace’ (§73).43 Such importance attached to systematic theological coherence is absent in the Classical Pentecostal reasoning in FR II.

42

43

In addition, one recent authoritative text outside of the Second Vatican Council is pointed to: the 1974 encyclical by Pope Paul VI Marialis Cultus (§65). In addition, it is stressed by the Catholics that the Mariological dogmas under discussion have a particular place ‘in the “hierarchy of truths” […] among the truths that are integral to the Roman Catholic faith’. They do not believe ‘that those outside the Roman Catholic Church who do not hold these truths are, on that account, excluded from salvation’ (§69).

210

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

While charismatic manifestation of the Spirit had important argumentative value in FR I, it is minimally present in Final Report II, probably due to the very limited attention to charisms in this phase. One time, however, it is brought in by the Pentecostals and opposed to reason. While it is agreed that faith and reason cannot be polarized, ‘Pentecostals place a greater emphasis upon pneumatic inspiration and supernatural manifestations, than on reason, for determining the limits and validity of religious knowledge’ (§28). The Roman Catholic team does not comment on this statement. Experience (of the Spirit) was again discussed in phase II too, but only limited consideration is given to it in FR II and its value as a source of knowledge is not the focus. While its importance for growing awareness of God and identification with Christ is acknowledged, it is emphasized that ‘the individual’s spiritual experience […] needs to be discerned and judged by the community. Love […] is the biblical criterion of all spiritual experience (cf. 1 Cor 13)’ (§17). Hence, experience is subjected to the community and to Scripture and its value is to be judged by the consequences. Both traditions thus also acknowledge the value of consequential argumentation, but the Classical Pentecostals additionally refer to it twice. Negatively, Pentecostals believe they can find evidence of a problem of over-institutionalization of ministry ‘in the history and practice of the Roman Catholic Church’ (§84). Positively, they ‘look to apostolic life and to the power of preaching which leads to conversions to Jesus Christ as an authentication of apostolic ministry’ (§90). After listing the sources of theological knowledge that have been referred to in FR II, one notable absence must be addressed. It is rather surprising that the previous Final Report is never mentioned. Speaking in tongues, faith and experience, Scripture and tradition, and worship were all given an initial discussion in phase I and seem to have been discussed anew without seeking to build upon the earlier definitions or debates. In conclusion, in spite of the seemingly fierce confrontation of theological epistemologies, FR II explicitly leaves room for rapprochement. First, both dialogue partners acknowledge in a number of instances the provisional perspective of their positions. Both traditions are said to be involved in a process of interpretation. Both dialogue partners also agree that continuing discussion is needed, e.g. on the relation between Scripture and tradition. Second, the Final Report shows glimpses of mutual appreciation, also regarding the contrasting theological methods. The sources for theological knowledge used or preferred by one dialogue partner are never in an outright way rejected by the other. Be it in a very limited way, Pentecostals do acknowledge in FR II appeals to tradition, the early church, dogmatic theology and even to a Vaticanum II teaching document. Catholics assign value to consequential argumentation and to experience in specific instances in FR II and do not deny the value of supernatural manifestations for gaining religious knowledge. Not the absolute but the relative value of the sources is under discussion. Third, it is notable that both traditions theologically insist on ultimate reliance on ‘the guidance of the Spirit’ in theological positioning. This goes primarily for the interpretation of Scripture texts

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

211

(§26, 27, 52) and it is noticed that the guidance of the spirit is understood differently. Catholics see it ‘manifested in the living tradition’ (§26, see infra) and ultimately ‘the church’ interprets Scripture (§24). In this regard the teaching office of the church plays an essential role of discernment (§52). In contrast, the Pentecostals emphasize ‘direct dependence upon the Holy Spirit’ (§54) ‘leading to consensus’ (§52). They acknowledge, however, that ‘the church […] can, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit […], find in the biblical texts and in complete fidelity to them a meaning which goes beyond the classical Pentecostals’ interpretation’ (§59).

Theological approach of FR II The theological approach of Final Report II differs substantially from Final Report I. Three main particularities are discussed here, which contribute to its strongly polarized exposition of Catholic and Pentecostal theological viewpoints. First, the attention given to providing joint definitions of terms is very limited, even when compared to FR I. Second, the style of narration of the report reflects the change of priority from seeking common ground to seeking areas of divergence (FR II:3, cf. supra). Third, it can be questioned whether the dual focus on ‘theologies and spiritual practice’ with a view to ‘[g]rowth in mutual understanding’ (FR II:2) really finds expression in the Final Report. In this overview a direct dependency of the report on the developments regarding dialogue method in the second phase surfaces. This is considered separately at the end of this subchapter.

Definitions of terms Only one term is elaborately defined in FR II, and that is the threefold definition of ‘tradition’ in Roman Catholic perspective, which has already been discussed. Both dialogue partners further explain their own understanding of ‘ministry’ and ‘ordination’/‘ministry of ecclesial office’ in §77–85 and §86–87, respectively. With serious flexibility in the understanding of a ‘definition’, one can find seven more terminological definitions in FR II. In addition to the ones just mentioned, three of these are perspectives of one dialogue partner. Sacraments (§42) and Eucharist (§45) are given what can be understood as brief Roman Catholic definitions, and both partners explain their perspective on ‘what or who is an authoritative interpreter’ of Scripture (§52). Of the four jointly formulated definitions in FR II, three occur in the paragraphs referring to the 1977 session. There, ‘a Christian’ is jointly indicated as someone having ‘a personal relationship with Jesus Christ’ (§8) and as ‘one who experiences not only Easter and Pentecostal, but also the Cross’ (§13). Third, experience is defined in accord as ‘the process or event by which one comes to a personal awareness of God’ (§12). Shared and differing understandings of the ‘ministry of healing’ appear later in FR II (§77f, 31). As in FR I, definitions are mostly concise, partial and pragmatic. They aim not to give a full and shared description of a key topic but to enhance the understanding by the reader of the general usage of a term in a particular context. The limited presence

212

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

of joint definitions is notable in this Final Report, as common definitions can be very helpful in ecumenical dialogue for the construction of a shared vocabulary.44 The absence of clear and shared definitions of the key terms accentuates the antithetical character of the theological encounter of phase II.

More attention for disagreements In FR II, the dialogue is said to aim at ‘seeking out areas of divergence’ rather than ‘seeking common ground’. This aim is first of all reflected in the selection and treatment of topics for this phase. As Sandidge states, ‘in the second quinquennium […] there was a delving more deeply into the more substantive issues – where disagreement is more likely to occur – i.e., hermeneutics, tradition, Church, Mary, and ministry’.45 Compared to FR I, the selection of topics was limited and expressly concerned areas of disagreement. This is evidenced in the Final Report, which explicates that the ‘[s]ince Catholic doctrine concerning Mary was perceived as a point of divergence, it was important to classical Pentecostals to discuss the topic’ (§58). The focus on divergences in FR II is also evident in its style of narration. Apart from the introduction and the conclusion, only the two sections from the 1977 session on ‘speaking in tongues’ (§8–11) and on ‘Faith and Experience’ (12–17) are written in quasi fundamental agreement. The rest of the text abounds in opposing statements and paragraphs explaining the separate positions. Notably, the dialogue teams give three short statements in the text indicating fundamental agreement when they explicitly mention that they agree ‘on the basic elements of the Christian faith’ (§29), have agreement on ‘a number of areas’ (§40) and ‘had much more to affi rm in one another than to question’ (§49). Apparently, it was considered necessary in view of the many divergences explicated. The Catholic team reported afterwards to the SPCU plenary meeting that FR II ‘is not in any sense an agreed statement but simply an account of the discussions’.46

Focus on ‘mutual understanding of theologies and spiritual practice’? In the introduction of the Final Report, the special object of the dialogue is said to be ‘[g]rowth in mutual understanding of classical Pentecostal and Roman Catholic theologies and spiritual practice’ (§2). The dual focus on ‘theologies and spiritual practice’ is easily evidenced in the list of topics under consideration. Speaking in tongues (§8–11), faith and experience (§12–17), the way one reads and interprets Scripture (§18–27), healing in the church (§31–40), worship and sacraments (§41–48), Catholic devotion to Mary (§63–66) and ministry in the church and ordination (§77–92) – all relate directly to spirituality in both communions. The

44

45 46

This is not to say that agreement on verbal expressions is what is essentially sought for in ecumenical dialogue. For an introduction to the complex questions related to ecumenical language, see Chapter 4 of Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology, 89–113. Sandidge, ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 49. ‘Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, Information Service 56 (1984/IV), 111.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

213

consideration given to theology is best evidenced by pointing to style rather than topics. The Final Report is clearly a theological document discussing spirituality, focusing on theological reasoning rather than on situational descriptions, creeds or narratives. Such elements are not absent but are typically framed by theological considerations.47 From the frank and forthright tone of the document, it is apparent that the distinctiveness of each tradition is not glossed over. Different opinions are not masked and each dialogue partner is given ample freedom and space to posit his own perspective and even to criticize the other’s tradition, theology or spiritual practices. To what extent this really promotes ‘growth in mutual understanding’ is, however, disputable. For, while on a number of issues a short statement in agreement precedes the differentiation of opinions, the dialogue partners mostly formulate their separate positions from within their own theological frameworks. The value and importance of staying faithful to their own tradition with its accompanying mindset, language and style, is not denied, but the aim of ‘mutual understanding’ implies more than a dry juxtaposition of viewpoints. Evans explains the challenge of finding a workable ecumenical language before progress can really be made.48 Ecumenical dialogue begins not with acknowledging disagreement but with seeking understanding of the divergence and the dialogue partner’s theological perspectives. It requires that each partner seeks to explain positions and argumentations in a language understandable to the other. It seeks to differentiate between a formulation and the theological core which is captured in it. The differing contexts and historical developments of each tradition demand consideration. The Final Report contains only a few good examples of such attempt at mutual understanding. First, the section on ‘tradition and traditions’ (§49–57) can be pointed to. In a clear structure, basic agreements are listed and points of disagreements are shortly and jointly formulated (§50, 52, 53). It is also indicated how the disagreements are valued, e.g. as a matter of ‘stress’ (§51), as a ‘significant divergence’ (§52) or as the ‘sharpest disagreement’ (§53). Different answers to a delimited question are given, an underlying theological agreement is recognized (§52) and specific usages of terms are carefully defined (§55–56). Finally, the section contains a paragraph in which one tradition explicitly recognizes the strength of the other tradition’s understanding and shares what they believe they have to offer – a fine example of receptive ecumenism in FR II.49 Paragraph 72 can again be pointed to as well. Here, the Roman Catholics seek to argue for the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary from Scripture and biblical theology rather than from tradition. They cannot convince the Pentecostals that there is ‘any basis for the doctrine […] in Scripture’ (§73), but their effort is worth mentioning. The remainder of this chapter demonstrates that in the IRCCPD the awareness of the necessity to find a common language and to contextualize theological positions grew considerably over the decades. 47 48 49

See in particular §9, 13, 32, 33–37, 46, 64–66. Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology, 89–113. On receptive ecumenism, see pp. 272–274.

214

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Relation to development in dialogue method In the previous chapter, it was explained that an important change in dialogue method took place in phase II after the first session.50 Hard questions were introduced in the dialogue process in 1979 and a related method came to be developed and refined in the following years. Looking back at the analysis of FR II, it is notable that (1) the document is generally much more antithetical than FR I and (2) that the sections that reflect the discussions of 1977 are different in a number of ways from the other sections. This puts in perspective Sandidge’s attribution of the antithetical character of FR II to the fact that there was ‘a delving more deeply into the more substantive issues – where disagreement is more likely to occur’.51 The clear rupture after the paragraphs from the 1977 session (§8–17) was previously noted. The issues discussed in 1977, ‘speaking in tongues’ and ‘faith and experience’, can hardly be said to be uncontroversial. Yet, the relevant paragraphs in FR II share characteristics of FR I in contrast with the subsequent paragraphs. First, each topic is given only limited reflection, totalling 10 paragraphs. The other dialogue years are each reflected in 19 paragraphs on the average.52 Second, paragraphs 8–17 are all in written in agreement, with one exception (§14). In the other sections, paragraphs in agreement are the exception rather than the rule. Third, paragraphs 8–17 contain three of the five joint definitions present in the report. Fourth, they basically appeal to Scripture as the only source for Christian theology.53 In sum, the strong antithetical tone of FR II only begins after the sections from 1977, which coincides with the introduction of the hard questions method. Bearing in mind the confrontational character of the hard questions method, a direct causal relation is highly probable. While the antithetical character of Final Report II suggests that the dialogue has arrived at a deeper level, it still resembles a clustering of the Agreed Accounts of the dialogue sessions in the same manner as FR I.54 Again, it is not an integrated whole. Topics are discussed in different sections in a fragmentary way and not brought together, as is best demonstrated by the three independent occurrences of partial definitions or discussions of ‘tradition’. While the character of the Final Report is very different from FR I, the dependency on the Agreed Accounts can again be considered reason for its character. The text of the Final Report directly reflects the conclusions formulated at the end of an intense dialogue week. Neither in between the annual sessions nor at the end of the phase is time taken for further maturation of the text. Final Reports III–V demonstrate that such a period of cooling down, reflection and reconsideration of the Agreed Accounts has a positive effect on the quality of the theological reports from ecumenical theological perspective. 50 51 52

53 54

See pp. 120–121, 187–189. Sandidge, ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’, 49. The 1979 session is reflected in 23 paragraphs, the 1980 session in 17, the 1981 session in 19, the 1981 session in 16. Again §14 is an exception, where the Roman Catholics references to Vatican II teaching. See pp. 133–135.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

215

Theological method in Final Report III The third Final Report is the first one to have a unifying theme and title: ‘Perspectives on Koinonia’. The report is slightly longer than FR II, totalling 112 paragraphs with an introduction, five chapters, and a conclusion. Each chapter is divided into two to five subchapters, giving the report a clear and systematic structure. In contrast to FR I and II, the findings of the dialogue are not presented in the chronological sequence in which the topics were discussed but in ‘a more systematic order’ (§6).55 The report contains twelve endnotes and lists in the appendix all participants. FR III is also the first report to receive numerous responses from church leaders and theologians from a variety of traditions.56 Generally, the growing theological quality of the dialogue is noted by Cecil Robeck: ‘the third quinquennium may be described as maturing. It has moved to a new level of sophistication’.57 Juan Usma Gómez recognizes in retrospect that of the five reports presented to date, FR III is ‘from the theological point of view […] the most refined’.58 Observations regarding the report’s theological method are incorporated in this subchapter, which again follows the structure that was outlined earlier.

Theological aims of FR III The theological aims of the Final Report are, again, not explicitly indicated. Yet, in continuity with FR I and FR II, a concise description of the dialogue’s aims and foci can be found in the introductory paragraphs. Paragraph 5 contains elements that sound familiar – and yet differ: Although the unity of the Church is a concern of Pentecostals and Roman Catholics alike, the dialogue has not had as its goal or its subject, either organic or structural union. These discussions were meant to develop a climate of mutual understanding in matters of faith and practice; to find points of genuine agreement as well as to indicate areas in which further dialogue is required. We hope that further theological convergence will appear as we continue to explore issues together.

55

56

57

58

Cf. pp. 140, 147–151. Juan Usma Gómez acknowledges this as well. Gómez, ‘Evangelización, proselitismo y testimonio común’, 48. An issue of Pneuma was wholly devoted to the IRCCPD and contains thirteen responses to FR III. Issue 12/2 (1990) of Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies also contains the full texts of FR I, II and III. Robeck Jr, ‘Specks and Logs’, 81. This is underlined by some of the respondents, e.g. Hunter, ‘Sketches of Perspectives on Koinonia’, 161; David A. Hubbard, ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: A Response’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 157. In addition, however, he wonders ‘to what extent [it] is representative for classical Pentecostalism’. Interview by Jelle Creemers with Juan Usma Gómez, 18 July 2013, CrArch. It should be reminded that this Final Report owes much to the efforts of two brilliant theologians, the mature Catholic Hervé Legrand and the then young Pentecostal scholar, Miroslav Volf. Cf. pp. 140, 147.

216

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

After again stating that ‘organic or structural union’ is not the ultimate aim in this dialogue, its purposes are postulated differently from FR I and FR II. First, not just ‘mutual understanding’ is sought, but ‘a climate of mutual understanding’. This seems to imply that the primary aim is not the rational appreciation of each other’s theological positions but rather the creation of an atmosphere in which the two partners can trust each other so as to have a sympathetic understanding of agreements and differences in faith and practice. How the dialogue teams sought to create such a climate is explained at the end of FR III: ‘Learning was not confined only to the dialogue table, but also took place in local Catholic parishes and Pentecostal congregations visited during this series of discussions and at informal conversations between sessions’ (§110).59 Clearly, not only cognitive understanding but also spiritual resonance was in view. Second, a dual aim is pointed to that has a parallel in the previous report, but the content and tone differ greatly. In FR II, the formulated aim was to ‘seek out […] divergent views’ and ‘to foster understanding in what distinguishes each partner’ (FR II:3, italics added). In FR III, the dialogue partners first seek existing ‘points of genuine agreement’ and then want ‘to indicate areas in which further dialogue is required’ in the hope ‘that further theological convergence will appear’. Thus, not divergences but agreements and convergences are explicitly sought for.60 Fair juxtaposition of static differences (FR I–II) is replaced by optimistic comparison with hope for rapprochement.

Theological sources in FR III Explicit discussion of theological sources in Final Report III is mostly limited to the introductory chapter, entitled ‘Koinonia and the Word of God’ (§13–28), which focuses on the relation of Scripture, Tradition and the Church. These themes were not on the agenda in phase III, but the writers of the Final Report decided to open with a ‘brief summary of our respective views on Scripture and Tradition because of its link to the topic of this particular dialogue’ (§13). This theologically balanced and coherent section offers the themes under consideration a Christological foundation, opening with a joint confession of Jesus Christ as ‘the ultimate and permanent Word of God’ (§14–16). It serves as the starting point for the overview of sources for theological argumentation in this subchapter. Discussion of other sources for theological argumentation follows. On the said Christological basis, attention first goes to Scripture as the inspired ‘Word of God written in human history’ (§17). Jointly, it is stated that ‘[t]he Scripture teaches faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for our salvation (cf. 2 Tim 3:16)’ (§18). The actual usage of Scripture in the Final Report confirms that Scripture serves for both traditions as the primary and fundamental source for theological argumentation. 59 60

Cf. pp. 139–140. This change in perspective is also noted in Hall, ‘Response to the Report from the Third Quinquennium’, 152.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

217

Scripture references total 99 and are usually added in brackets, while 25 verses are quoted in part or in full. Not surprisingly, the Pentecostals principally refer to Scripture to argue for their theological positions. Legitimacy of denominations depends in their perspective ‘on the degree of their faithfulness to the fundamental doctrines of the Scripture’ (§34). Contemporary understandings of church order and baptismal theology are also based on the limitations and diversity present in Scripture (§84, 55, 42). While the value of Scripture for theological argumentation is highly appreciated by both dialogue partners, for Pentecostals it is nearly – but not completely – the only source referred to.61 On the said Christological foundation, the authority of the Church and of Tradition in view of Scripture interpretation is discussed as well (§19–23).62 It is agreed that ‘since the Church inherited Scripture from the Old Testament People of God, and from Jesus himself, and since the Church rose out of the proclamation of Christ’s chosen apostles, it must be considered the creation of the Word of God’ (§22).63 Catholics argue ‘that it is significant that the Church precedes chronologically the writings of the New Testament’ (§19). They see the fixation of the canon by the Church as an act of the Apostolic Tradition. The New Testament expresses this Tradition ‘in a normative fashion’, while the interpretation of Scripture ‘has to be made in the communion of believers, within the living Tradition which is guided by the Holy Spirit’ (§21). A clear example of the Catholic appreciation of Tradition can be found in the Catholic defence of infant baptism. While agreeing that ‘there is no incontrovertible evidence for baptism of infants in the New Testament’, it is argued that ‘through a process of discernment during the early centuries of the Church, a development took place in which infant baptism became widely practiced within the Church; was seen as being of Apostolic origin; was approved by many of the Fathers of the Church; and was received by the Church as authentic’ (§42). Such an understanding of Tradition is foreign to the Pentecostal dialogue partners. ‘Pentecostals believe that some traditions express correctly the saving truth to which Scripture testifies (e.g., Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds), but they seek to evaluate all traditions in the light of the Word of God in Scripture, the ultimate norm for faith and practice in the Church’ (§23). The section does not only indicate disagreement on the diachronic authority of the Church in Tradition, but also on the synchronic authority of the people of God in view of the interpretation of Scripture. The Catholics trust in the sensus fidei: when ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful all manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals’ (LG §12), the Church cannot err in matters of belief (§25). Pentecostals ‘look with scepticism on [such a] claim’. Fundamentally, they ‘hold that Scripture is clear in all essential points’. Therefore, ‘each Christian 61

62

63

Contra Vinson Synan, ‘Response to Perspectives on Koinonia’, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 177. He claims that ‘Pentecostals quote only from the Scriptures.’ In this section, Tradition is written with capital ‘T’ when referring to the Apostolic Tradition. See infra. Note that in FR II:51, only the Pentecostals claimed that ‘the church itself was formed by the Word of God’.

218

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

can interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit and with the help of the discerning Christian community’ (§26).64 While verbatim appeals to Tradition are further absent in FR III, theological sources which belong to its semantic field are frequently invoked by both dialogue partners. Most prominent are appeals to church history and appeals to Vatican II documents, which are separately discussed below. The section on ‘Koinonia and the Word of God’ closes with two paragraphs with convergences. On the one hand, it is noted that in the last century, ‘Roman Catholics have been according a greater place to Scripture’ in their ecclesial practices. On the other hand, Pentecostals are said to have in recent years come ‘to appreciate the importance of the faithful teachers of the Word of God through church history’ (§28).65 Consequently, FR III contains arguments from church history brought in by both dialogue partners. This is remarkable as the document also explains that historically ‘Pentecostals, influenced by restorationist perspectives, have claimed continuity with the Church in the New Testament by arguing for discontinuity with much of the historical Church’ (§108). The need for ‘further common theological reflection on the history of the Church’ is noted consequently. In his response to FR III, Donald Gelpi pleads for a more conscious use of history in the dialogue, not to argue for positions but ‘in order to contextualize the way in which both Catholics and Pentecostals came to identify’ certain positions.66 Most appeals to church history refer to the early post-apostolic church. The Nicene Creed and the Apostolic creed are referred to approvingly by both traditions (§23, 95, 101, 112) and both are said to share the early Christian prayer, ‘Come, Holy Spirit!’ (§112) Remarkably, the position of ‘some Pentecostals’, who hold baptism as ‘a precondition for full church membership’, is said to be supported by ‘the long tradition of the catechumenate’ (§52). The early church is clearly gaining authority in the Classical Pentecostal discourse. The Catholics consider the New Testament as a collection of the oral traditions of ‘the early apostolic Christian community’ (§20) to argue for the interdependence of Scripture and Tradition. They later refer to an expression of Augustine when discussing sacraments (§86). Two references are made to a later era in church history, notably to the Catholic/ Protestant polemics of the sixteenth century. With a reference to the Council of Trent, it is explained that no Catholic is obliged to venerate relics, icons or saints,

64

65

66

The Pentecostal reference to the discerning Christian community as aide for interpretation of Scripture is notable. Walter J. Hollenweger asks consequently: ‘Who is this discerning Christian community and what are the instruments by which it expresses its judgements?’ Hollenweger, ‘The Koinonia of the Establishment’, 154–155. The Catholics further ‘encourage Pentecostals to develop greater contact with the wider Christian community’s historical interpretation and biblical hermeneutics’ (§27). In his response to FR III, Walter Hollenweger also underlines that ‘the issue of biblical hermeneutics [is] an unsolved question in Pentecostalism [ …] which cannot be swept under the carpet by generalised statements.’ Ibid., 155. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen agrees that ‘hermeneutical canons among Pentecostals are still very much in the making’ and suggests to speak of their ‘use of Scripture’ rather than of ‘interpretation’. Kärkkäinen, Spiritus ubi vult spirat, 86–149. Quotation from page 92. Donald L. Gelpi, ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: A Roman Catholic Response’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 150.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

219

but the Church recommends it and ‘resists any condemnation or contempt of such practices’ (§100). Three paragraphs later, the Church is jointly called a ‘holy penitent’, ‘ever in need of renewal both in its persons and structures’ (§103). The references to Lutheran and Calvinist theology cannot be mistaken. References to documents from the Second Vatican Council occur in the Final Report in seven instances.67 As in FR II, Vatican II documents are typically used in FR III to undergird Catholic theological positions, while the Classical Pentecostals feel comfortable in one instance with such a reference being added to a joint statement. The Catholics appeal to and quote from Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, Unitatis Redintegratio (§25, 54). Pentecostals refer to Lumen Gentium twice in order to explicate their disagreement with Catholic positions (§87, 94). The joint reference to a Vatican II document can be found in paragraph 106, which refers to Unitatis Redintegratio to underline ‘the essential dynamism of “the movement toward unity” ’ arising from continuous renewal in the churches. In contrast to Scripture and the historic church, there is limited attention in FR III for present ecclesial realities as a basis for theological arguments, including personal religious experiences, charismatic manifestations and consequences of ecclesial praxis. Obviously, these themes were not on the agenda, but neither was a discussion on Scripture and Tradition. Religious experience is discussed a few times in FR III. The occurrences are spread over the report, but together they demonstrate the importance of religious experience in Pentecostal spirituality and theology. The Pentecostals state that only one who has experienced conversion should be baptized (§50). Conversion and its pneumatological pendant, a new birth by the Spirit, are consequently to be understood as ‘a pre-sacramental experience’ by which one becomes a Christian and by which, consequently, the church is created (§96, cf. §50). Roman Catholics and Pentecostals admittedly ‘have different understandings of the role of the Spirit in Christian initiation and life’. Both agree that ‘experience of the Holy Spirit belongs to the life of the Church’ (§66) and that ‘[t]he common experience of the Holy Spirit challenges us to strive for greater visible unity […]’ (§33, cf. §65). While it is difficult to argue that spiritual experiences can be compared, this is in the Pentecostal perspective epistemologically fundamental to recognizing Christian unity: ‘[T]o the extent that Pentecostals recognize that Roman Catholics have this common faith in and experience of Jesus as Lord, they share a real though imperfect koinonia with them’ (§55). Experience, together with charismatic manifestations, is again very carefully restricted by a call for ‘discernment by the community’ (§66). The importance of experience for theological argumentation, especially in the Pentecostal tradition, is noted in a commentary on FR III by Donald Gelpi. He argues for more joint explorations on religious experience as

67

Canon law is once pointed to as well (§62). Without giving any details, it is stated that ‘a pastor should delay or refuse to baptize an infant if the parents […] clearly have no intention of bringing up the infant in the practice of faith. To baptize under those circumstances would be to act in manner contrary to the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church.’

220

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

the basis for theological convergences.68 Catholic chaplain Frank Colborn agrees that more consideration could be given to the ‘empirical effects’ of baptism in the lives of the baptized to ‘help clarify just what we mean by rebirth and salvation’.69 Charismatic manifestations occur on a single occasion in FR III in a section on experience (§65–68). Charisms are jointly said to ‘indicate the presence of the Spirit’. Potential epistemological value of charismatic occurrences is only implicitly attributed when it is stated that ‘[a]ll such manifestations […] call for discernment by the community’ (§67). Consequential argumentation also occurs in only one section of FR III, when the practice of infant baptism is under discussion. The Classical Pentecostals argue against infant baptism as they see consequential problems in the Roman Catholic practice: ‘In addition to theological difficulties, Pentecostals perceive certain pastoral difficulties with the practice of infant baptism’ (§59). In response, the Catholics ‘freely acknowledge the possible pastoral difficulties (e.g. creation of a body of baptized but unchurched people) inherent in the misuse of the practice of infant baptism’. They reverse the argument, however, by highlighting its positive consequences. Infant baptism ‘often provides a pastoral opportunity to help those parents weak in faith and practice, and is the beginning of a whole process of Christian life for the child’ (§60). In addition, FR III contains a number of paragraphs in which arguments are logically developed in systematic theological coherence rather than directly based on a theological source. A clear example is the joint argumentation that the church ‘must be considered the creation of the Word of God’ because it is based on the writings of the OT people of God and ‘rose out of the proclamation of Christ’s chosen apostles’ (§22). Logical argumentations for theological positions are not only jointly afforded, but each dialogue partner also argues for specific positions on systematic theological grounds. Most Pentecostals refuse to baptize children not only because it is not in Scripture (§42), but also because they see a ‘conscious faith response’ as a necessary precondition for baptism (§45). The Catholics explain that their acceptance of Pentecostal baptism implies ‘that they share with Pentecostals a certain, though imperfect koinonia […]’ (§54). More examples can be provided of the systematic theological argumentation used in FR III,70 but statements in the FR that are simply posited without such logical argumentation occur more frequently. Two theological sources are introduced in FR III, which were not present in FR I and II. Both are related to ecumenical dialoguing. First, the dialogue partners twice refer to their own dialogue history to argue for a choice and a position. Very early in the FR, the choice to focus on the theme of koinonia is argued for on the basis of the previous discussions on Mary and the shared belief that the topic is ‘pregnant

68

Gelpi, ‘Perspectives on Koinonia’, 151. In his own work, Donald Gelpi has given particular attention to the role of experience in theology. See, esp., Donald L. Gelpi, Experiencing God: A Theology of Human Experience (New York: Paulist Press, 1978); Donald L. Gelpi, The Turn to Experience in Contemporary Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994).

69

Frank Colborn, ‘Reflections on Perspectives on Koinonia’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 148. E.g. §26, 37, 76, 82, 86, 104, 105.

70

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

221

with possibilities’ (§7). At the beginning of the ‘Koinonia and the Word of God’ section, it is mentioned that the topic of Scripture and Tradition was discussed ‘more extensively in previous phases of the dialogue’ (§13). A footnote points to the relevant passages in FR I and II, but explicit textual parallels or further references are absent. Second, in three instances the dialogue partners argue for their perspectives by advancing them in line with other traditions or in a broader ecumenical context. The choice to focus in this third phase on koinonia is not only argued for with reference to the history of the IRCCPD but also by pointing out that ‘the larger worldwide ecumenical dialogue was viewing the topic of “communion” with interest and expectation’ (§7). Six international dialogues that discussed it earlier are listed (§8), as well as two Christian communions for whom ‘the theme of koinonia is proving fruitful in the reflection about [their] ecclesiological self-understanding’ (§9). Later in the report, when the dialogue partners indicate that they have different canons of Scripture, each refers to other Christian traditions that stand with them: ‘Roman Catholics and Orthodox have the same canon. Pentecostals agree with the Reformation churches in their view of the canon as limited to the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments’ (§19). Finally, in a paragraph explaining Pentecostal perspectives on church order, a quote is taken from the paramount text of the Faith and Order commission: Classical Pentecostals ‘observe from the New Testament that the earliest Church has not “been without persons holding specific authority and responsibility” (BEM, Ministry, 9) […]’ (§105). While references to the broader ecumenical context and to the own dialogue have only limited presence, they demonstrate a growing appreciation of ecumenical interaction as a basis for theological positioning. The independency of this dialogue is, however, evident in the style and language of the Final Report. This receives special appreciation by Walter Hollenweger: ‘It is written in a clear and understandable language and avoids the jargon both of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches.’71

Theological approach of FR III Four elements regarding the theological approach of FR III, i.e. the way in which the dialogue partners have sought to record the theological advancement of the dialogue towards the aim of a growing ‘climate of mutual recognition’, receive a closer analysis. First, again the attention given to defining key terms is discussed. Second, the growing conversational character of the theological report is demonstrated. This analysis demonstrates that the dialogue partners differ substantially in their theological points of reference, which is discussed separately. Attention then goes to the presence of endnotes in FR III, after which a conclusion follows.

Definitions of terms A glaring weakness of Final Report III is its limited attention to clear definitions and discussions of key theological concepts. The primary example is koinonia, the 71

Hollenweger, ‘The Koinonia of the Establishment’, 154.

222

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

focal point of the whole dialogue phase. FR III indicates that koinonia as portrayed in Acts 2.42 (§10) is rooted in the life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (§29, cf. §70, 99), and that the Spirit is its source (§30). Both Catholics and Pentecostals see koinonia in the Church as ‘a dynamic concept, implying a dialogical structure of both God-givenness and human response’. As they realize that they share an imperfect koinonia (§54), the concept urges them, and all Christians, to overcome their divisions (§37). Yet, in the words of George Vandervelde, the document ‘remains somewhat vague regarding the nature of the agreement and differences between the dialogue partners on the meaning of the term koinonia’.72 Some insight is provided from the Catholic perspective. They stress the God-givenness of koinonia and the Spirit-given means to sustain it (§31), and they understand baptism as the entrance into the koinonia of those saved in Christ (§50). They further see koinonia between local churches expressed in the celebration of sacraments under the presiding bishop in communion with other bishops (§81–82). The Pentecostals, however, disagree on these issues with the Catholics, but also disagree among themselves with alternative understandings (§86–87). Other key theological concepts such as conversion, baptism, sacraments and ordinances also pass in review but receive no clear, in-depth joint considerations either.

Growing theological interaction Final Report III witnesses to growing theological interaction, in which both dialogue partners have equal input. As in FR II, on each topic the teams seek to first offer a basic agreement, and thereafter indicate their differing positions. In fact, all five chapters open with one to five paragraphs in agreement after which divergences are explicated more elaborately. In Thomas Rausch’s estimation, the report is therefore ‘more a catalogue of differing perspectives than the record of an emerging consensus or a statement of agreement’.73 This must, however, be put in perspective. First, it must be remembered that the dialogue teams communicate clearly that they aim ‘to find points of genuine agreement as well as to indicate areas in which further dialogue is required’ (§5). Due to this ‘modest aim’, George Vandervelde sees the report as an exercise in ‘comparative ecclesiology’.74 Vandervelde rightly adds, however, that the text often goes beyond the stage of a strict comparison.75 Next, four characteristics of the text demonstrate that the differing positions are not simply described and contrasted. First, the assessment of the different positions between the dialogue partners is regularly prepared in agreement and the differences are sought to be nuanced. 72 73 74

75

George Vandervelde, ‘Response to Perspectives on Koinonia’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 179. Thomas P. Rausch, ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: A Response’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 172. Vandervelde, ‘Response to Perspectives’, 178. Comparative ecclesiology is an important method in ecumenical theology, but its limitations are also known since decades. In 1952, the Lund Conference already concluded that ‘we can make no real advance towards unity if we only compare our several conceptions of the nature of the Church and the traditions in which they are embodied’. See Fey and Rouse, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 151. Within the limitations of the IRCCPD, however, the comparative method is of great value. Cf. pp. 270–271. Vandervelde, ‘Response to Perspectives’, 179.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

223

Both traditions know that there is ‘significant divergence’ regarding ‘the nature of interpretation which is necessary to understand Scripture accurately’ (§25), but they add that they ‘are together growing in respect for the exegetical endeavor and its enriching findings’ (§27). It is explained that ‘Pentecostals in recent years have come to appreciate the importance of the faithful teachers of the Word of God through church history’ (§28) while ‘Roman Catholics have been according a greater place to Scripture’ in ecclesial life.76 A few paragraphs later, it is agreed that the Holy Spirit is the source of koinonia. Disagreements on the implications are explained as differences ‘in their points of departure and in their emphases’ (§30), which are ‘not mutually exclusive but rather […] complementary’ (§33). Even when differences between Catholic infant baptism and Pentecostal infant dedication are discussed, stress is laid on the ‘parallels’ between both practices (§63). Second, each dialogue partner offers appraisals of the other’s perspective of which some are appreciative. ‘Pentecostals appreciate the work of interpretation of Scripture going on in the Catholic Church’ (§26) and, in spite of their disagreement with Catholic veneration practices, they ‘find reassuring the stress in Roman Catholic theology that worship belongs only to God’ (§101). In other instances, the criticism is pronounced. Notably, Pentecostals are more inclined to criticize Catholic theology than the other way around. They ‘look with scepticism on any claim that the whole body of the faithful cannot err in matters of belief ’ (§26). They ‘observe what appears to be a “mechanical” or “magical” understanding of the sacraments, especially among Roman Catholic laity’ (§86) and ‘believe that church order demanded by koinonia is not satisfactorily expressed in some important aspects of Roman Catholic ecclesiology’ (§87). They ‘do not accept the Roman Catholic understanding of sacraments and the Roman Catholic view of the Church as “a kind of sacrament” ’ (§94). The Pentecostals question not only Catholic teaching but also Catholic ecclesial reality. They ‘observe that it seems possible for some Roman Catholics to live continuously in a state of sin, and yet be considered members in the Church’. In response, the Roman Catholics wonder ‘how Pentecostals deal with the sins of their own members’ and ‘how they avoid harshness when a sinner fails to live up to the congregation’s ideal of holiness’ (§79). The Final Report also contains mutual encouragement and challenges. In these instances, the Catholics are more outspoken than the Pentecostals. ‘Roman Catholics encourage Pentecostals to develop greater contact with the wider Christian community’s historical interpretation and biblical hermeneutics’ (§27). They ‘challenge’ them to ‘think of the whole community, too, as a “temple of God” in which the Spirit dwells’ (§76) and to ‘express clearly what is required for full communion in their churches’ (§98). They also ask Pentecostals ‘to re-examine the dynamic relationship between [Word and Sacrament] in the celebration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper’ (§97). Pentecostals, on the other hand, ‘would like Catholics to share more among themselves the private devotional reading of the Scriptures’ and ask ‘whether they could not deepen the experiential dimension of koinonia through spontaneous exercise of the gifts and the sharing of personal 76

Cf. pp. 216–217.

224

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

testimonies’ (§97). Such assessments, even the critical ones, evidence a growing sympathy and concern for the dialogue partner. The acknowledged weaknesses present in FR III indicate that the Pentecostals are most outspoken in their self-criticism. Theological vulnerability is only acknowledged by the Pentecostals. They ‘feel the need to investigate further the relationship between baptism and salvation’ in light of specific bible passages (§51). They ‘feel challenged’ by their dialogue partner ‘to develop all the implications for faith and piety which their full trinitarian commitment implies’ (§72). They ‘acknowledge both the reluctance that many of their members have in submitting to ecclesial authority and the difficulty which their charismatic leaders have in working through existing ecclesial institutional channels’ (§75). They see their ‘emphasis on their direct relation to the Spirit’ (§76) as potentially the cause for this difficulty. Regarding theological weakness, Catholics only ‘admit that there is no incontrovertible evidence for baptism of infants in the New Testament’ (§42). Internal theological diversity is also readily acknowledged by the Pentecostals but not by the Catholics. Pentecostals are said to differ among themselves in the understanding of baptism (as ordinance or as sacrament) (§41, 47, 50, cf. §52), about whether or not Scripture clearly teaches believers’ baptism (§42, 45, 46), about whether or not baptism by requirement implies immersion (§57) and the invocation of the triune God (§56), and concerning ‘how the Church should best be ordered’ (§84). In no way is theological diversity within Catholicism acknowledged. Only regarding ecclesial reality do the Catholics admit weaknesses. They ‘confess to a lack of mutuality at the local and universal levels’ while providing examples (§74) and ‘freely acknowledge possible pastoral difficulties […] inherent in the misuse of the practice of infant baptism’ (§60). In the closing section, both Roman Catholics and Pentecostals indicate that they ‘are troubled by the discrepancy between the theology and the practice of their own parishes or congregations’ (§89, cf. §103). Finally, differences are also regularly indicated as loci for reconsideration in later dialogue meetings. Contrary to the earlier reports, topics that need further discussion are not listed at the end in one paragraph, but are pinpointed in the main text. Further discussion is requested regarding ‘the meaning of the terms “sacrament” and ordinance” ’ (§41), the relation between faith and baptism (§49), ‘the effect of baptism’ (§51), baptism in the Spirit (§69), ‘the nature of the language’ being used when speaking of the divine (§69, 71), and perspectives on the history of the Church (§107f). This implies particularly homework for the Pentecostals. In Vinson Synan’s words, ‘the Pentecostals will need several centuries of theological and ecclesiological reflection to hammer out doctrinal positions on a great variety of problem areas’.77 The recognition of this need and the willingness to do it in dialogue with other traditions is definitely ecumenically promising. Finally, the increased honest and respectful interaction between the dialogue partners in FR IV in comparison with the earlier IRCCPD reports is remarkable. Paragraph 68 demonstrates this very well:

77

Synan, ‘Response to Perspectives’, 176.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

225

Roman Catholics fear that Pentecostals limit the Spirit to specific manifestations. Pentecostals fear that Roman Catholics confine the Spirit’s working to sacraments and church order. Therefore, we share a mutual concern not to confine or to limit the Holy Spirit whom Jesus described by the imagery of the freely blowing wind (cf. John 3:8). Each of us seems more worried about the other limiting the Spirit than ourselves. Still, we have learned through our discussions together that there is greater freedom for the Holy Spirit in both of our traditions than we expected to find, and our fears once shared, have made us more aware of our shortcomings in this regard.

Recalling the strongly antithetical character of Final Report II, the friendly way in which honest theological interaction takes place in this report really stands out.

Theological points of reference The numerous estimations of disagreements, diverging positions and admitted weaknesses demonstrate that the dialogue partners have worked hard on creating ‘a climate of mutual understanding’. In the analysis above, it was remarkable that the Classical Pentecostals are more critical towards their own theological project and admit to much inner diversity. This is noted as well by two of the respondents to the report. Hollenweger wished to have seen a more thorough discussion on the papacy, which he calls a ‘controversy within the Catholic Church’, which is not recognized as such in the Final Report.78 Swiss Pentecostal leader, Jakob Zopfi, is unhappy with ‘the designations of “some Pentecostals” and “the Roman Catholics” which are used in the document’ as he believes that ‘Pentecostals, generally speaking, are much more united than the Roman Catholics.79 Underlying this difference is, however, not a lack of honesty on the part of the Roman Catholics nor a fundamental superiority of their theology, but different dispositions of the dialogue partners in view of their theological points of reference. As noted earlier, the Pentecostal team aims to reflect, to their best knowledge, what the majority of Pentecostals believe.80 They start in their theological reflection from the ecclesial realities of the Pentecostal movement, and consequently are prone to admit disagreements and weaknesses, as they seek to be honest dialogue partners. The Catholics, on the other hand, seek in the first place to reflect the faith of the Roman Catholic Church. FR III:11 explains this as well: ‘Roman Catholics have a centurieslong tradition of ecclesiological reflection. […] Although Pentecostals do not possess a developed ecclesiology, they do embrace a variety of ecclesiological polities, and they hold strongly to certain basic ecclesiological convictions’. Catholics do not intend to deny that there is theological diversity among them or that the church struggles with sin, but when arguing for the Catholic position, they seek to be true not to the temporal weak expression of the church, but to what they consider its true nature, the one, holy, 78 79 80

Hollenweger, ‘The Koinonia of the Establishment’, 156. Jakob Zopfi, ‘Candid Thoughts on Perspectives’, Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 182. See p. 10; cf. pp. 234–235.

226

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

catholic and apostolic Church, the ‘God given’ reality (cf. §83). This is exemplified by the one clear instance in which the Catholics do clearly acknowledge shortcomings in their ecclesial realities. After the honest recognition of ‘a lack of mutuality at the local and universal levels’, they hasten to add ‘that order and hierarchy do not in themselves imply such a defect in mutuality’ (§74). This fundamental difference in the dialogue partners’ theological starting points includes contrasting priorities and emphases. As such, it is a major reason for the different theological discourses and the difficulty to truly speak together.

Endnotes in FR III FR III is the first IRCCPD Final Report to include endnotes, which total twelve. Five endnotes basically offer background information to the main text, such as the Bible version from which Scripture quotations are taken and a clarification of the new name of the PCPCU (see endnotes 1, 2, 3, 5, 12). Three endnotes shortly introduce the Oneness Pentecostal positions on God and baptism, after which it is added that ‘[m]ost Pentecostals […] strongly disagree with this position’ (endnotes 6, 8, 9).81 Two endnotes refer to Catholic particularities, offering information on Catholic baptismal practices (endnote 10) and a particular distinction within Catholic sacramentology (endnote 11). One endnote informs the reader of publications of the earlier Final Reports (endnote 4). Finally, an endnote explains that in this report baptism is being treated in a special section ‘because of the difficulty which baptism and the practice of baptism have in our dialogue’. Apparently, the use of endnotes was not evaluated as a great gain afterwards as they are absent in FR IV and very limited in FR V.

Conclusion Even though Final Report III has only in a limited way provided clear and uniform definitions, it does not fail to promote mutual understanding. The report was largely written together and witnesses to both appreciative and critical interaction in an irenic style. Due to the virtual absence of aggressive and defensive language, the particular self-understanding of each tradition becomes clearer. The Classical Pentecostal team tends to honestly describe the diversity of beliefs and opinions within their constituencies. The Roman Catholic team tends to honestly describe the ‘God-given’ reality of the Church, in spite of its weaknesses. Both traditions accept these different starting points and allow the other to present itself theologically from the perspective and in the style they deem most appropriate. This is certainly a commendable attitude, but it would have been helpful if this was explicitly explained in the Report.

Theological method in Final Report IV The Final Report of the fourth phase is entitled ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness’. Richard Mouw, evangelical Calvinist theologian, praises it for 81

This has led to sharp criticisms by Oneness respondents to the Final Report. Bernard, ‘Response to Perspectives’; cf. Hall, ‘Response to the Report from the Third Quinquennium’.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

227

dealing with ‘issues that are crucial and unique to relations between [these] two communities’.82 It is again substantially longer than previous one, counting 130 paragraphs. After the introduction (§1–10), six uneven chapters follow, reflecting six annual dialogue sessions (§6). The first three are short, counting 11, 6 and 9 paragraphs, respectively, dealing with ‘Mission and Evangelization’, offering ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’,83 and discussing ‘Evangelization and Culture’. Chapter IV on ‘Evangelization and Social Justice’ (§49–67) is divided into four subchapters, offering, respectively, Pentecostal reflections (§38–48), Catholic reflections (§49–54), common views (§55–59) and ‘things we have learned together’ (§60–67). Chapter V (§68–116) deals with ‘Proselytism’ and is the longest chapter by far. It counts six subchapters that carefully build one upon the other. After preparatory subchapters on ‘Moving towards a Common Position on Proselytism’ (§68–79) and ‘Replacing Dissatisfaction with Hope’ (§80–89), the chapter moves on to ‘Defining the Challenge’ (§90–97), pleas for ‘Promoting Religious Freedom’ (§98–104) and ‘Resolving Conflicts in the Quest for Unity’ (§105–109), and closes by ‘Affirming Principles for Mutual Understanding’ (§110–116). The final chapter VI on ‘Common Witness’ is again much shorter (§117–130) and has no subchapters. Unlike the earlier Final Reports, FR IV does not have a conclusion, but a full list of participants is added in the appendix, as well as an enumeration of eight official documents of the Roman Catholic Church that are referred to in the report. Analysing aspects of theological method in FR IV is not a simple task as it is not a typical theological text. The report treats a variety of topics, mostly from a shared Christian perspective, but not exclusively from a theological point of view. Neither the aim of the text is, nor its approach and use of sources are, strongly theological in nature. In fact, the dialogue report could easily be labelled as a pastoral document, or even as a jointly written proposal for more collaboration between the two traditions. It has a very narrative style and it consciously seeks to draw the reader into a discourse that is expected to meet considerable resistance.84 As Jeffrey Gros states, ‘it is a challenging and difficult document, as is any genuine call to mission and understanding’.85 Assemblies of God minister Jesse Miranda is even more explicit: ‘More than a doctrinal exposé or an ecclesiastical truce, I see this document as a plea for civility’.86 His colleague, Opal Reddin, is one of those offering resistance. She sees ‘the main purpose of “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness” as

82

83 84

85

86

Richard Mouw, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 76. Cf. pp. 156–167. See, e.g. §108: ‘We realize that some of our readers will think that our conclusions are idealistic. We do not agree. […] Our efforts are intended as a contribution to re-thinking the lack of conformity between Pentecostal/Catholic relationships and the call of Christ. We commend our findings to our readers recognizing that some will find them to be a real challenge.’ Cf, §68f., 109, 121f., 130. Jeffrey Gros, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 62. Jesse Miranda, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 72.

228

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

being to intimidate Pentecostals – or, better yet, keep them out of countries where there is a Catholic influence’.87 Rather than providing clinical theological arguments, much attention is given in the document to illustrating the historical, social and economic contexts, including multiple political and cultural sensitivities, which are acknowledged and discussed. The text is interspersed with dozens of examples from local ecclesial practices. Yet, the main theme is obviously theologically loaded, the authors were mostly theologians, and the intended readership is certainly sensitive to theological argumentation. Therefore, FR IV is treated in what follows as a ‘(theological) report’. Its peculiar nature allows a good estimation of the value attributed by the dialogue teams to sources and argumentations that are not primarily theological in nature. In order to properly discuss the particular nature and style of FR IV, in what follows the three subthemes (aims, sources and approach) are discussed in a different order. After discussing the aims of the document, the theological approach is analysed. From that perspective, the use of theological sources is scrutinized.

(Theological) aims of FR IV Before the start of phase IV, the Joint Steering Committee members recorded one of the few written discussions on the dialogue’s aims. This was instigated by the suggestion of Jerry Sandidge to focus on ‘Evangelism and Proselytism’ in phase IV. Justus du Plessis quoted in response from paragraphs 5 and 7 of Final Report I to argue that the nature and purpose of the dialogue ‘really boils down to a mutual sharing and witnessing’.88 He argued that in the absence of an official mandate, the Pentecostal dialogue team ‘will cause a tremendous upheaval if we tried, on behalf of the Pentecostal Churches, to speak on the difference between proselytism and evangelism’. Although Kilian McDonnell shared his opinion, in the end the suggested theme was accepted by all.89 The introduction of FR IV clearly indicates, however, that the Pentecostals have no ‘body of teaching which may serve as a resource for their position’ and that the dialogue teams ‘have made no decisions for the churches since we have no authority to make such decisions’ (§3–4, cf. infra). As the previous Final Reports, FR IV opens with an introduction in which the IRCCPD and its particularities are presented. The second paragraph explains the purpose of the dialogue, building heavily on the parallel section in FR III: (2) The unity of the Church is a concern for Pentecostals and Catholics alike. The particular purpose of these discussions is to develop a climate of mutual respect and understanding in matters of faith and practice, to find points of genuine agreement as well as indicate areas in which further dialogue is required. The goal is not structural unity, but rather the fostering of this respect and mutual understanding between the Catholic Church and classical Pentecostal groups. 87 88 89

Reddin, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 82. Justus du Plessis to Jerry Sandidge, 5 August 1989, SanColl. See p. 151.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

229

The content is very similar to FR III:5, with three adaptations. First, the fact that the unity of the Church is ‘a concern for Pentecostals and Catholics alike’ is firmly posited at the beginning in an independent sentence. Second, the clear indication that ‘not structural unity but […] fostering of […] respect mutual understanding’ is aimed at, is moved to the final sentence of the paragraph. Third, one sentence from FR III:5 is left out: ‘We hope that further theological convergence will appear as we continue to explore issues together.’ It is not certain why this statement is erased, but it could well be related to the fact that the present report is not really theological in focus (cf. supra). In all, by restructuring this paragraph more emphasis is laid on the shared desire for (unspecified) unity and the broad purpose of fostering mutual respect and understanding. In contrast to earlier reports, FR IV has a strong action-oriented aim. The dialogue partners are explicitly ‘making proposals to [their] churches’ (§4) in view of cooperation rather than presenting to them a report on theological positions (cf. FR I:46; II:94; III:12). The introduction explains that the dialogue partners ‘were touched by [their] divided witness’ and moved ‘to search for ways in which these divisions might be resolved’ (§10). As they believe they ‘gained clarity on problematic issues’, they hope ‘that their work together points toward possibilities of cooperation in mission for the sake of the Gospel’ (§8). In the words of Catholic theologian, Hans Gasper, FR IV could be seen as ‘the Charta Oecumenica of Pentecostal/Catholic relations’.90 This action-oriented aim stands out as an important characteristic of FR IV and is related to a different (theological) approach.

(Theological) approach of FR IV The (theological) approach of FR IV stands out in a number of ways. In what follows, first relevant elements that also have been considered in earlier subchapters are discussed, notably the report’s style of communication accentuating agreements and its focused attention for terminology. Elements present in FR IV, which are atypical in a theological document, are discussed next. Finally, the lack of theological finesse is noted.

Focus on agreements Theological polemics between the traditions are virtually absent in FR IV, but Eddie Gibbs notes that the report’s ‘gracious tone’ is ‘more than ecumenical decorum’.91 Large sections are written in full agreement. Chapter I (§11–21) explains different emphases each tradition lays in defining evangelization, but they are not opposed to one another (see infra). Chapters II and III (§22–36) are written from a joint perspective, interrupted only to signal different emphases or 90

91

Das Schlussdokument dieser vierten Dialogrunde […] ist so etwas oder könnte so etwas werden wie die Charta Oecumenica des Verhältnisses von Pfingstlern und Katholiken, mit möglichen Wirkungen darüber hinaus. Gasper, ‘Global Players im Gespräch?’, 324. Eddie Gibbs, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 58. Cf. Konrad Raiser, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 78.

230

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

habits (§28, 30–32). Chapter IV opens with separately formulated introductions to ‘Evangelization and Social Justice’ (§38–48; §49–54), not because the theological positions are considered conflictual in se but because the traditions ‘have approached the linkages between these two subjects in such different ways’ (§37). The divergent views are not only attributed to different theological frameworks (§40, 47f., 49–51), but also to the different roles the Catholic Church and the Pentecostal movement have typically played in society (§41f. – see infra). After the separate introductions, the chapter moves on to explain common views, convergences and lessons, written in concord (§55–66). One difference in emphasis is admitted in the closing paragraph (§67). Finally, Chapter V on proselytism and Chapter VI on common witness are also largely written in agreement. Only one paragraph contains explicit criticisms of both traditions vis-à-vis the other, based on confrontations in the South American context (§82). Theological disagreements are mentioned in a few instances but confrontation is absent (§91, 112, 127). On the whole, the document strikes an honest and respectful tone, acknowledging the difficult relationships between Pentecostals and Catholics in many places on the globe. It refuses to let theological disagreements, which are deemed minor, overshadow the appeal for more cooperation in mission. In the words of Lutheran theologian and former General Secretary of the WCC, Konrad Raiser, ‘the report acknowledges the difficult nature of the issues honestly and clearly. In doing so the participants have laid for themselves the ground on which they could build, and one cannot but be impressed by their ability to speak and listen to one another, and by what they have been able to affirm jointly.’92

Definitions of key terms One way in which unnecessary polemics were avoided was by a careful definition of key theological terms, as was suggested by Vandervelde in his response to FR III.93 The first two chapters provide a fair description of joint and differing understandings of evangelization. Not only a biblical and systematic basis is agreed upon (§11, 20, 22–27), but also the kernel of Christian proclamation (§14) and a list of motivations for taking up the missionary task (§16) are jointly formulated. It is also concurred that evangelization encompasses ‘missionary proclamation to non-Christians, as well as outreach to those who once claimed to have accepted the Gospel, but who apparently live a life totally indifferent to the faith they have professed’ (§19). In the course of the chapter, the distinct theological schemes in which the task of evangelization is understood are explained (§12f., 16, 20f.), Catholic and Pentecostal emphases ‘in practice and language’ are provided (§15), and profiles of the typical persons active in evangelism in each tradition are afforded (§17f.). The subsequent chapters place evangelization in relation to culture (Chapter III) and social justice (Chapter IV). It is notable that in these chapters the terms ‘culture’ and ‘social justice’ lack all attempt at definition. Chapter V deals cautiously with 92 93

Raiser, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 78. See pp. 221–222.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

231

the second key topic under consideration, ‘proselytism’. It first explains with a balanced analysis why the issue is so sensitive in Catholics–Pentecostal relations (§68–79). Then, it states that both traditions have made mistakes in dealing with each other and with non-believers, but today they jointly ‘condemn coercive and violent methods’ (§82) in evangelization (§80–89). Only thereafter does a common description and condemnation of proselytism follows, distinguishing it sharply from evangelization and placing it in relation to human freedom (§90–97). Religious freedom is discussed as a civil right that both traditions want to promote (§98–104), but no definition of either ‘religious freedom’ or ‘civil rights’ is provided. In the closing chapter on ‘common witness’, the meaning of this word pair and its aim are explained (§118, 122), conditions and related challenges for its practice are discussed (§119–120, 124f., 128), and an intrinsic relation to forgiveness is argued (§123). Finally, principles for common witness (§127) are accompanied with a list of good examples (§128–129). The Final Report thus displays the particular attention given in the 1994 dialogue session to a careful and nuanced consideration of its three key theological terms.94 Accessory (non-theological) terms are not really defined, but are used in a common-sense manner.

Atypical argumentation In seeking to enthuse readers from both traditions in view of their appeal to more mutual understanding and to common witness, the dialogue participants have incorporated a variety of argumentative styles in FR IV that were not present in the earlier reports. Three features are discussed and a concomitant weakness is pointed to. First, to avoid hard polemics, not only are key terms carefully defined, but the Final Report also allows explanations for divergent perspectives by placing them in their historical, social and political contexts. The advice of Donald Gelpi to more carefully frame differences by historical contextualization thus seems to have been taken to heart.95 Pentecostals attribute their limited attention for problems related to social structures to the social conditions from which their movement took root. Early Pentecostals ‘had no access to structures of power by which they could influence public policy directly’ (§42, cf. 101). The development of ‘more limited visions of unity’ in Pentecostal bodies is later explained by a historical liaison to Fundamentalism (§86).96 Catholics explain how in their history ‘attempts at Christianization’ came to be so ‘attached to political and economic expansion’ that even ‘pressure and violence have been used’ (§81). Local conflictual relations between the traditions are prototypically explained by describing the perspectives of a ‘long-established Church’ and of ‘newcomers’ in a region (§69–79). Contextualization helps the dialogue partners to improve mutual understanding as a basis for growing trust, as is explained at the end of the report: ‘We need to be aware of the dark side of our histories, with full 94 95 96

Cf. pp. 152–153. Gelpi, ‘Perspectives on Koinonia’, 150. Cf. pp. 31–33.

232

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

recognition of all the circumstances which gave rise to the distrust. Forgiveness is based on the truth established by both sides’ (§124). Second, FR IV is particularly accessible and down-to-earth by its marked orientation to ecclesial reality. It abounds with real-life questions of mission and evangelization, providing both positive and negative examples of interecclesial relations. This is a wise choice because, as Raiser states, the subjects under consideration ‘are undoubtedly among the most controversial, not only in theological terms but also in the daily situations of the local faith communities and their clergy in many parts of the world’.97 Jointly, concern is expressed when evangelizers objectify people or implement strategies that harm the nature of Christ’s Church (§16). Sacrifices and martyrdom for the sake of the Gospel are acknowledged in both traditions (§39, 53), even at the hands of the other (§78). Pentecostals argue that, in spite of their limited systematic reflection on problems related to social structures, they have spoken and acted on behalf of victims of society (§44f.). They have not participated in the development of ecumenical documents condemning proselytism but point to bylaws that were enacted and statements that were adopted in their midst on ministerial ethics (§84). The model of Billy Graham’s evangelistic campaigns is jointly praised (§96) and multiple examples of Pentecostal/Catholic common witness are presented (§120, 126) as well as suggestions for continuing development (§125, 128f). With a focus on ecclesial and missionary practice rather than on the teaching of the church, diversity, developments and shortcomings are readily acknowledged, both within Pentecostalism (§18, 21, 31, 60, 63) and in the Roman Catholic Church (§17, 33, 60, 62, 80–82). The Final Report explains that ‘shortcomings can often be better understood if concrete conditions, such as poverty, illiteracy, a shortage of ministers and the structures of oppression are known’ (§33). The many examples contribute to the document’s flavour of honesty and mutual respect and brings home the call for growing common witness. A third, new element in the Final Report is the presence of several ethical themes and even ethical valuations of societal and cultural developments, which are typically pronounced in concord. The secularization process is jointly deplored and condemned (§34) and current ethical questions from the West regarding birth and death are delineated as challenges that require an appealing Christian response (§35f). Pentecostals point to ‘social evils’ they have opposed in different cultures (‘the Caste system in India, polygamy in Africa and the Pacific and genital mutilation in some African countries’, §45). Jointly, proselytism is condemned as ‘an unethical activity that comes in many forms’, involving dishonesty, intellectual laziness, manipulation, etc. (§93). Catholics and Pentecostals are called to ‘stand as one’ in promoting religious freedom in society (§100) and in rejecting violations (§102). Cooperation in service of disarmament, peace, help for refugees, drug rehabilitation programmes, environmental care, etc., and in opposition to prostitution, discrimination, abortion, euthanasia, etc., is argued for (§129). By outlining in harmony such ethical challenges facing the world today, the dialogue participants

97

Raiser, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 78.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

233

argue that ‘the Spirit is calling us to move beyond our present divisions’ and invite their readers ‘to travel this road with us’ (§130).

Absence of theological finesse As a flip side of the focus on ecclesial practice just mentioned, FR IV gives only limited attention to theological argumentations. It is jointly stated that the dialogue partners agree on the ‘essential core of the Gospel’ (§15) and on what is to be proclaimed in evangelization, but, as Timothy George states, ‘the document touches only briefly […] on the content of this agreed understanding’.98 This can, therefore, simply and radically be challenged by Opal Reddin in her response to the document: ‘[i]n my opinion, Catholics and Pentecostals do not “agree on the essential core of the Gospel” […]’.99 Timothy George indicates that more clarity is needed regarding the consequences for mission strategies of the divergent views on the salvific value of non-Christian religions (§20).100 Orthodox theologian, Paul Meyendorff, opines that ‘a great deal more exploration is needed’ on the question of ecclesiology.101 And as was noted earlier, the second chapter providing ‘The Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization’ is, in the words of Thomas McAlpine, ‘curiously weak’.102,103 Especially in comparison with the third Final Report, FR IV lacks theological finesse. Juan Usma Gómez sums it up nicely when he says: ‘from the theological point of view, I think the most refined of all is number three. The most honest is four, […] the second part. And it continues to be “the” reflection on proselytism in the West’.104

(Theological) sources in FR IV The different style of FR IV also implies a different way of (theological) argumentation. This subchapter discusses typical sources that figure in the previous Final Reports, as well as unusual bases for FR IV’s appeals and statements. As in FR I, the agreement of the dialogue participants regularly suffices in FR IV as a basis for taking up a position. Large sections of the report simply lack theological foundations or references. These sections usually fall in two categories. First, sections written in agreement by the dialogue participants also often lack argumentation as they were apparently estimated to be readily supported by both constituencies (e.g. §28–30,

98

Timothy George, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 55. 99 Reddin, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 81. 100 George, ‘Thirteen Responses’. That the former needs more reflection is also indicated by Walter Hollenweger: Walter J. Hollenweger, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 64. Cf. Reddin, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 81–82. 101 Paul Meyendorff, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 71. Cf. footnote 90. 102 McAlpine, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 70. Cf. p. 167. 103 Jesse Miranda further misses ‘a clearer statement on the relation between Scripture and Tradition’, but one could point to FR III in response. Miranda, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 72. 104 Interview by Jelle Creemers with Juan Usma Gómez, 18 July 2013, CrArch.

234

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

58, 64, 66, 69, 70, 89, 122).105 Second, justification is generally absent in statements or paragraphs in FR IV that are not systematic theological in nature, when ecclesial practices are described (e.g. §31, 33, 44, 82, 101, 120, 128), contexts are drawn (e.g. §42, 68, 72–77, 86) or ethical positions are taken (e.g. §34–36, 45, 129). When scrutinizing the main theological sources in FR IV, Scripture again stands out as the most important one, both in appreciation and in usage. It is jointly stated that the dialogue partners ‘both believe in the centrality of Scripture’ (§121) and paragraphs 55–59 demonstrate its authority when listing common views regarding faith and justice. The significance of Scripture is also evidenced by the fact that definitions of key terms typically begin with a biblical foundation (§22ff., 90, 117ff ). Scripture references occur all throughout FR IV and a total of 109. The density is highest in the first two chapters (§11–27), where evangelization is defined and provided with a biblical and systematic foundation. Apart from biblically founded definitions, Scripture is typically referred to when the dialogue team seeks to motivate the readers for rapprochement and joint action. While tradition in itself is not discussed nor used as a source for Christian thinking in FR IV,106 but there is growing attention for Catholic official teaching documents. Paragraph 3 states: [T]here is at least one important difference between the Catholic and the Pentecostal teams that bears mention. The Roman Catholic Church possesses that which may be described as official teaching […], teaching that has been expressed in various authoritative texts such as the conciliar documents of Second Vatican Council and in papal encyclicals. The Pentecostals possess no comparable body of teaching which may serve as a resource for their position. The diversity of the Pentecostal Movement mitigates against a single position on certain topics. When the Pentecostal participants speak as a single voice throughout this document, then, they do so by gathering together what they believe to be the common consensus, held by the vast majority of Pentecostals worldwide.

The paragraph is clear and simple, and markedly non-polemical. It actually explains the different theological points of reference, which were earlier said to be implicitly underlying the earlier Final Reports: Roman Catholics seek to represent their ecclesial teaching as put down in official authoritative texts, while Pentecostals seek to represent ‘what they believe to be the common consensus’ in the Pentecostal movement. The paragraph attributes this difference to ‘the diversity of 105

Cf. p. 201. Paragraphs in which the dialogue partners address one another or their own constituencies regularly lack argumentation as well (e.g. §60–63, 65, 67, 82, 87, 114–115). Yet, this can be expected as these are often closing paragraphs of chapters or subchapters that logically follow from/build on the preceding. 106 The term ‘tradition’ is used to refer to the two ecclesial families at the dialogue table (§4, 37, 67f, 112, 120), their different ‘doctrinal traditions’ (§92f, cf. §125) or to ‘other Christian traditions’ (§48, cf. §83). Tradition is once given implicit argumentative value in the introduction of the ‘rich Catholic social teaching’, which ‘has its roots in the Scriptures, reached its highpoint at Vatican II, and continues on in the Pontificate of John Paul II’ (§49).

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

235

the Pentecostal Movement’. Diversity exists, however, no less in the ecclesial reality of the Roman Catholic Church. The plain absence of an ‘official teaching’ within Pentecostalism should not be connected to the diversity in the movement’s ecclesial reality but is consequent to a different ecclesiology and view on tradition.107 As Opal Reddin notes, ‘each Pentecostal denomination has a Constitution and Statement of Doctrines’, but such documents are valued differently.108 Final Report IV contains eighteen references to Catholic teaching documents from Vatican II and later. In some instances they are simply referenced between brackets, in other instances large texts are quoted. Conciliar texts that occur in FR IV are Lumen Gentium (§7), Gaudium et Spes (§49), Unitatis Redintegratio (§78, 112), Apostolicam Actuositatem (§17, 51), Ad Gentes (§12) and Dignitatis Humanae (§49, 99, 102, 103). Pope Paul VI’s apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975) is the most frequently used Catholic ecclesial document (§12, 14, 15, 16, 121) and one reference can be found to the final text of the 1971 episcopal synod, De Iustitia in Mundo (§50). Pope John Paul II’s twelfth encyclical, Ut Unum Sint (1995), is quoted once without a reference being supplied (§88). Notably, of the eighteen references to Catholic teaching documents, six occur in joint statements. By the fourth phase the Classical Pentecostal team members felt quite comfortable with the affirmation of Catholic teaching documents as potentially good expressions of their own theological positions. References to the own dialogue history could be found for the first time in FR III, and in FR IV such references occur again. FR IV contains three references to the history of the IRCCPD, and all come from FR III (§69, 106, 121). A reference to FR III is, however, notably absent in §26f, where koinonia is discussed. In §3, references to the earlier statements on tradition and authority could have been expected as well. Thus, while the main topics of FR IV arguably have not actually been touched upon in the earlier phases, in some instances the lack of references to earlier Final Reports is, again, remarkable. Notwithstanding the hesitance to refer to the own dialogue reports, FR IV is posited regularly and consciously in an ecumenical context, and argues from that position. The dialogue partners place themselves in line with ‘several traditions’ that already have stated ‘that “proselytism” is something to be condemned’ (§83). It is noted that ‘[r]eligious freedom has […] been the subject of significant ecumenical dialogue’, and references to the Baptist–Roman Catholic International Conversations (1984–1988) and to the Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches are provided. One of their conclusions is quoted and jointly endorsed (§104). The essential link between mission and Christian unity is explained with the historical example of the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh, 1910 (§105), and it is appreciatively stated that ‘[a]s we approach the end of the century virtually all major Christian families, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, and Protestant, are now involved in efforts to find ways to work together’ (§105). Finally, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is indicated as an opportunity for Catholics and Pentecostals to join in common prayer. Such broad 107 108

See, respectively, p. 17 and pp. 26–27. Reddin, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 84.

236

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

and positive appreciations of the achievements of the ecumenical movement were not found in the earlier Final Reports of the IRCCPD. Systematic theological coherence frequently occurs in FR IV as a foundation for argumentation. Both dialogue partners agree, for example, that ‘the biblical mandate for mission is grounded in the redemptive purpose of God’ (§22). The Pentecostals emphasize that ‘conversion and incorporation into the community of faith cannot be seen apart from the transformation of society [because] the rebirth of a person by the Spirit is the anticipation of the transformation of the cosmos’ (§40). FR IV also founds ecclesial activities on systematic ground, which is evidenced in the discussions on evangelization. The Pentecostal belief in the imminent return of Christ is said to underlie their stress on the urgency of Gospel proclamation (§16) and evangelization is jointly deemed necessary ‘because all are subject to “the fall”, all are “lost” ’ (§24). The Pentecostal success in mission ‘has been facilitated by their emphasis upon the freedom of the Holy Spirit, with their consequent openness to the diversity of forms of expression in the worship and praise of God […]’ (§32). Certain evangelistic strategies are on the other hand considered inconsistent with the ‘nature of the church’ (§16). Witness is finally said to belong to the nature of the Christian life, which based both on the imperative of the Great Commission and on the biblical teaching that ‘Jesus Christ is the unique witness to the Father, and the Spirit comes from the Father to witness to Jesus Christ’ (§117). Such positioning on systematic theological grounds is more clearly prominent than in earlier Final Reports. Experience reoccurs as a basis for argumentation in FR IV, but only in a limited fashion. Experience is not generally argued for as having argumentative value, but in the beginning and especially towards the end of the Final Report, the writers argue for particular choices they have made and positions they have taken on the basis of their dialogue experience.109 Because of the ‘sorrow’ they ‘have experienced and expressed to one another’ over their current state of dividedness, they felt moved ‘to search for ways in which […] divisions might be resolved’ (§10, cf. §68, §127). The experience of working and praying together and learning from one another has made them ‘come to recognize, in a fresh way’ some important things (§108). On the basis of their own experience they jointly ‘look forward to the day when leaders within [their] two communities will be able to pray together, develop mutual trust, and deal with tensions which arise’ (§109, cf. §118, 128). They acknowledge that the report emerges from their personal experience of dialogue, which has led to ‘strong bonds of affection and trust’ and consequently to ‘an atmosphere in which differences have been faced with candor, even when those differences seem to be irreconcilable’ (§130). It is hoped by the writers ‘that the text will help readers to re-experience what we ourselves experienced, namely, the joy of discovering together astonishing areas of agreement [as well as] the shocks of the gaps between our positions’ (§130). This underlines the value for theological dialogue of the focus on shared spirituality and interpersonal relations in the dialogue method of the

109

Cf. Gros, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 62.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

237

IRCCPD, which was discussed earlier.110 Experience of dialogue is indicated in FR IV as a major incentive for rapprochement and common witness.111 The very question of the argumentative value of experience in itself, which was regularly and carefully dealt with in earlier reports, is however not posed. Some sources are typical for FR IV and deserve special attention. First, practical examples are frequently afforded in FR IV and regularly serve to substantiate theological or ethical positions. This is demonstrated by a closer look at Chapter III on ‘Evangelization and Culture’ (§28–36). More than twenty practical examples from the life and experience of both traditions occur here. While the dialogue partners acknowledge the complex interrelation of Church and culture (§28), their respective positions and emphases in dealing with culture are not built on Scripture, ecclesial documents or the ecumenical context. It is simply stated: ‘We accept that there is considerable good in cultures, notwithstanding the fact of humanity’s fall from grace. Pentecostals emphasize the changing of individuals who when formed into a body of believers bring change into the culture from within. Catholics emphasize that culture itself in its human institutions and enterprises can also be transformed by the Gospel’ (§28). Next, it is argued that both approaches have strengths and weaknesses by providing positive and negative examples (§30–33). The chapter closes with strong united statements on the particularities of secularized Western society, which are jointly deplored and condemned, and which require common engagement (§34–36). Both the state of Western society and the need for joint action are argued for by means of effective examples. The use of illustrations from ecclesial practice is not surprising as the document seeks to appeal to a broad public and has a strong focus on practice. It is significant, however, that the practical examples have so much argumentative value that virtually no other form of argumentation is used in a section as large as a chapter. Second, the attention given to historical and social contextualisation of beliefs and practices in FR IV must be reconsidered (cf. supra) in view of the current focus on sources used for (theological) argumentation. The dialogue partners strive in FR IV to stimulate mutual understanding and joint action and contextualization serves as an important means to that end. By demonstrating that differing attitudes and actions are not simply consequential to oppositional theological schemes but also determined by varying contexts, the dialogue partners put in perspective seemingly antithetical positions without denying their specific theological views. It is argued that as contexts change, theological, political or relational positions need to be reconsidered, which allows for rapprochement between the traditions. The chapter on proselytism most clearly demonstrates the use and force of contextualization in FR IV. After jointly stating that ‘proselytism exists, in large part, because Pentecostals and Catholics do not have a common understanding of the Church’, the ‘bonds between us that already

110 111

See Chapter 4, e.g. pp. 185–186. Cf. pp. 274–276.

238

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

exist’ are accentuated (§69–70). Next, a long description of the difficult relations between the two dialogue partners is provided by describing them as ‘newcomers’ and ‘long-established Church’, rather than more deeply discussing their opposing theological starting points (§71–78). The Catholics point to the long period in their history in which ‘church and state were deeply involved in the life of each other’ (§80). They admit that ‘[i]n this historical context, […] attempts at Christianization have often been attached to political and economic expansion’ and that ‘prior to Vatican II, Catholic doctrine has been reluctant to support full religious freedom in civil law’ (§81). Today, however, they ‘condemn coercive and violent methods’ together with Pentecostals, even if both see that ‘all too often, aggressiveness still characterizes our interaction’ (§82). Pentecostals attribute their ‘suspicion of the modern movements towards unity among Pentecostals’ to their historical alliance with ‘Fundamentalists outside Pentecostalism’ (§86) and ask for a new consideration of ‘early writings of Pentecostals’ that ‘reveal a number of rich and fertile visions of unity among Christians, even if at times they were triumphalistic’ (§85, 87). Only after this long introduction in which both traditions are, in the words of Paul Meyendorff, ‘courageously admitting a history filled with abuses’, 112 the challenge of proselytism is defined (§90–97) and a way forward is jointly indicated (§98–116). American Baptist respondent, Eugene Daniels, notes regarding Chapter IV that the ‘[d]ialogue participants acknowledged that the two traditions have contrasting histories, but agreed that convergence is taking place […]’.113 Instead of focusing on the theological differences, insights into their differing contexts is presented as ground for the contrasting positions. Thus, the dialogue partners seek to clear the road of obstacles from the past and to allow the dialogue teams to, together, look ahead in a fresh way.114 In FR IV references to the historical church have come to play a completely different role than in the earlier reports. Before phase IV, positions or usages were defended regularly by arguing for continuity with church history. The examples above demonstrate that in FR IV both traditions point rather to elements of historical discontinuity and development, in order to create an open space for joint reflection. Appeals to historical continuity in the church are barely present. It is once stated by the Catholics that ‘[m]ission has been part of the life of the Church throughout the ages’ (§12). Pentecostals point to the early church in which parallels can be found for their focus on ‘demonic elements in other religions’ (§21) and for their ‘sense of urgency […] concerning witness and salvation of the lost’ (§38). But theological positions and/or practices are never in FR IV substantiated on the basis of continuity with the long history of the Church.

112

Meyendorff, ‘Thirteen Responses’, 70. Eugene Daniels, ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’, Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 54. 114 Similarities with the ‘historical method’ in ecumenical theology are obvious. Cf. pp. 275–276. 113

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

239

In conclusion, Final Report IV seriously broadens the range of (theological) sources and modes of argumentation, due to the different style of the document. The dialogue partners have sought to write a report that would stimulate their constituencies to rethink their perspectives on the other and to call them to common action. Scripture remains the fundamental source for Christian theologizing, and there is growing number of references to Catholic ecclesial texts and more emphasis is laid on contextualization. The ecumenical context is referred to, each tradition explains its theological and ecclesial characteristics on the basis of historical and social contextualization, and attention is given to positive and negative examples from church life to bring home their appeal. Also significant is that church history is brought in to show development and diversity rather than argue for fixed positions. This approach, which discusses the breadth of ecclesial life rather than focus on systematic theological reasoning, is continued in the fifth phase.

Theological method in Final Report V If FR IV stands out as the most daring report with regard to the theme under consideration, Final Report V stands out as the boldest with regard to the theological method used, at least from the Pentecostal perspective. Chapter 4 explained that the 1991 publication by senior chairman, Kilian McDonnell, entitled Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidences from the First Eight Centuries, had a particular bearing on the fifth phase (see 4.7). Not only are the key themes of this book discussed in phase V under the heading ‘On Becoming a Christian’. The book’s focus on the witness of the early church is taken over as well and deserves particular attention. With 285 paragraphs and 99 pages, Final Report V is by far the longest report produced in the IRCCPD to date. It opens with an introduction (§1–24), has five main chapters and a concluding chapter (§263–285). In each of the five chapters, one subtopic related to the overall theme of ‘Becoming a Christian’ is discussed. Chapter 1 deals with ‘Conversion and Christian Initiation’ (§25–59). Chapter 2 focuses on ‘Faith and Christian Initiation’ (§60–96). Chapter 3 is entitled ‘Christian Formation and Discipleship’ (§97–137). The fourth chapter deals with ‘Experience in Christian Life’ (§138–191). The fifth chapter is the longest and deals with ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Christian Initiation’ (§192–260). Unique to FR V is the systematic subdivision of the main chapters. Each has four subchapters, which offer respectively an introduction to the theme, New Testament perspectives, Patristic perspectives and contemporary reflections. The concluding chapter, Chapter 6, provides a summary of what Catholics and Pentecostals have jointly learnt in phase V from the witness of the Bible (§265), the witness of the Fathers (§266–270) and their contemporary reflections (§271–279). Proposals for future dialogue are listed (§280–283) and the report closes with a ‘Final Word’ (§284–285). In two appendices, the participants are listed as well as the titles and presenters of the annual papers. The peculiar structure of the report is directly related to its theological method and is discussed in more detail later. One general consequence of the document’s consistent structure is that the dialogue partners have managed to write the introductions, the

240

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

biblical perspectives and the patristic perspectives in accord, pointing occasionally to minor divergences of interpretation. The contemporary reflections of the first three main chapters have largely been written together as well, with agreements and disagreements indicated in passing.115 As a result, the report is both well organized and highly informative. The report can ‘be studied and discussed widely by Catholics and Pentecostals within their communities, and especially together’ (§17). Indeed, it would serve well as a syllabus for a joint seminary course, ‘Introduction to Christian Initiation’.

Theological aims of FR V The introduction of FR V explains in two paragraphs the purpose of the dialogue, using familiar phrases from earlier reports but with added emphasis on commonalities and the dialogue’s potential to bring mutual rapprochement. The report reads: 2. This dialogue began in 1972 and thirty-five years of conversation have shown that Pentecostals and Catholics share many aspects of Christian faith and life. Although they have much in common and the unity of the church is a concern that both share, there are still a number of important areas where Pentecostals and Catholics remain divided. Thus, it has been our intention in this dialogue to continue the development of a climate of mutual respect and understanding in matters of faith and practice, to find points of genuine agreement, and to indicate areas in which we believe further dialogue is required. 3. The goal of this dialogue is to foster this respect and understanding between the Catholic Church and Classical Pentecostal churches rather than to seek structural unity. We hope to continue to seek resolution to those differences that keep us separated from one another, especially in the light of the prayer of Jesus for his disciples ‘that they may all be one … so that the world may believe … ’ (John 1:21).

In contrast to FR IV:2, the second paragraph opens with the firm statement that Catholics and Pentecostals have much in common, and this is grounded in the dialogue’s history. The shared elements serve as a foundation for the dialogue, while the mutual concern for the unity of the church is an incentive for its continuation. The division between the traditions is said to be over ‘a number of important areas’ but is at the same time given a provisional status: the disagreements are still there (cf. §89), suggesting that their resolution is possible and expected. From earlier reports the triple intention of the dialogue – ‘to continue the development of a climate of mutual respect and understanding […], to find points of genuine agreement, and to indicate areas in which […] further dialogue is required’ – is adopted. The next paragraph repeats that the goal of the dialogue is to foster mutual respect and understanding and not ‘to seek structural unity’. In contrast to FR IV, this sentence 115

The contemporary reflections of Chapters IV and V, however, have been written separately by each tradition.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

241

opens not with the negative but with the positive goals, which gives them a stronger emphasis. The closing sentence focuses again on the resolution of differences that keep the traditions separated from one another, stressing the quest for unity in the light of the prayer of Jesus. In short, the dialogue’s aims are reformulated to lay more emphasis on a shared desire for unity, even if the form of that unity is only negatively qualified as ‘not structural’. Two paragraphs later, the introduction explains the purpose of the current, fifth phase: ‘[…] we have attempted to understand how an individual moves from his or her initial entry into the Christian life to being a fully active member of the church’ (§5). By this focus on the process of incorporation into the church, the dialogue teams could avoid a polarized discussion on the precise moment of conversion and rather seek parallels and divergences in the larger process of spiritual growth. Specific theological purposes of the Final Report itself are again not clearly stated, but obviously the report testifies to the dialogue on the central theme. The Final Report indicates in a few instances that the theological aims of the dialogue partners were markedly modest. When scholarly discussion on the interpretation of some patristic texts is acknowledged, they hasten to add that ‘[i]t is not our intention to attempt to resolve this debate’ (§208). Variety within the patristic sources and the different interpretations thereof are mentioned later (§261). A statement at the end of the Report speaks volumes: ‘[T]he clarification of what is normative for becoming a Christian and/or for Christian Initiation should be a matter for future dialogue.’ Hence, the dialogue partners seem to have aimed at a fair presentation to their readers of the status quaestionis on the topics under consideration, rather than developing either original or normative theology. This is in line with Cecil Robeck’s estimation that after phase V the IRCCPD is still at the level of mutual introduction and requires further development in order to ‘move beyond the convergences’ and ‘work for consensus’.116

Theological sources in FR V The unique structure of FR V is directly related to the two main sources that have been referenced in this phase: Scripture and the witness of the early church. Attention first goes to the use of Scripture and early Christian writings, which obviously largely undergird the biblical and patristic sections. Thereafter, the use of a wide variety of other sources is scrutinized. They are mostly appealed to in the sections offering contemporary reflections. At the end, conclusions are drawn.

Scripture and early Christian writings The primary importance of Scripture for Christian reflection is both argued for and demonstrated in FR V. In the introduction, both traditions acknowledge ‘the uniqueness of the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, normative for faith and life of the church’. Therefore, Scripture is ‘obviously the most basic, 116

Interview by Jelle Creemers with Cecil Robeck, 16 July 2013, CrArch.

242

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

foundational source for Christian reflection’ (§8, cf. §264). No less than 585 references to Scripture occur in the main text and many are quoted in full. While the large majority of Scripture passages is found in the sections offering Biblical perspectives, they also occur in the sections giving patristic viewpoints, usually quoted by the Fathers. Contemporary reflections regularly refer to Scripture as well, mostly in sections written from a Pentecostal viewpoint. Examples of the central place attributed to Scripture and the study of Scripture in the ecclesial life of both traditions (§134) and in the daily rhythm of the dialogue (§18) underline its importance. Much more than the earlier reports, FR V stresses the importance of hermeneutics (§86ff, 265). Hermeneutics is explicitly discussed in §87–89. These paragraphs state that variant readings can simply reflect ‘the diversity of focus and emphasis present within the New Testament itself ’. It is added that both traditions ‘bring different presuppositions to [their] interpretation of individual passages’ and examples are afforded (§90, cf. §265, 283). The fact that Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture is guided by a ‘framework outlined by Vatican II’s Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum’ and a magisterium was already noted in earlier Final Reports. FR V adds that also in the Pentecostal movement ‘there exists both a kind of Pentecostal “tradition” as well as an authority of discernment exercised by competent ministers and decision-making bodies’ (§90, cf. §265). Finally, hermeneutics is earmarked ‘as a topic for serious consideration in a future phase of Pentecostal-Catholic conversations’ (§90, cf. §282).117 The foundational value of Tradition (with capital T) in itself is not discussed in the report. It is only mentioned that Catholics interpret Scripture from within the framework of ‘the Christian Tradition throughout the ages’ (§90) and that for them, ‘[t]he church Fathers occupy a privileged place within Tradition’ (§185). Jointly, it is said that both dialogue partners ‘look for ways in which Tradition carries biblical truth’ (§265). A variety of elements that can be subsumed under Tradition as a general denominator do, however, occur frequently. The strong voice given to patristic sources in Final Report V is unique in the history of the IRCCPD. Because the early Christian tradition is not commonly taken as an important source in Pentecostal theologizing, its use is argued for in §913. On the one hand, ‘the Catholic team wanted to share with its Pentecostal partners some of the richness of [the] patristic tradition’ (§9). On the other hand, in line with their restorationist perspective the Pentecostals ‘believed that the proximity of these Christian leaders to the time in which Jesus and his disciples lived might prove to be instructive’ (§10, cf. §185). While it is realized that ‘the value [they] ascribe to the authority of the patristic writings may differ, Pentecostals and Catholics together acknowledge the importance of these authors’ (§11) for at least five stated reasons. First, many of them were important leaders and even became martyrs (§11). Second, they ‘contributed to the process of discernment that ultimately gave us 117

In §265 it is added that such future discussion ‘should focus not only on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, but also on our respective understandings of both Scripture and Tradition to the Word of God’.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

243

the canon of Scripture’ (§11). Third, the early Christian writings provide insights into how biblical teaching was interpreted and applied by the early church (§11), which has been appropriated in later expressions of Christian doctrine (§12, cf. §264, 266, 276). Fourth, the way they translated the biblical faith into conceptual frameworks of their cultures is deemed instructive for the missionary church today (§12, cf. 268f.). And finally, the ‘close association between theology and pastoral concerns’ conveyed in these writings has proved valuable for the church throughout its history (§13, cf. §185). In Ralph Del Colle’s words, ‘the dialogue did not so much formally address the issue of the authoritative status of tradition relative to scripture [ … but] it paved the way for actual engagement with the patristic writings and their legacy for the life of the Church’.118 Therefore, it is jointly concluded that ‘the patristic writings may be seen as having a privileged place in the post-biblical church’ (§13, italics in the text).119 Both teams explicitly subordinate the early Christian writings to the authority of the Bible (§13). Notwithstanding the different appreciations, the dialogue teams have delved deeply into the patristic period. In total 30 early Christian writers and many more distinct works are mentioned in FR V, ranging largely from the second to the fifth century AD. Attention is given to both the Eastern and the Western tradition.120 Almost half of the 182 patristic references are related to five key figures, Tertullian (23), Augustine (18), Hippolytus (15), Origen (13) and Cyril of Jerusalem (13). The references are regularly introduced or interspersed with historical background information to put them in context. Many passages from the Fathers are quoted at length.121 The diversity in habits and teachings of the Fathers is regularly mentioned. Sometimes development in the patristic teachings is demonstrated, e.g. regarding Christian initiation (§79–82), baptism (§82f., 91ff.) and Christian formation (§121ff.). The question of the authority of the church fathers for the church today is posed, but no answer is provided (§208). In conclusion, Catholics and Pentecostals jointly state that ‘[t]heir words are vibrant witnesses to Christians of today, and of every time’ (§269). It is suggested that this study ‘can be an initial

118

Del Colle, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 101. Roman Catholic participant, Ralph Del Colle, concludes that ‘[t]he Pentecostal team in this effort to engage the ancient Christian tradition chose not to identify with the strict biblicism that characterizes some sectors of the movement’. Del Colle, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 100. 120 Eastern writings in Greek (or Syriac) cited are from the Apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Cappadocian Fathers, Egeria, John Chrysostom and Philoxenus. Early Latin Christian literature used is from Hippolytus of Rome, Novatian, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Augustine, Paulinus of Nola, Rufinus and Benedict of Nursia. 121 Footnote 5 explains that the report mostly makes use of English translations of patristic texts found in three classical collections: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977); Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 14 vols., First Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 14 vols., Second Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975). 119

244

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

step in dialogue between us on historical questions which are at the root of the Pentecostal views of Restorationism’ (§270).122

Analysis of other theological sources in FR V Much space in the report is allotted to church history. In a number of instances, current teachings and usages receive added value by documenting their historical origins and/or historical continuity. For example, Pentecostals do not just point out that they read the Bible, but state that they ‘have a long standing tradition of group Bible Study and personal devotions utilizing the Scripture’ (§134). It is emphasized that they have been socially active throughout the world ‘since the initiation of the movement a century ago’ (§164). Catholics explain how ‘religious experience has been cherished in the church throughout her history’ (§175–177) and afford examples of spiritual traditions and religious orders. Most often, however, the remarkable space given in Final Report V to historical developments has limited value in theological argumentation. The excursuses serve to give insight in the developments in se and to explain the context and origins of specific positions, as was also done in FR IV. In line with earlier Final Reports, the Catholics speak in FR V clearly from a post–Vatican II perspective, referring about 50 times to authoritative Roman Catholic teaching published since the Second Vatican council. While earlier reports almost exclusively refer to conciliar documents, only four such references occur in FR V, while the importance of Vatican II for Catholic faith and life is mentioned eight times.123 The total corpus of authoritative Catholic texts in FR V is much broader than before and includes theological and pastoral texts from both the global and the local levels.124 The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which ‘officially describes the understanding of the faith as implemented in pastoral practices all around the world’ (§159), is remarkably present with 28 references in FR V.125 The change of focus from conciliar to catechetical texts resonates well with the issues under discussion. A new development in comparison with earlier FRs is the integration of appeals to acts of pontiffs and bishops. The value of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is underlined with the statement that ‘Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II along with many individual bishops and Episcopal conferences acknowledged the signs of grace

122

This future need to discuss authority in the dialogue is underlined by Robeck in an overview article on FR V: Robeck Jr, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: An Important Theme’, 8. 123 The report points to Lumen Gentium (§183, 233), Unitatis Redintegratio (§273), and Dei Verbum (§90). The importance of the Second Vatican Council is noted in §48, 90, 134, 176, 236, 265, 272, 273. 124 E.g. Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolic Exhortation (1895) and encyclical letter (1897) (§223), The Spirit Gives Life (‘A paper approved by the German Bishops’ Conference in 1987’) (§232), John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation On the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful (1988) (§181f.) and his encyclical Dominum et vivificantem (1989) (§272), the decree by the Pontifical Council for Laity regarding the recognition of the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services (1993) (footnote 24) and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004) (§134). 125 §26, 134, 137, 159, 160 (2x), 162 (4x), 163, 177, 178, 181, 183 (3x), 185, 218, 220 (3x), 221 (3x), 222, 234 (implicit), 235.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

245

present in the Renewal’ (§226). A prayer of Pope Leo XIII to entrust the twentieth century to the Holy Spirit, a prayer of Pope John XXIII at the beginning of the Vatican Council and a quote from Pope John Paul II at a 1998 meeting are taken up in a historical discourse arguing for the particular way in which the Catholic Church has ‘experienced the Holy Spirit in the twentieth century’ (§271–272). A new element in FR V is the fact that the Pentecostals regularly acknowledge and refer to official denominational teaching within the Classical Pentecostal movement. They do not always simply point to what they consider the beliefs of ‘the majority’ of Pentecostals worldwide, as §16 indicates. Paragraphs (§170, 257) indicate teachings or positions of ‘most Pentecostal denominations’, and §174 points to what is a practice ‘in some denominations’. §185 acknowledges that ‘doctrinal standards are maintained’ as ‘[d]ifferent Pentecostal denominations have developed various procedures to adjudicate doctrinal disputes’, even if ‘Pentecostals do not hold to this same view of Tradition nor do they possess a teaching office’ (cf. §90). A few times, the dialogue’s ecumenical context is considered in view of substantiating a claim. The authority of the Bible is acknowledged by the dialogue partners ‘along with other Christians’ (§8), the Fathers are appreciated as they ‘are […] part of the larger Christian community that spans the centuries’, and ‘all Christians’ are said to consider the sending of the Spirit essential to God’s plan of salvation (§201, cf. §203). Pentecostals believe ‘like other Christians’ that baptism carries a communal dimension (§76). The dialogue itself is placed in a broader ecumenical context in §19–21, but it is also acknowledged that ‘Pentecostals are cautious in regards to ecumenism’ (§171). Though references to the earlier Final Reports of the IRCCPD occur in FR V, their absence in some instances is more remarkable. The chapter on baptism in the Holy Spirit has a subchapter entitled ‘Earlier Catholic–Pentecostal Dialogue on Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, in which four long quotations from FR I are reviewed (§197–200). FR II is quoted in §140 as an introduction to the chapter on experience. FR III is referred to in footnote 9 and together with FR IV pointed to in §96 to underline the statement that ‘[o]ur dialogue about the relation of faith to becoming a Christian has allowed us to see in new ways the essential nature of the church as communion […] and mission’. References to FR IV are notably absent, e.g. in §164, 168 and 171, where Pentecostal perspectives on social justice and mission are discussed, and in §284, where examples of stereotypical mutual condemnations are given. A reference to FR III:13–28 would have been in place in §265, which speaks of ‘the relationship of both Scripture and Tradition to the Word of God’. This underlines the earlier impression that the dialogue teams do not seek to consciously build on their earlier reports. In contrast to all earlier Final Reports, FR V contains multiple references to books, articles, and scholarly discussions to substantiate historical claims or theological positions. The dependency of the Final Report on the publications of Kilian McDonnell is acknowledged from the beginning and remains obvious throughout (§6, 7, 141, footnotes 3, 15, 18, 19, 25).126 Also, a study conducted by the Pew 126

This is confirmed by Ralph Del Colle: ‘The patristics section [on Spirit baptism] is […] largely dependent on the work of Kilian McDonnell.’ Del Colle, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 116.

246

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Forum (§168),127 publications and studies on global Pentecostalism,128 and even early Pentecostal publications129 are signalled to substantiate statements or to put them in perspective. Theological discussions within the Catholic church on the interpretation of (the patristic sources on) baptism in the Holy Spirit are acknowledged and the sources are provided.130 This adds to the earlier statement that the dialogue partners have sought to afford their readers with a jointly written overview of the status quaestionis in their traditions on the subjects under consideration. Further, the sections in FR V offering contemporary reflections contain numerous references to ecclesial practices in both traditions to demonstrate theological positions and developments. The Roman Catholic Initiation of Adults (RCIA) can serve as a prime example. The rite is discussed extensively in §48–58 and reoccurs in §133 and §162. As in the RCIA ‘the various elements of Christian conversion on which Pentecostals and Catholic are agreed can be readily discerned’ (§49), its usage in the Catholic Church is strongly encouraged by the Pentecostals (§52).131 The Pentecostals also refer to ecclesial practices to underline their theological positions (e.g. §155f.). In some instances, the dialogue partners describe or list together ecclesial practices that are present in both traditions to underline what they consider theologically valuable, e.g. ‘life long spiritual formation and ongoing catechesis’ (§133; cf., e.g. §188f., 261). Both dialogue partners thus subscribe to the classical adage lex orandi, lex credendi.132

127

Footnote 17: ‘The recent study, “Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals”, conducted by the Pew Forum, may be accessed online at http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/ pentecostals-06.pdf ’ 128 Footnote 17 refers the reader to Donald E. Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (Berkeley : University of California Press, 2007). Footnote 26 refers to David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson and Peter F. Crossing, ‘Global Table A. 50 Shared Goals: Status of the Mission, AD 1900 to AD 2025’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 30, no. 1 (2006): 28; and to Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism, 10–14. Footnote 28 refers to and quotes from C. Álvarez et al., Historia de la Iglesia Pentecostal de Chile (Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Rehue Ltda, s.d.), 54. 129 Footnote 27 has references to ‘[t]he official organ of the Assemblies of God, The Weekly Evangel, which later became The Pentecostal Evangel’, and to a publication by A. J. Tomlinson, ‘The Faithful Standard’. See also §245 and §247, which refer to ‘the earliest history published by Pentecostals […]: The Apostolic Faith Restored’ and to ‘The Doctrines and Discipline of the Azusa Street Apostolic Faith Mission’, respectively. 130 Clear reference is made to this debate in §208, and the main text points to both the 1974 Malines document on the Charismatic Movement (§228) and to Charismatic Community Renewal in the Catholic Church in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Spirit Gives Life, A Theological Guide, said to be ‘a paper approved by the German Bishops’ Conference in 1987’ (§224, 232). Other scholarly debates are referred to as well in FR V, e.g. §139, 145, 208, 265. 131

The Pentecostal team resonates better with the RCIA than with infant baptism. Yet, as for Catholics sacraments, including baptism, ‘are not only subjective professions of faith but also objective realities [ … , they] would find it inconceivable to deny this grace to an infant […]’ (§53). 132 This is particularly evident in references to hymns and liturgies. The Pentecostals refer to the Gospel hymn ‘Just as I am, without One Plea’ (§165). The Catholics refer to the prayer ‘Veni Sancte Spiritus’ (§236) and the Litany of the Holy Spirit (§236), and quote from the Liturgy of the Hours (§237). According to Teresa Francesca Rossi, ‘[t]he old motto about the peculiarity of the lex orandi, lex credenda and lex agenda sounds an invitation to RC/P dialogue to articulate in a more interactive way the different streams of their common reflection […]’. Rossi, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 4.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

247

Experience is treated in phase V extensively in relation to Christian life (§138–191). During the dialogue sessions, this theme has caused considerable tension, as the participants approached these sensitive topics from varying theological paradigms.133 Notwithstanding this, the dialogue teams could define experience in Christian life together in line with FR II as ‘a process or event by which one comes to a personal awareness of God’ (§140). The value of experience in Christian theologizing is not discussed, but shared viewpoints can be retrieved. First, the dialogue partners ‘recognize in each other a deep commitment to Christ’ (§284). They agree that there is ‘a common depth to the contemporary faith experience of Catholics and Pentecostals […] even if the shape and manner of [religious] affectivity may differ […]’ (§186, cf. §190). Examples of experiences in diversity are stipulated. ‘[m]any Pentecostal believers can pinpoint the moment when and where they were converted and typically have a vivid recollection of their baptism in water’ (§154).134 ‘[m]any Catholics will testify that their first holy communion during childhood was a very important and moving event as well as a personal religious experience’ (§160). The pivotal importance of religious experience for growth in Pentecostal spiritual life is indicated in particular (§166f.). Multiple examples of religious experiences and practices ‘which nurture the faith of both the individual and the believing community’ (§173) are offered in §164–174 to argue for ‘the interpersonal and communal dimension of the Pentecostal faith’ (§174). The Catholics, likewise, argue for the importance of religious experience in their tradition.135 Rather than listing contemporary examples, they argue primarily from history and systematic theology, as ‘[a] Catholic understanding of experience will be informed by this long history as well as by the distinctive Catholic theology of grace’ (§176). Both traditions acknowledge that ‘the shape and texture’ of their religious experiences differ as they are defined by their respective ecclesial contexts, including praxis and theology (§188). Hence, Catholic experiences of baptism are defined by the fact that they ‘experience sacraments as mediating the presence and power of God’ (§161). The importance of charismatic experiences in Classical Pentecostalism, including tongues speech, is related to ‘their Restorationist view of history’ (§169f.). Mutual recognition of experience is said to inform the attentive witness and to serve Christian unity and the church’s mission. 133

In contrast with Chapters I–III, the contemporary reflections of Chapter IV have been written separately by both traditions. The pain and difficulty in mutual understanding was witnessed to by both Cecil Robeck and Huib Zegwaart during a study day on FR V in Amsterdam. Robeck Jr, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: Some Thoughts’, 19; Zegwaart, ‘Reactie op “On Becoming a Christian” ’, 5. A very informative account of the development of Catholic views on religious experience and the consequences for this dialogue has been written by Del Colle, ‘The Implications of “Religious Experience” for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’. 134 Balancing FR III (§50, 96), it is explicitly added by the Pentecostals that ‘[s]alvation is not dependent upon what the convert experiences at the moment of conversion [as it] is rooted in the will of God […]’, even if ‘for Pentecostals the experiential dimension of conversion is very important’ (§155). 135 ‘Since Catholics do not usually begin with experience – evidence other bilateral ecumenical dialogues – it is significant that in this section Catholics are able to adopt an experiential register. But as the introduction makes clear Pentecostals are able to nuance this category as well.’ Del Colle, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 110.

248

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

(§191) Charismatic manifestations like glossolalia and sacramentally-oriented devotions such as the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament may seem worlds apart to some. […] Yet, we have discovered that in hearing each other, and in witnessing each other’s faith, hope, and love we are drawn more deeply to Christ. We hope through the power of the Spirit that our mutual recognitions will enhance our communion with each other and strengthen our common witness to the world.

Discernment of experiences is obviously needed (cf. §171f., 175, 187) but the consequential spiritual gain is jointly stressed: ‘Certain experiences are meaningful for faith because they stir holy desires and passions and through the grace of God present in and through them we grow in Christian life’ (§187, cf. §173, 177–179, 282). Even if experiences are by definition personal and in principle cannot be compared, the dialogue partners consider mutual recognizability of religious experiences as a basis for a shared Christian identity.136 Finally, in FR V, statements and positions are argued for on the basis of systematic (theological) coherence. A recurring Pentecostal example starts from the movement’s restorationist view on history and consequently argues for the importance of eschatology, mission and evangelism in Pentecostal thinking (§169, cf. 243ff ). A recurring Catholic example starts from sacramentology and explains consequent views on Christian formation, community life, etc. (§177ff): ‘The sacraments are the foundation of communal life and experiences within Catholicism’ (§180). Overall, the report does not have a primarily systematic theological orientation.137 Still, an appreciation of such coherence implicitly underlies large sections of the report. This is particularly clear in the sections where disagreements are described, e.g. on the meaning and role of spiritual experience (§164–183) and of the baptism in the Spirit (§260–262).

Conclusions FR V is unique in the IRCCPD for giving primary and separate attention in its argumentation to two important sources, Scripture and the early church. The dialogue partners agree that Scripture is foundational to all Christian theologising, and they also give credit to early Christian writings as a source for theological reflection. The authority attributed to the church fathers in the traditions differs considerably between the partners, but the patristic sections are written in accord and both traditions argue in a similarly limited way from these sources in the contemporary reflections. The dialogue partners thus largely agree on the teaching of the fathers, but disagree on their implications for the church today. 136

For a theological treatment of experience in Christian life in both traditions, reference can be made to the work of Karen Murphy. She concludes that ‘in their validation of the key role of the Holy Spirit in the process of initiation, Catholics and Pentecostals balance out the Enlightenment overemphasis on the rational. […] Transformation of an individual is not precipitated merely by intellectual and rational cognition, but is dependent upon an experiential and personal encounter with the risen Christ through the power of the Spirit and an orthopathic faith response.’ Murphy, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian” ’, 405. 137 Cf. Del Colle, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 108.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

249

Second, the wide variety of other sources that occur in the Final Report is remarkable. In total, no less than thirteen different (categories of) sources were discussed, which demonstrates the growing diversification in theological argumentation. Not only has the Catholic team incorporated familiar and new Catholic authoritative voices, such as ecclesial documents, of which the Catechism stands out, along with acts of pontiffs and bishops. The Pentecostals also acknowledge official denominational teaching. In an unprecedented way they jointly refer to books, articles and scholarly discussions. Third, the importance of hermeneutics is signalled several times in FR V, particularly in relation to Scripture reading. In references to other theological sources, there is also frequent attention to their particular contexts. Consequently, diversity is often acknowledged and appreciated. This is discussed in more detail below. Fourth, the limited way in which both traditions seek to draw from ecumenical sources, including the earlier reports of their own dialogue, is again significant. The number of different ecumenical sources is expanded, but little effort is invested in connecting this report into a broader ecumenical context. Finally, the dialogue partners’ struggle to deal with the issue of religious experience is clearly depicted. The joint attestation that mutual recognition of religious experiences has an essential value in ecumenical relations is remarkable as this was only acknowledged by Pentecostals in FR III (§55). While both traditions argue extensively and in different ways for the value they attach to religious experience in ecclesial life, very little attention is given to its potential value in theological argumentation.

Theological approach of FR V Final Report V retains the friendly tone of FR IV and is mainly written in concord. Differences are easily admitted and mutual criticism is virtually absent. Still, in comparison to the earlier reports of the IRCCPD, Final Report V is again written in a different style and witnesses to an unprecedented theological approach. Focus in this subchapter first goes to elements discussed earlier, such as attention given to defining terminology and to contextualization. Thereafter, three typical elements of FR V are highlighted. First, attention returns to the clear structure of the report and its consequences. Second, the report’s emphasis on diversity is scrutinized. Finally, the frequent appeal by both traditions to a typical Pentecostal tool in Biblical hermeneutics, ‘this is that’, is demonstrated and discussed.

Definitions of terms and contextualization As in FR IV, terms that are central to the theme of the Final Report are extensively discussed, but other terms are barely defined. The introduction explains ‘Christian initiation’ elaborately as a common term in the Catholic tradition but a foreign concept to the Pentecostals, and vice versa for ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’. It is stated in agreement that this dialogue phase has made it possible ‘to achieve a better understanding of the way we use such terms’ (§15). Ralph Del Colle considers the investigation in both Scripture and the patristic texts of these terms as ‘a gesture

250

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

in the reciprocity of gift-giving’ and ‘a unique form of ecumenical study [as] each communion explores new territory’.138 The other key terms that are central to FR V are ‘faith’, ‘Christian formation’, ‘discipleship’ and ‘experience’. The Final Report largely consists of a careful account of the semantic fields of these terms in Scripture, patristic sources and contemporary usage in both traditions. Other important terms are given limited attention, as is acknowledged for the expression ‘Word of God’ (§265). The same goes for, e.g. ‘sacraments’ and ‘charisms’. Also in line with Final Report IV, this report on the fifth phase gives ample attention to the contextualization of statements and perspectives. The extensive attention to careful hermeneutics has been discussed earlier. It is in line with this approach that the New Testament texts are interpreted against the background of first century Judaism (e.g. §62, 100), that patristic texts are placed in their historical context, and that the contemporary reflections are full of historical digressions. The traditions seek together to understand Christian teachings and usages in developing historical and theological contexts.

The structure of FR V The fourfold division of each of the main chapters into an introduction, biblical perspectives, patristic perspectives, and contemporary reflections makes the long report easy to manage and to read. It seems, however, that the different sections are only poorly integrated. The jointly written biblical and patristic sections give ample early Christian basis for understanding both shared and divergent positions on ‘how an individual moves from his or her initial entry into the Christian life into being a fully active member of the church’ (§5). Yet, while the contemporary reflections regularly point back to the foregoing biblical and patristic sections, they do not systematically build on them. Each section rather has informative value in itself. The structure also demonstrates where the teams could not come to terms with each other. While the first three sections with contemporary reflections have been written jointly, in the chapters on experience and on baptism in the Holy Spirit the Catholics and the Pentecostals offer separate reflections. These are the only sections in the long report in which they truly speak apart. Cecil Robeck considers the dialogue teams’ ‘inability to come to terms with one another at [these] points […] a failure in this round of discussions’. He continues: ‘The hard work of speaking with one voice instead of two was simply not done, in part, because of the pain that was experienced by members of both teams in the original discussion of “experience” .’139 The dialogue partners stress however that ‘there is much that we can say together’ (§184) and that ‘we share much more in common than we originally imagined’ (§152). The discussions on experience and baptism in the Spirit were difficult and the dialogue teams apparently could not spend more time on finalizing the report than they already had.140 138

Ibid., 119. This is endorsed by Catholic participant, Teresa Francesca Rossi in her reflections on FR V: Rossi, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 2. 139 Robeck Jr, ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: Some Thoughts’, 19. 140 Cf. Ibid., 18–19.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

251

Attention for theological diversity Even as not all sections have been written jointly, the concluding ‘contemporary perspectives’ clearly aim to promote mutual understanding. They demonstrate considerable awareness of the dialogue partners’ different historical and theological contexts and ecclesial practices. Consequently, the attention for theological diversity and development is notable. The dialogue partners found in Scripture different perspectives on faith and Christian initiation (§89), ‘various perspectives on conversion, and not just one definition’ (§40, cf. §32), many accounts of baptism allowing for different interpretations regarding the timing (§77f.), and a wide variety of examples of religious experience (§143–146). In similar ways, the diversity in the Patristic witness is explained. The ‘diverse ways in which early writers attempted to describe what is essential to [conversion]’ (§47) is noted, the historical development of the rites of Christian initiation and their relation to faith are described (§79–85), and developments in catechumenate are discussed (§121, cf. §112, 117), explaining it was ‘performed in various manners and adapted to the historical, cultural and pastoral context’ (§132). FR V repeatedly indicates that the theological and experiential diversity within the NT and the patristic texts can be used by both traditions to argue for their differing and varying positions and practices (§87, 95, 133, 151f.). The conclusion explicitly acknowledges this: ‘Together we have learned that in our reading of the Holy Scripture we both interpret the Bible within the horizon of our respective traditions’ (§264). The investigation of the different early Christian witnesses helped the dialogue partners to acknowledge also the variety of contemporary viewpoints. As paragraph 261 states: ‘One striking conclusion to emerge from our common consideration of biblical and patristic material […] is the uncovering of substantial diversity, not simply between our two communities but within each community.’ Therefore, contemporary differences between the traditions and within each tradition, both in teachings and in practices, are time and again considered (e.g. §25, 56ff., 133, 136, 153, 156, 158f., 170f., 172, 174, 239, 255, 257). A pair of clear examples can be found in Chapter V, where ‘two major schools of theological interpretation […] among Catholic charismatics concerning Baptism in the Holy Spirit’ (§227ff.), are given much attention. This is balanced with an explanation of Classical Pentecostal inner diversity on the relationship of baptism in the Holy Spirit to sanctification (251ff.). In comparison with earlier Final Reports, such admission of internal diversity is particularly striking in the Catholic discourse. While openly acknowledging diversity, the dialogue teams point at the same time to commonalities that underlie the differences. This is exemplified with a citation on the reception of the Spirit: ‘Both of our traditions identify two principal moments for the reception of the Spirit. For Pentecostals these moments come in conversion and baptism in the Holy Spirit. For Catholics they come in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation’ (§194). Similar and worth quoting is the final paragraph on ‘convergences and challenges regarding experience in the Christian life’ (§191), a section that follows upon the separately written contemporary reflections. The different spiritualities are

252

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

first acknowledged and then put into perspective as, in hearing the other, the dialogue partners recognize the underlying Christian virtues of faith, hope and love. Differences are no longer simply juxtaposed in FR V but consciously scaled down by drawing a larger picture in which commonalities are stressed.141

‘This Is that’ hermeneutics In a report that emphasizes spiritual experience and signals the need for further discussion on hermeneutics, a typical Pentecostal hermeneutical tool directly connected to Pentecostal restorationism, is used in the theological argumentation of both traditions. As was described earlier, Classical Pentecostal hermeneutics tends to read Scripture from a transhistorical and transcultural perspective.142 This translates into a ‘this is that’ hermeneutic, in which biblical narrative is directly linked to contemporary experience. The past is recognized in the present when, e.g. it is said that ‘contemporary experiences of conversion often follow the New Testament emphas[es]’ (§56) or that the RCIA is ‘reflecting the pattern of Acts 2:37–39’ (§58). Alternatively, the present is recognized in the past when, e.g. ‘Paul presents what we have called Christian discipleship and formation in a dynamic sense’ (§108). ‘This is that’ hermeneutics is explicitly used when Pentecostals state that ‘the example of the conversion of the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 is part of the Pentecostal global experience’ (§157, cf. §249) and when the early Pentecostal expectation is indicated that ‘the recipients [of tongues] would be empowered to engage in missionary evangelism, just as the 120 on the Day of Pentecost’ (§256). The best example comes, however, not from the Pentecostals, but from a quotation of John Paul II, who is reported to have declared in a meeting with 400,000 members of the Catholic spiritual movements in 1998: ‘We could say, what happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is renewed in this square tonight. As the apostles then, so we find ourselves together in this Upper Room, full of longing and praying for the outpouring of the Spirit’ (§272, cf. §109). Clearly, the ecumenical value of this powerful hermeneutical tool in dealing with religious experience is appreciated by both traditions by the end of phase V. At the same time, both traditions are well aware that the method lacks critical distance and that the complex exercise of theological interpretation demands other approaches of Scripture as well – for which reason hermeneutics is earmarked as ‘a topic for serious consideration in a future phase of PentecostalCatholic conversations’ (§90, cf. §265).

Theological method in the IRCCPD Final Reports: conclusions Scrutiny of the five Final Reports of the IRCCPD to date demonstrates that theological method has not been systematically developed in the course of the dialogue. The reports differ substantially in theological method, attesting to 141

The importance of the interpersonal relations and the experience of spiritual unity in this regard is discussed in more detail in pp. 266–268. 142 See pp. 25–26.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

253

a variety of ways in which the dialogue teams have sought ‘to promote mutual understanding’. Notwithstanding, certain developments can be argued. In this concluding subchapter, each of the three elements of theological method, which have been discussed for each of the Final Reports, are brought together diachronically. In the next chapter, they are coupled to the conclusions of the previous chapter on dialogue method to identify key elements of ecumenical method that have developed in the course of the IRCCPD.

Theological aims of the IRCCPD Final Reports From before the start of the IRCCPD, the projected aim of the dialogue was markedly modest. The dialogue would not aim to ‘concern itself with the problems of imminent structural union’ but rather pursue ‘the mutual exchange of information’ in order to expose areas of real disagreement and to eliminate imagined difficulties. In short, the immediate concern was said to be ‘mutual information rather than action’. This basic aim is repeated in every Final Report’s introduction and ‘has not changed from the beginning’, in the words of Cecil Robeck.143 While the IRCCPD’s overall purpose has remained the same over the decades, a changing focus from communicating differences to indicating elements of shared identity can be noted. In the first two phases the dialogue partners primarily sought to bring to the surface theological divergences and the Final Reports were largely confrontational. In the later reports the tone was friendlier and the dialogue partners sought to speak with one voice as much as possible, while not refraining from indicating conflicting perspectives. This can be demonstrated by a comparison of the opening paragraphs of the Final Reports, which introduce the dialogue and its aims, as well as by a scrutiny of their theological contents. In the explanation of the dialogue’s aims, emphasis in the opening paragraphs gradually moved from ‘eliminating mutual misunderstandings’ and indicating ‘points of real divergence’ (FR I:6) to ‘find[ing] points of genuine agreement, and to indicate areas in which we believe further dialogue is required’ (FR V:2). In the theological content of the consecutive reports, the simple juxtaposition of contrasting views slowly but surely made room for refined attempts to jointly indicate not only divergences and convergences but also underlying parallels. The growing focus on commonalities culminated in the fifth phase in a Final Report that was largely written in concord. While ‘action’ was explicitly said not to be the immediate concern of the IRCCPD, the desire to promote joint action was scarcely a hidden agenda in phase IV. The Final Report moved towards the probing question: ‘Why do we do apart what we can do together?’ (§129). The other negative aims that were posited beforehand, i.e. not to 143

Robeck continues as follows: ‘It is an attempt to open and maintain an ongoing discussion with the Roman Catholic Church. It is an attempt to inform them about who we are and what we believe, and it is an opportunity for them to tell us who they are and what they believe.’ Cecil Robeck to Clayton Endecott, email, 8 January 2005, RobArch. Jerry Sandidge had a similar opinion in 1992: ‘The goals are mutual understanding, the goals are breaking down the mythologies, coming to deeper appreciation of each other’s history and spirituality, seeking to understand where each is coming from.’ Interview by David Cole with Jerry Sandidge, 6 February 1992, CrArch.

254

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

concern itself with the problems of imminent structural unity nor to interfere in the domestic Roman Catholic discussion on the role and place of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, were kept. In view of the growing focus on convergences and the attention given to bring changes in attitudes and action (FR IV), it is remarkable that the collected archives do not contain a single trace of a conscious change of policy. This development has simply been concomitant to the maturation of the IRCCPD in the course of five phases.

Theological sources in the IRCCPD Final Reports Both dialogue partners offer in the Final Reports a variety of rationales for their dogmatic positions and ecclesial practices. Still, by and large, theological viewpoints of the different traditions are presented and explained rather than carefully constructed. Most reports are not systematically coherent or an integrated theological whole. The ultimate aim is not to build consensus by constructive theology, but to report on convergences and disagreements that were met along the way, in a more or less ‘systematic order’ (FR III:6, cf. FR V). Frequently, positions are simply stated without any argumentative support, particularly so if they are shared by both traditions (esp. FR I, IV). Still, theological sources are referred to frequently and all throughout phases I–V of the IRCCPD, it was acknowledged that Catholics and Pentecostals appreciate them differently. Theologically, it is emphasized that both traditions ultimately trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit (e.g. FR II:26f., 52–54). This has, however, different ramifications. For example, the Catholics see the interpretative authority of Scripture through the teaching office as ‘an expression of the activity of the Spirit in the Church’ (§52), while the Pentecostals emphasize their ‘experience of direct dependence upon the Spirit’ (§54). The diversity of bases for reasoning grows in the consecutive Final Reports. There is, however, limited discussion on their relation vis à vis one another, and there is certainly no attempt at joint pronouncements in this regard. The discussion of the interrelations and authorities of sources, in particular Scripture and Tradition, and, consequently, a serious dialogue on hermeneutics are only put on the agenda after thirty-five years of dialogue.144 Still, the Final Reports display remarkable developments in their references to theological sources. Many different but often related (theological) sources have been used. In the concluding synthesis, they are grouped for convenience sake in the four categories of Scripture, Tradition, reason and experience, in line with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.145

144

Whether and, if so, how, a specific theological hermeneutic compatible with Pentecostal spirituality should be developed, is a topic under much consideration today. For an overview and valuation of historical suggestions, see L. William Oliverio, Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 145 It is realized that this generalization stretches to some extent the semantic field of these terms.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

255

Scripture Scripture is, without doubt, the most important source for theological positioning in the IRCCPD. In the early reports, the Pentecostals contra-posited ‘Scripture’ as the norm for Classical Pentecostals with ‘Scripture plus church tradition’ as a dual source for Roman Catholics (FR II:20). The Roman Catholics, on the other hand, made clear from the beginning that this involved a rather complex relation as ‘Scripture and Tradition cohere in each other’ (FR II:26). They stressed, however, that Scripture likewise is fundamental to their theological argumentation. In the later reports, both the fundamental unity regarding the authority of Scripture and the different perspectives on tradition are repeated time and again. The importance of Scripture in theological argumentation in both traditions is evidenced by the frequent appeals to Scripture in all the Final Reports. While it is recognized that the Catholic and the Pentecostal canons of Scripture differ, the complete absence of references to deuterocanonical/apocryphal books demonstrates that both teams desire to use Scripture as a common authoritative source. Scripture references are inserted in order to underline joint perspectives as well as to argue for emphases or positions particular to one tradition. In view of the common appreciation of Scripture, the latter necessarily implies that a Scripture passage is, in those cases, being understood or appreciated in a distinctive way. The Final Reports, however, only seldom go to the exegetical level to explain or defend particular interpretative choices. In the subsequent reports, there is a growing joint recognition of the importance of hermeneutics in Scripture interpretation and of the role of tradition and church authorities in this exercise. It comes across as a developing insight for the Pentecostals. At the conclusion of phase V, the Final Report emphasizes that the question of hermeneutics requires special attention in the future.146

Tradition In the course of the dialogue, more and more room is afforded to tradition as a source of Christian theology. This parallels the increasing Pentecostal acknowledgment that theological traditions also determine their hermeneutical choices. In contrast to the Roman Catholic position, however, Classical Pentecostals continue to insist that tradition (just as experience and ecclesial authority) can be proven wrong by Scripture. ‘Tradition’ is seldom referred to in an abstract way, but is increasingly being differentiated. A plurality of sources, which can be subsumed under the denominator of tradition, are gradually referred to in the argumentations.147 They mostly occur in sections pointing to the Catholic theological perspectives, but reference to sources from (Catholic) tradition are also used in jointly written paragraphs or statements.

146

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen wrote an insightful analysis of the hermeneutical questions in the IRCCPD (phases I–V) in the broader context of contemporary Catholic and Pentecostal theology and praxis: Kärkkäinen, ‘Authority, Revelation, and Interpretation’. 147 In this summary, ‘tradition’ is used as a broad term.

256

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

In the differentiation of tradition, the growing attention for (post-)Vatican II ecclesial documents undergirding Roman Catholic theological discourse is remarkable. This begins in FR II with twelve references to Vatican II documents, and leads in FR V to references being made to a wide variety of teaching documents from the Roman Catholic Church, both local and universal, including particular attention for the then new Catechism of the Catholic Church. This sharply contrasts with the limited references to writings, individuals or movements from the early Middle Ages to late Modernism. The Roman Catholic participants clearly opted for a self-identification in line with Vatican II, and occasionally this is openly appreciated by the Classical Pentecostal dialogue partners. The unease of Pentecostals to use tradition as a source for theological reasoning is regularly related to their restorationist views. Rather than arguing over this Pentecostal perspective on history, in phase V the dialogue partners have chosen to argue from it. They boldly decided to give particular attention to liturgical and theological developments in the early church following upon the apostolic era. A close reading revealed, however, that notwithstanding the extensive expositions of the early church perspectives, these viewpoints were poorly integrated in contemporary reflections on the themes under consideration. The growing tradition of ecumenical reflections has gained value in the IRCCPD slowly but surely. In the later Final Reports, frequently references to other ecumenical dialogues or to other traditions are used to authenticate claims or positions. Notably, however, the IRCCPD Final Reports barely build one upon the other. References to earlier reports are incorporated here and there, but the regular absence of such references is more striking. Finally, a number of other elements that can be included under ‘tradition’ occur, be it in a limited way. They include, but are not restricted to, pronouncements of the early Christian councils, acts of pontiffs and bishops, liturgical and other prayers, and hymns. Not only the growing diversification of such references is remarkable, but also the instances in which the Pentecostals support their argumentative value.

Reason The use of reason can be considered as a third source of authority in theological argumentation. Logical and systematic theological consistency is evidently seen as important in the Final Reports. Strikingly, however, the reports do not contain any lengthy systematic theological considerations. Only in a very limited number of paragraphs, systematic theological argumentations can be found. In line with the limited aim of the dialogue, the documents clearly demonstrate the refusal of the dialogue partners to engage in constructive theology. In the beginning of the dialogue (FR I), the value of science for the acquisition of knowledge is argued for. Its limits with regard to spiritual matters, in particular charismatic phenomena, are also pointed to (§35). In the early reports, the Pentecostals are quite critical towards reliance on scientific investigation of Scripture. They argue against ‘the philosophical and theological principles of form and redaction criticism’ and ‘insist on the necessity of the light given by the Holy Spirit’ (FR II:22–25). This is

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

257

contrasted with Roman Catholic scholarship, for which ‘the historical-critical method is the accepted framework within which exegesis is done’. As has been said, the topic of hermeneutics awaits further discussion. In general, however, the reports demonstrate a growing ease with and appreciation for scholarly research. While being completely absent in the first two reports, by Final Report V both traditions refer to (theological) academic literature to support historical statements and to substantiate claims or positions. In a few instances in the Final Report, consequential reasoning is used. Positive or negative consequences of teachings in church history or in a local community are referenced in view of arguing for or against them (e.g. FR II:84, 90f). The Pentecostals are more inclined to argue pragmatically from consequences than their sacramentally oriented Catholic dialogue partners.

Experience Experience receives much attention in this ecumenical dialogue, but not everything is important from an epistemological perspective. Two related elements that occur frequently are ‘charismatic manifestations’ and ‘personal experiences of the Spirit’. Final Report I speaks of both and particularly of the charism of discerning of spirits as important aids to understanding Scripture. Charisms are explicitly discussed in FR III and FR V and occur a few times in FR IV.148 In view of theological argumentation, however, only the charism of discernment is regularly valued. In contrast to their dialogue partners, the Roman Catholics directly relate this charism to the authority of ecclesiastical officers (FR I:41). Personal experience of the Spirit in Christian life is discussed in all the Final Reports. The experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit receives particular attention. Both partners state that experiencing God is essential to the Christian life and FR V discusses it extensively. The necessity of specific experiences such as tongues is, however, questioned by the Catholics. The dialogue partners repeatedly presuppose the comparability of spiritual experiences and agree that there is ‘a common depth to the contemporary faith experience of Catholics and Pentecostals’ (§186). This mutual recognition is in FR V even seen as fundamental to acknowledging and growing in Christian unity (§191), a position defended earlier only by the Pentecostals (FR III:55). The shared experience of talking together as Christians is also regularly indicated as essential for the dialogue outcomes and thus crucial for ecumenism. FR IV is most outspoken in this regard. While a commonality of experiences is stressed, it is also acknowledged that different ways of experiencing God are present in the traditions. Practical examples from church life can also be taken up under the category of experience. FR IV narrates dozens of examples from the daily reality of both traditions in order to substantiate theological or ethical positions. Real-life experiences are used 148

Note that phase VI, which was started in 2011, deals explicitly with the role of charisms in the Church.

258

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

to demonstrate their underlying values and principles. In a more limited way, ecclesial practices have argumentative value in FR III and FR V as well. Notably, only when dealing with experiences, the need for discernment is always emphasized.149 Experiences need to be discerned and controlled, and the higher authority of the Bible, the church community, and, particularly, ecclesial authorities are deemed essential for this process of discernment (FR I:40–44; FR II:17).

Theological approaches of the IRCCPD Final Reports The styles and set-ups of the dialogue reports witness to a broad variety of theological approaches. It seems that the dialogue teams opted for text types and styles that were most compatible with the themes under consideration. FR I and FR II are simply collected accounts of multifarious discussions, and each paragraph stands largely on itself. In the third report, the dialogue partners sought to look together at an ecumenically pregnant ecclesiological theme. The Final Report is the most systematic theological one, bringing together the results of the discussions in a coherent framework. Final Report IV deals with sensitive issues that in local ecclesial reality put stress on Pentecostal/Catholic relations. It gives a fair assessment of these difficult relations, jointly defines sensitive terms and incorporates many positive examples from ecclesial praxis and joint perspectives on ethical themes in view of a convincing appeal for more common witness. In phase V, the dialogue partners sought to learn together from the early era of the church about the process of becoming a Christian. The Final Report presents itself as a jointly written study document of both Scripture and patristic texts on fundamental and interrelated themes as conversion and Christian initiation. This diversity of textual styles in Final Reports I–V makes it an interesting collection, but it is difficult to indicate commonalities. At the same time, some developments can be clearly pointed to. As growth in mutual understanding is the fundamental aim of the IRCCPD, the development regarding how the reports deal with key theological concepts and terms is notable. The first Final Report aimed to give concise and pragmatic definitions of key terms, jointly if possible but separately if necessary. As the report treated a variety of topics, this was probably considered the best way to promote understanding. The antithetical Final Report II gives only few definitions. Since FR III, rather than providing definitions, the report focuses essentially on a careful selection of key theological terms, which are discussed at length. Their broad semantic fields are explained and attention is increasingly given to historical, social and theological contexts that explain the different usages. This hermeneutical approach allows for carefully nuanced comparisons both between and within the traditions, in which both convergences and differences are fairly indicated in an irenic tone.The growing focus in the Final Reports on convergences rather than differences has already been noted earlier. This is also very obvious in the writing style and tone of the

149

This is underscored again by Ralph Del Colle who states that ‘key to the Pentecostal/Roman Catholic dialogue is the element of discernment. What is the Spirit saying to the churches? The very nature of the Pentecostal movement forces this question.’ Del Colle, ‘Pentecostal/Catholic Dialogue’.

Theological Method in the IRCCPD: Experimenting Together

259

reports. FR I contains many joint statements but clearly indicates disagreements. FR II abounds with statements in opposition and paragraphs explaining separate positions. Thereafter, the tone changes radically. Final Report III attests to genuine theological interaction in which the dialogue partners not only indicate agreements and differences, but also admit weaknesses and seek to learn from one another. The former leads in Final Report IV to an honest acknowledgment of mistakes from the past and an appeal to do it differently in the future. The latter leads in Final Report V to a joint investigation of Scripture and the Patristic texts. The dialogue partners have learned in the consecutive reports to speak together rather than apart. A concomitant development can be noted from discussions limited to theological perspectives on aspects of spirituality to an open dialogue on the breadth of the reality of Christian (ecclesial) life. This development parallels the broadening of sources and the growing focus on ecclesial praxis discussed earlier. By this more ‘holistic’ approach, the dialogue teams better acknowledge and do more justice to the complex realities of ecclesial life and ‘ivory tower’ theologizing is naturally avoided. Finally, it can be noted that the Final Reports are more and more theologically integrated. Two main reasons can be indicated from the dialogue method described in Chapter 4. First, a growing focus on a single theme or a cluster of related themes is demonstrated. Second, the slower and more careful process of the writing of the Final Reports helped. This generally implied a higher readability, theological quality and persuasiveness of the consecutive end products. The growing quality of the Final Reports can thus be directly linked to the maturation of an ecumenical method, which, notably, simply evolved rather than being created.

Part Three

Reconsidering Ecumenical Dialogue: Conclusions

6

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities

Introduction In a review essay on the two volumes of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen on the theology implicit in the IRCCPD (phases I–IV), United Methodist theologian and Marquette University pneumatologist, D. Lyle Dabney compliments Kärkkäinen for the enormous work he achieved.1 He cannot understand, however, how ‘a scholar of Kärkkäinen’s quality, let alone the official representatives of Pentecostalism to this dialogue, can go about his tasks as a Pentecostal theologian whose work balks at the suggestion that there is such a thing as a distinctively Pentecostal theology’.2 Dabney asks the question ‘as to the true theological identity of Pentecostalism’ and explains in eleven pages that Pentecostal theology is ‘a theology of the third article’ of the creed. This implies a particular ‘theological trajectory’ with ‘pneumatology [as] the center of its concern.’3 Dabney ends his presentation with a sneer: ‘The Pentecostals should have grasped that already. […] They should have brought these issues to the table in their dialogue with the Roman Catholics. But they haven’t and they didn’t.’4 Dabney criticizes the Pentecostal dialogue team for not having developed and built upon a distinctive Pentecostal theology, and he criticizes Kärkkäinen for not aiming to develop one. Dabney’s review essay, while not lacking in creative ingenuity and theological pregnancy,5 betrays a lack of insight into the challenges of ecumenical theology and of Pentecostal ecumenical engagement. How much room is there for constructive theology in an evaluation of a theological self-representation? In fact, none. Veli-Matti

1

2 3 4 5

D. Lyle Dabney, ‘Saul’s Armor: The Problem and the Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today’, Pneuma 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 115–146. Ibid., 125. Ibid., 131. Ibid., 137. Thus Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen in his response: Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘David’s Sling: The Promise and Problem of Pentecostal Theology Today: A Response to D. Lyle Dabney’, Pneuma 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 152.

264

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Kärkkäinen explains in his response to Dabney: ‘[W]hen I looked at how Pentecostals defined their identity for the purposes of the dialogue, I had no other way to define it than with the one created by the Pentecostal team.’6 How much room is there for constructive theology by representatives in an ecumenical dialogue? In fact, not much either. In ecumenical dialogue, each dialogue partner can only bring to bear what is already present in the constituency’s explicit theological self-understanding at the risk of losing all credibility as representatives. This is a difficult exercise in all theological dialogues and particularly so for the Classical Pentecostal dialogue partner. The aim of this concluding chapter is to examine opportunities and limitations of dialogue with Classical Pentecostals. This is not based on a theological construction or idealization of what Classical Pentecostalism is or should be, but on the realities of the IRCCPD and the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team sitting at the table. It thus brings together the results of the scrutiny of dialogical and theological method in the IRCCPD’s history (Chapters 4 and 5) with the characteristics of Classical Pentecostalism in dialogue, discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. The ecumenical method in the IRCCPD is consciously related to ongoing discussions on method in the broader field of ecumenical theology. Promising tracks for further research are noted along the way.

Fair representation and diversified reception Chapter 2 described the ecumenical identity of ‘Classical Pentecostalism’ as represented by the dialogue team. Three characteristics were indicated to pinpoint the movement theologically and were brought in line with the dialogue team’s historiographical self-identification, and ecumenical implications were drawn. The description of Classical Pentecostalism as a conversionist, revivalist and restorationist movement with theological peculiarities specific to its history provided a basic theological paradigm. Contrasts with traditional partners in ecumenical dialogue, such as the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox or Reformed churches, are apparent. In particular, the absence of a unifying structure, authoritative theological sources apart from Scripture, and, consequently, an authoritative ‘teaching office’ makes the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team vulnerable from the traditional perspective on ecumenical dialogue. The sheer impossibilities of the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team to officially represent the movement and of the movement to officially and institutionally receive the dialogue outcomes sharply contrast with traditional ecumenical principles. In dealing with these matters, however, the team came to develop particular strengths of Pentecostal ecumenical involvement, which, in their turn, challenge traditional views on ecumenical dialogue. First, in view of the impossibility of claiming ‘official representation’, the consecutive Pentecostal Steering Committees were challenged to seriously consider what representing their movement implied for them. Archival research revealed that the dialogue team came to seek ‘fair representation’ of the movement at the dialogue

6

Ibid., 148.

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

265

table and that a number of selection and participation variables were employed for that purpose. This implies (a) the recognition of diversity within the movement, both theologically and otherwise, (b) the recognition that the movement can only be fairly represented if a diversity of voices is heard at the dialogue table and (c) the willingness to continually take up this challenge in the selection process. Both this understanding and the consequent efforts of the Pentecostal Steering Committee to that intent deserve recognition, notwithstanding the attested discrepancy between desire and fact regarding ‘fair representation’ in the history of the dialogue teams (phases I–V). This analysis may challenge other communions participating in ecumenical dialogue, which generally start from the need of ‘official representation’, to ask themselves to which extent ‘fair representation’ of the breadth of their ecclesial constituency, including theological diversity, is being consciously aimed at in their selection procedures for dialogue participants. The above implies that the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team sought to represent at the dialogue table ‘what they believe to be the common consensus, held by the vast majority of Pentecostals worldwide’.7 In other words, they did not seek to represent what can be considered ‘official teaching’ within the movement but they brought to the table what they considered to be the beliefs today of Pentecostals worldwide. This stands again in sharp contrast with the approach of many other Christian traditions active in ecumenical dialogue and, in particular, of the Catholic dialogue partner, who prefers to focus on fairly representing ‘the faith of the Church’. These different foci can be reformulated as aiming primarily at presenting what is believed in a Christian community and what should be believed in a Christian community. Scrutiny of the Final Reports demonstrates that, as a consequence of the desire to focus on the pistic reality of their constituency rather than on the ideal, the Classical Pentecostal team easily admitted to theological diversity within their movement, in contrast to their Roman Catholic dialogue partner. From an ecumenical perspective, this can be considered a strength, as it methodically precludes focus on singularity and polarity and provides space in which convergences can be discovered. Over the decades, the Roman Catholic dialogue partner came to also value this approach. Consequently, the dialogue came to be conducted more on the level of ecclesial praxis, allowing exposure, discussion, comparison and appreciation of strengths, weaknesses and diversity within the Roman Catholic Church and the Classical Pentecostal movement. Second, the impossibility of bringing the results of the dialogue to the Pentecostal constituency via channels of authoritative decision-making caused the Classical Pentecostal dialogue team to test alternative routes. These included the use of (a) enthusiastic ambassadors for the dialogue, (b) the growing Pentecostal scholarship and learning institutes and (c) local Roman Catholic– Classical Pentecostal dialogue initiatives.8 None of these options is foreign to

7 8

FR IV:3. Cf. p. 96.

266

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

traditional ecumenism, but the conscious implementation of especially the latter option is worth further investigation. In view of the conversionist character of the Pentecostal movement and the emphasis on local congregations, setting up local spin-off dialogues is a promising way to open and build relationships with Pentecostals in a way compatible with the movement’s features. The example of the Dutch Catholic–Pentecostal dialogue (1999–2009) shows that discussion of IRCCPD Final Reports in local contexts was challenging for both communities and a promising way to serve the IRCCPD’s ultimate aim of promoting mutual understanding between the traditions. The establishment of such local spin-off dialogues could be facilitated by the IRCCPD team by the development of Final Reports that are both informative and down-to-earth – such as FR V – and of suitable guidelines for local appropriation and application. Lessons can be learned from the Global Christian Forum. This dialogue initiative aims to bring traditional participants in ecumenical dialogue in conversation with those who have largely stayed outside of the ecumenical movement (such as Evangelical, Pentecostal and Seventh-Day Adventist communities).9 Having well understood the need of alternative forms of interaction, a ‘tool kit for faith sharing’ is currently being developed.10

Theological dialogue permeated with spirituality The Classical Pentecostal movement is not unified by an overarching authoritative structure, but the Pentecostal Dialogue Teams have from the beginning claimed a certain spirituality as a fundamental shared characteristic. This spirituality revolves around ‘the personal and direct awareness and experiencing of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit’ and has as a theological pendant in the baptism in the Holy Spirit with concomitant evidence.11 From the beginning the Roman Catholic dialogue partner has taken this self-understanding at face value. As particular attention for spirituality is very compatible with Catholic views on ecumenism as well (see infra), the dialogue is permeated with spirituality. First, the themes selected for discussion in the IRCCPD evidence a strong focus on spirituality. In the first two phases, a variety of themes from Pentecostal and Catholic spirituality were reviewed, notably worship and charismata, Mariology, faith and experience. The focus on koinonia in FR III brought the IRCCPD close to mainstream ecumenical dialogue. Atypically, it did not lead to consideration of sacraments and ministries but to fundamental discussions on the underlying elements of Christian spirituality.12 In fact, the dialogue (1972–2006) largely revolved around and led

9

10

11 12

Key documentation on the GCF can be found at www.globalchristianforum.org, accessed 1 January 2014. The work of the GCF has been evaluated after ten years in Beek, Revisioning Christian Unity. The tool kit is projected to be finalized in October 2014. Kim Cain to Jelle Creemers, email, 28 April 2014, CrArch. Cf. the 1970 ‘the essence of Pentecostalism’ document, quoted in full on p. 197. Lee, ‘Pneumatological Ecclesiology’, 37.

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

267

towards the theme of conversion, as FR IV and V make amply clear. Typical Catholic questions such as sacraments and church order were touched upon, but were not central nor directive in the dialogue’s progress. This contrasts sharply with traditional ecumenical dialogues, which continue to deal largely with sacraments and ministry, even if conversion is receiving particular attention since the publication of the Groupe des Dombes in 1991, entitled ‘Pour la conversion des Églises’.13 With conversion as the central theme of the IRCCPD phases I–V, it can be argued that the teams together chose for a progressive approach to ecumenical dialogue. Spirituality has not only been key to the thematic choices in the discussions, it was also crucial to the dialogue method. This is particularly visible in the setting and practical organization of the dialogue weeks. Twice a day the teams met for moments of joint prayer and Scripture reading, and at least one joint worship service came to be part of the dialogue weeks. The participants considered this spiritual framework essential to the success of the dialogue, which is evident in the Final Reports and in the communications of (former) dialogue participants, both written and in interviews. Third, in scrutinizing the dialogue’s theological method, it was demonstrated that spirituality was also considered essential in view of the aim of mutual recognition. In the words of Ralph Del Colle, ‘[t]he concentration on spirituality or Christian experience […] is an important hermeneutic for this dialogue. It provides an approach not only with respect to the mutual understanding between Catholics and Pentecostals but also in their reading of biblical and patristic texts.’14 The analyses of the Final Reports clearly demonstrated this. Christian experience, spiritual practices and examples from ecclesial reality have been important sources for theological argumentation. In addition, the growing willingness to honestly admit weaknesses in their own tradition, to gracefully acknowledge strengths in the other tradition, and to speak together rather than apart, demonstrate a growth of mutual trust, which was founded on the recognition of a common Christian spirituality. As Final Report V states, ‘[W]e have discovered that in hearing each other, and in witnessing each other’s faith, hope, and love we are drawn more deeply to Christ. We hope through the power of the Spirit that our mutual recognitions will enhance our communion with each other and strengthen our common witness to the world’ (FR V:191). Finally, when the specific aim of the dialogue was in view, the shared experience of spirituality was considered indispensable (cf. FR IV:128). Thus, in sources, methods and aims, the Final Reports witnessed to the centrality of spirituality in the IRCCPD’s ecumenical method.15

13

14 15

Translated into English in 1993: Groupe des Dombes, For the Conversion of the Churches, trans. James Grieg (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1993). Cf. Jorge Alejandro Scampini, La conversión de las iglesias, una necesidad y una urgencia de la fe: La experiencia del Groupe des Dombes como desarrollo de un método ecuménico eclesial (1937–1997), Cahiers œcuméniques 42 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires Fribourg, 2003). Del Colle, ‘On Becoming a Christian’, 109. Cf. Christopher A. Stephenson, Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit, American Academy of Religion Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

268

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

In view of the above, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s statement that ‘the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue started with a notion that Unitatis Redintegratio calls “spiritual ecumenism” ’ is worthy of consideration.16 Spiritual ecumenism, according to UR 8, revolves around ‘a change of heart and holiness of life’ and involves ‘public and private prayer for the unity of Christians’. In the Roman Catholic perspective, it is ‘not intended as an alternative for a more institutional ecumenism’, Martien Brinkman explains, ‘but is rather the prerequisite for it.’17 Teresa Francesca Rossi sees it as a permanent appeal underlying the theoretical work of ecumenism.18 By naming spiritual ecumenism ‘the soul of the whole ecumenical movement’ (UR 8), the Decree on Ecumenism means, on the one hand, to point to spirituality as the quintessential core of all ecumenical exercise. As Walter Cardinal Kasper explains, ‘The work of ecumenism […] is rooted in the foundations of Christian spirituality, requiring more than ecclesial diplomacy, academic dialogue, social involvement and pastoral cooperation.’19 In the IRCCPD, participants from both traditions wholeheartedly agreed with this central role of spiritual ecumenism. On the other hand, UR 8 implies that the mission of the ecumenical movement is not limited to spiritual ecumenism. In the Roman Catholic perspective, full communion requires sacramental and institutional unity. While this is not accepted by the Classical Pentecostals, they do agree that full communion has not yet been reached and that continuing theological dialogue is needed. As the IRCCPD annual sessions gave full value to theological dialogue and were not limited to joint prayer and Scripture reading, the IRCCPD is indeed founded on spiritual ecumenism in accordance with Roman Catholic ecumenical principles (cf. FR V:274, 278). While spiritual ecumenism appears from the above as a conditio sine qua non of the IRCCPD, each dialogue partner’s acceptance of shared Christian spirituality with the other is conditional. The Roman Catholics recognize their conversation partners as Christians on the basis of their common baptism in the name of the triune God (FR III:54). The Classical Pentecostals accept Catholics as fellow Christians to the extent that they recognize in them a common faith in and experience of Jesus as Lord (FR III:55). Especially the latter ‘subjective’ measuring stick in contrast to the Catholic ‘objective’ measuring stick may seem a fragile basis for a dialogue, but in the course of the dialogue phases I–V, this spiritual recognition was never an issue. Rather the contrary, it gained importance in Catholic perspective as well, as the analysis of FR V uncovered.

16 17

18

19

Kärkkäinen, Ad ultimum terrae, 57. Martien E. Brinkman, ‘A Different Kind of Ecumenism’, in Rethinking Ecumenism: Strategies for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Freek L. Bakker, IIMO Research Publications 63 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2004), 94. ‘L’ecumenismo spirituale ha continuato a constituire un richiamo, tuttavia subalternato al lavoro teoretico […].’ Teresa Francesca Rossi, Manuale di ecumenismo, Introduzioni e trattati 40 (Brescia: Queriniana, 2012), 144. Walter Kasper, A Handbook of Spiritual Ecumenism (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2007), 12.

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

269

IRCCPD’s five-step dialogue process Even before the commencement of the IRCCPD, the dialogue was considered precarious by the initiators, largely so because of a perceived imbalance between the dialogue partners. One major imbalance of the two teams concerned ecumenical theological expertise. Kilian McDonnell and Jerry Sandidge agree that ‘[t]he Catholics were at an advantage in that they came to the dialogue with ecumenical experience the Pentecostals did not have. In the early years Catholic scholarship dominated […].’20 McDonnell disagrees with Peter Hocken, however, on the latter’s estimation that there was/is also an imbalance in the ecumenical method used in the IRCCPD. Hocken claims that Catholics tend to use ‘a Catholic model for bilateral dialogues’, which may be highly unsuitable to some partners, such as Evangelical and Pentecostal groups.21 McDonnell reacts strongly: ‘As to the Catholics imposing a Catholic model, the dialogue model adopted is an ecumenical model, not a Catholic model. It was worked out ecumenically in experience with Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans and Evangelicals, to mention a few.’22 This, however, confirms rather than refutes Hocken’s claim that the Catholic Church, which undoubtedly is the prime proponent and user of bilateral dialogue, tends ‘to conceive all bilateral dialogues as comparable enterprises.’23 But the question as to the value and particularity of the ecumenical method used in the IRCCPD needs more than just claims to be answered properly. Uncovering ecumenical method in the IRCCPD has been a central quest in this volume. While methodology has been on the agenda of the IRCCPD only in a limited and fragmented way, it has become clear in Chapters 4 and 5 that in the course of phases I–V, a proper ecumenical method has been developed through which the dialogue has come to attenuate its precarious nature. In the early phases, the dialogue teams were primarily in pursuit of a good dialogue method in order to make the meetings both comfortable and fruitful (Chapter 4). In the later phases, exploration shifted to questions of theological method (Chapter 5). While the diversity of approaches and styles that characterize each separate phase must be recognized, the development of an ecumenical method can be argued by taking together both developments. The ecumenical method of the IRCCPD implies a five-step dialogue process, which arguably recurs on three levels: in the course of a dialogue week, in the course of a dialogue phase, and in the course of the IRCCPD phases I–V. In each of the following sections, it is explained first how each step can be recognized on these three levels and on which level it is most strongly present. It is then further characterized by placing it in the context of ongoing discussions on ecumenical method. 20

21 22 23

McDonnell, ‘Improbable Conversations’, 27–8; cf. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982), 1987, 1: 123. Hocken, ‘Ecumenical Dialogue’, 119. McDonnell, ‘Improbable Conversations’, 28. Hocken, ‘Ecumenical Dialogue’, 119.

270

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The first step: Getting acquainted The first step of any dialogue is, of course, to get acquainted with your speaking partner. While the value of this step cannot be underestimated, it does not need much explanation or consideration. An overview of its presence and role in the IRCCPD on the aforementioned three levels suffices. On the meta-level, looking at the whole of the IRCCPD until the end of phase V, most attention to getting acquainted was given in the preparatory meetings (1970–1971) and in the first dialogue phase. In the preparatory meetings, so Bittlinger and Sandidge explain, extensive attention is given to getting to know one another. Each participant introduced himself by explaining something of his personal life, and the different spiritualities already resonated in these introductions. When at a later meeting new participants were added, they were also expected to introduce themselves in a similar way. In view of the fact that both traditions were not acquainted with one another’s theologies, the whole first phase became an introductory phase, by Paul Lee aptly described as ‘the Stage of Mutual Introduction’.24 Discussions were mainly on the phenomenon of Pentecostalism and its spirituality, which were compared with Roman Catholic points of view. On the meso-level of the dialogue phase, the first session was typically introductory in view of theological content. Themes that were discussed were broad and sought to lay a foundation. Phase III on koinonia, the first phase centring on a single theme, was introduced by a session on the ‘Communion of Saints’ (1985), the fourth phase opened with ‘Historical Perspectives on Evangelization’ (1990) and phase V first generally discussed ‘The Process of Becoming a Christian.’ In the first year, typically also the agenda for the coming years was fixed. On the micro-level of the dialogue week, the Pentecostals regularly met a day earlier to get to know one another and to prepare for the coming dialogue. Arrivals were often in the afternoon, and as the dialogue started only the next day, the participants could meet on the first evening. Content-wise, the first day was used to introduce both traditions to one another’s theological paradigms and positions. For this purpose, position papers were presented and time was taken for initial substantial discussion.

The second step: Confrontation A bird’s eye view of the five phases of the IRCCPD to date evidences that the second phase (1977–1982) was the most confrontational one – in set-up, general atmosphere and dialogue outcomes. Paul D. Lee deservedly calls it ‘the phase of contra-positions’.25 Not only were the Pentecostals haunted by both fellowPentecostals and by their Catholic partners for lack of credibility, the discussions at the dialogue table were difficult due to the imbalance in theological weight and the sensitivity of topics chosen for discussion.

24 25

Lee, ‘Pneumatological Ecclesiology’, 36–46. Ibid., 34.

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

271

Looking at the level of the dialogue phases, the real confrontations started only after the first dialogue session when the theological perspectives were discussed in more depth and critically questioned. For example, the difficult subject of proselytism and the sensitive topic of experience caused serious tensions in phases IV and V, respectively, in the sessions between the opening session of the dialogue and the sessions focusing on the writing of the Final Report. The most notable element of confrontation in the IRCCPD is found within the dialogue weeks. After a first introduction of (usually) two opposing views on a given theme, the hard questions sessions effectively brought the discussions to a razor’s edge. In this difficult dialogue, the introduction of ‘hard questions’ – also called ‘impolite questions’ – into the annual dialogue sessions in the second year of the second phase (1979) could have been just the straw to break the camel’s back. In fact, however, this brought exactly what the precarious dialogue needed. The integration of hard questions in the dialogue weeks was a firm choice for direct confrontation as part of the dialogue method. The hard questions method enabled each dialogue team not only to select areas of their interest for further discussion and to probe the dialogue partner’s discourse for weaknesses, but also to demonstrate the inner coherence of their own theological system and to debunk the myths in the minds of the other. In a word, the hard questions allowed a levelling of the dialogue. In addition, the hard questions sessions brought the discussions regularly from systematic theology to the level of ecclesial praxis, where the Classical Pentecostals felt more at ease and where weaknesses and strengths could be more easily acknowledged. The introduction of this confrontational method was in a way a risk, as its success in dialogue seems to be directly related to the level of mutual trust. Yet, with the increase of mutual trust on the basis of spiritual recognition, the fragility of the dialogue sessions diminished. Rather than being a ‘soft’ ecumenical format that thrives on the experience of togetherness, spiritual ecumenism serves the IRCCPD as a strong foundation for a confrontational dialogue method that facilitates in depth discussion of topics considered essential by each team. In the broader field of ecumenical dialogue, the use of an ‘oppositional model’ is currently being criticized in view of the crisis in ecumenism.26 This involves, however, dialogues that focus on constructive theology, such as the Lutheran–Catholic dialogue. In reference to this dialogue, Michael Root criticizes also ‘the comparative form of some bilateral dialogues, which does not allow either side truly to question some of its own traditional limitations.’27 While one can be unsatisfied with the IRCCPD currently being ‘only’ a comparative dialogue, it definitely is a dialogue which necessitates each side to question its own traditional limitations because of the confrontational method.

26

27

See, e.g. Paul A. Schreck, ‘New Maps for the Journey: Metaphoric Process in Ecumenical Theology’, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 159–179. See Michael Root, ‘The Jubilee Indulgence and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’, Pro Ecclesia 9, no. 4 (Fall 2000): 475.

272

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

The third step: Comparison Comparison is the third essential step in the IRCCPD dialogue process. Comparison is essential to every form of interaction, but the fact that it is preceded in this dialogue by confrontation positively modifies its ecumenical potential. The quality of a comparison depends largely on the way each element is presented. Anglican canon theologian, Paul Avis, explains that in this respect ecumenical dialogues tend to have a weak spot. He observes a typical ‘gap between rhetoric and reality in the way that churches speak of themselves. […] The same epistemological gulf that marks churches’ self-descriptions, also yawns between rhetoric and reality in much ecumenical discourse, especially in dialogue reports.’28 Therefore, in Avis’s estimation, ‘ecumenical speech often fails to do justice to the concrete identity of Christian traditions and to the historic communities that are supposedly being represented in the dialogue.’29 This tendency was, to a large extent, obviated in the IRCCPD by the prior step of confrontation. The analyses of the dialogue weeks have demonstrated that the confrontational method of asking and responding to hard questions in a dialogue context permeated by spirituality quite easily brought to the surface weaknesses and strengths of each tradition, which tend to be passed over in position papers. In addition, the recurrent concomitant descent from abstract theology to the level of ecclesial praxis contributed to a fair comparison of a broad ecclesial reality, in which not only doctrine but also structures, liturgies, actions and spiritualities were discussed. In the course of a dialogue phase, comparison was given more attention after the first sessions, which were mostly confrontational. A fine example is afforded by the fourth phase (1990–1998). In the 1994 session, the dialogue partners agreed to pause the discussions and to take a step back in order to seek and compare definitions of key terms (proselytism, witness, persuasion and evangelization/evangelism). As mutual understanding grew through the accumulation of exchanged information, fairer comparison became possible. Recapturing the bird’s eye view on the whole dialogue (phases I–V), a growing ability of fair comparison is obvious again in the analyses of the consecutive Final Reports. While the earlier phases treated a variety of subjects and thus could only offer superficial comparisons and confrontations, the growing focus in phases III–V on an overarching theme and a number of carefully selected subthemes enabled the dialogue teams to dig deeper when comparing their theological and ecclesial paradigms. The ecumenical method of the IRCCPD promotes realistic self-presentations purged of rhetorical varnish and, consequently, a broader and advanced comparison of the ecclesial traditions in which weaknesses, strengths and diversity are self-evidently incorporated. Joint comparison of the dialogue partners’ theological and ecclesial identities is, in fact, the primary theological aim of the IRCCPD. As such, the IRCCPD’s method contrasts with most classical ecumenical dialogues that view such comparison as a 28 29

Paul Avis, ‘Are We Receiving “Receptive Ecumenism”?’, Ecclesiology 8, no. 2 (2012): 227. Ibid., 228.

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

273

necessary but intermediate state in view of a higher aim. In combination with the IRCCPD’s express refusal to construct consensus and structural unity and with its explicit attention to mutually recognizing spiritual experience, the question arises if the dialogue’s method is in line with a group of dialogue methods that have recently received much attention. In a 2013 article, Durham University professor and ecumenist, Paul D. Murray, brings together three contemporary ‘families of receptive theological learning’: Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology and Receptive Ecumenism. Murray introduces them as ‘postliberal strategies which eschew approaches premised on commonality and the priority of coming to agreement, in favour of taking seriously the particularity and plurality of traditioned commitment’.30 Scriptural Reasoning concerns an ‘inter-Abrahamic’ encounter on the basis of a joint reading of the sacred texts in search of ways in which these texts can mutually enrich and bring ‘healing’ of the communities and ‘repair’ of the world.31 The Comparative Theology approach is largely defined by Harvard Professor of Divinity, Francis Clooney, SJ. In distinction from the nineteenthcentury liberal approach of comparative religions, this ‘new’ comparative theology is a post-liberal interreligious exercise that starts from a particular tradition open to be changed in an unpredictable way by comparative dialogue with other religious and theological traditions.32 Receptive Ecumenism is Murray’s own brainchild. It perceives ecumenical dialogue primarily as a mutual exchange of gifts. It focuses on theological peculiarities which a tradition deems valuable for itself and is willing to share with other traditions.33 Murray sees family resemblance in these interreligious and ecumenical methods as ‘[r]ather than seeking underlying commonalities or reconciled agreement, each seeks for learning across and from difference’.34 The prima facie similarities of these three methods with the ecumenical method of the IRCCPD on the basic level of aims and dialogue praxis are clear, but that is also where the correspondence ends. Three fundamental differences argue against a close 30

31

32

33

34

Paul D. Murray, ‘Families of Receptive Theological Learning: Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology, and Receptive Ecumenism’, Modern Theology 29, no. 4 (October 2013): 77. Cf. Steven Kepnes, ‘A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning’, Modern Theology 22, no. 3 (July 2006): 367. For a philosophical defence by a key proponent, see Peter Ochs, ‘Philosophic Warrants for Scriptural Reasoning’, Modern Theology 22, no. 3 (July 2006): 465–482. This volume of Modern Theology (22, no. 3) contains thirteen helpful articles to understand the method of Scriptural Reasoning. Recent key reference works are Francis X. Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010); Francis X. Clooney, ed., The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation (London: T&T Clark, 2010). For a critical examination of the ‘new’ Comparative Theology, see Reid B. Locklin and Hugh Nicholson, ‘The Return of Comparative Theology’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78, no. 2 (June 2010): 477–514. Receptive Ecumenism presupposes willingness to listen and humility, and struggles mostly with the unwillingness of traditions to accept gifts that they consider poisonous rather than healthy. An insightful resource is Paul D. Murray and Luca Badini Confalonieri, eds., Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Receptive Ecumenism has arisen within the Roman Catholic Church and still is ‘first and foremost a RC matter’, according to Paul Avis in his critical appraisal: Avis, ‘Are We Receiving “Receptive Ecumenism”?’. Murray, ‘Families of Receptive Theological Learning’, 77.

274

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

alliance of the IRCCPD with the said comparative methods of interfaith interaction. First, they differ in philosophical presuppositions. While the aforementioned are consciously post-liberal strategies of committed pluralism, dialogue participants on both sides of the IRCCPD think primarily in foundationalist terms, each arguing from the revealed ‘Word of God’ for their own theological discourse. Second, the rationale behind the shared aim of mutual information and comparison considerably differs. While the post-liberal strategies argue against the very aim of overcoming difference, the dialogue partners in the IRCCPD are convinced that progress towards Christian unity both in ecclesial life and in doctrine is necessary. They just strongly disagree in their understandings thereof and, therefore, remain for the time being on the level of comparison. Third, their methods vary in their dealing with differences. Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology and Receptive Ecumenism value genuine diversity over sameness as it challenges each dialogue partner to self-critical learning from the other. In the IRCCPD, a key objective of the confrontational focus on perceived differences is to eliminate misunderstandings, through which also commonalities and convergences can be revealed. For the same reasons, the comparative element in the IRCCPD is quite far removed from the ‘Constructive Comparative Ecclesiology’ project of Roger Haight, SJ, accumulating in his three volume work, Christian Community in History (2004, 2005, 2008). His comparative analysis of different Christian ecclesiological perspectives could certainly be helpful in the theological discussions of the IRCCPD.35 In its totality, however, his project aims explicitly to promote the construction of a trans-denominational ecclesiology, for which the work of the WCC Faith and Order Commission is considered exemplary.36 This goes far beyond the limited aims of the IRCCPD.

The fourth step: Consideration Comparison of viewpoints is followed in the IRCCPD by a time of consideration. Constructive theology is not aimed at, but rather rumination of the information exchange in view of finding the proper style and format for its future communication. In the IRCCPD dialogue sessions, this took place at the end of the dialogue week. The information gathered from the papers, the hard questions sessions and the consequent discussions was then brought together and the dialogue teams 35

36

E.g. his methodological opposition of ecclesiologies ‘from below’ and ‘from above’ could challenge the dialogue partners to consider in a structural way elements of theological method: see Roger Haight, Christian Community in History: Vol. 1; Historical Ecclesiology (New York: Continuum, 2004), 17–66. Dialogue based on Haight’s typological contraposition of a ‘Universal Institutional Church’ and a ‘Free Church’ could also open up conversations in refreshing ways: see, esp. Roger Haight, Christian Community in History: Vol. 2; Comparative Ecclesiology (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2005), 276–288. See Roger Haight, Christian Community in History: Vol. 3; Ecclesial Existence (New York: Continuum, 2008). A critical appraisal of Haight’s project can be found in: Gerard Mannion, ed., Comparative Ecclesiology: Critical Investigations, Ecclesiological Investigations 3 (London: T&T Clark, 2008).

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

275

considered what was vital and needed acknowledgement. In one to two days, the concluding Agreed Account and the annual press release were finalized. In the dialogue phases, a time of consideration also served the composition of the Final Report. In the course of phases I–III, part of the fourth and most of the fifth dialogue sessions were devoted to it. The final meeting was followed by a redaction process of several months or even longer. In phases IV and V, this process took several years and involved the organization of multiple ‘writing sessions’. While it could be argued that the prolonged time of consideration has contributed to the growing quality of the Final Reports, the dialogue participants tend to be critical about it. Over the decades, the IRCCPD saw a growing consideration particularly of theological method. Not only have the dialogue partners sought to better speak with one voice in the Final Reports, the growing diversity of theological sources in the reports is notable as well. From the dialogue’s beginnings, Scripture has been the fundamental authority for Roman Catholic and Classical Pentecostal theological argumentation. By Final Report V, the theological exercise also included elaborate patristic research on practices and teachings regarding Christian Initiation. References to Scripture, church history, Roman Catholic pastoral and teaching documents, liturgical acts, ecumenical sources, ecclesial practices and Christian experience came to be integrated as well. This evolution demonstrates a growing willingness of the Classical Pentecostal participants to consider and value a broad variety of sources for theological argumentation. Arguably, the experimental joint investigation of early church documents in the fifth phase holds a challenge to the ‘historical method’, a popular tool in classical bilateral dialogue. The historical method aims towards ‘the purification of memory’ by writing church history together, objectively and openly, key proponent Gillian Evans explains.37 The method has been successfully employed in a variety of dialogues. It typically focuses on periods in church history when division have arisen. Dialogue partners critically reconsider the whole conflict together in order to rediscover ‘the foundation of common faith that, as ecumenists must believe, lies beneath and behind later disagreements’.38 Catholic–Pentecostal relations are not without pain, and therefore a certain form of ‘healing of memories’ is part of the dialogue.39 But the dialogue partners do not look back on a painful moment of separation in history through schism or heresy. In an explanatory article, Evans devotes two short paragraphs to such dialogue partners and states that ‘[p]aradoxically, the lack of a previous common history may help in arriving

37

38 39

Evans, ‘Ecumenical Historical Method’, 97–99. Citation from p. 99. See also Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology, 114–181. The historical method is used in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, Anglican-Catholic dialogue, and Reformed-Catholic dialogue, among others. Evans, ‘Ecumenical Historical Method’, 106. This is keenly noted by William Henn, who points to dialogues with Pentecostal and Baptist involvement on proselytism: Henn, ‘Les dialogues œcuméniques de l’Église catholique avec les Églises méthodistes, baptistes et les Églises de Pentecôte suggèrent-ils une autre voie d’approche du dialogue œcuménique?’, 92. Cf. p. 237–238.

276

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

at a common possession of a history.’40 This is, however, a rather strange way to put things, for it equates the lack of a history of formal separation with the lack of a common history altogether. Christian churches in dialogue always have common history that can be drawn from. In the IRCCPD’s fifth Final Report, the dialogue partners sought to listen to the early Church Fathers together in view of a critical consideration of contemporary differences in spiritual experience. While it remained on a basic level and was poorly integrated, this exercise demonstrates an alternative potentiality of common historiography of a shared past as an ecumenical method.41 Even if their perspectives on history and on the sources differ, dialogue partners can learn from their shared history. This opportunity was explicitly recognized in FR IV: ‘Common witness gives Pentecostals and Catholics the opportunity to work together in the writing of our common and separate histories, without excluding different interpretations of the facts’ (§125).42 This citation paves the way to the final step in the IRCCPD ecumenical method.

The fifth step: Common witness In the course of its development, common witness in service of the mission of the church has become a key focus of the IRCCPD. Common witness is not only seen as a possible result of the ecumenical encounter, but also as a possible contributor to ecumenical rapprochement. Common witness as a final step in the IRCCPD dialogue process is obviously present in the communications of concluding documents. While the dialogue largely takes place behind closed doors, it aims at the distribution of Final Reports at the end of each phase in which the dialogue partners jointly communicate their well-considered results. FR I–V have been written in a variety of styles and forms and growth in length and theological quality was demonstrated. At the end of each dialogue session, the dialogue team also published a short public communication in the form of a press release. In the first phases, the press releases communicated rather openly their points of discussion. The negative experience after the 1981 press release on Mary made the teams more cautious. Later press releases were limited to listing the participants and signalling the advance of the dialogue and its key themes. Common witness is considered in the first Final Report as the dialogue’s aim, stating it aims at ‘Christians coming closer together in prayer and common 40 41

42

Evans, ‘Ecumenical Historical Method’, 105. As such, it contrasts with the approach of the Methodist–Roman Catholic conversations, to which Evans refers in the aforementioned paragraphs. Methodists and Roman Catholics also have no history of formal separation, but found common ground for fruitful dialogue in their separate yet recognizable nineteenth-century traditions of spirituality (‘Denver Report’, 1971). Evans admits that ‘this is valuable because it provides a historical base of sympathy’, but critically adds that ‘it does not address underlying questions of difference of heritage’. Ibid., 106. A reconsideration of ecumenical historiography, aiming at the incorporation of three different levels (doctrines, institutions and social context) to be better able to uncover ‘hidden history’ is argued for in Jeremy Morris, ‘Whose History? Historical Method and Ecclesiology in Ecumenical Context’, Ecclesiology 2, no. 1 (2005): 89–106.

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

277

witness’ (§4). The topic reoccurs elaborately in the third section of Final Report IV. Common witness is here defined as ‘standing together and sharing together in witness to our common faith’ (§118). It is explained that ‘[c]ommon witness can be experienced through joint participation in worship, in prayer, in the performance of good works in Jesus’ name and especially in evangelization’ (§118). It is acknowledged that Catholics and Pentecostals are still at the beginning of their relationship and therefore ‘[s]ome are only now exploring ways of giving common witness’ while ‘[o]thers do not want to give common witness’ (§121). Examples of common witness are afforded (§120) and it is argued that ‘[c]ommon witness shows the bonds of communion (koinonia) between divided churches’ (§121). The dialogue members believe ‘that a limited common witness is already possible because in many ways a vital spiritual unity exists between us’ (§121). Hence, the IRCCPD team does not just consider common witness as an ultimate aim, which will hopefully come within reach through the continuing effort of ecumenical conversations aiming at visible Christian unity. Common witness is considered possible to the extent that unity is acknowledged, it demonstrates the unity in diversity that is already present. The boldness, with which the dialogue participants jointly witness to their own experiences in the course of the dialogue, is remarkable. Final Report IV lists as preconditions for common witness the need of mutual respect to grow (§119–121), the need of forgiveness (§123), the need to know the own and the other’s history and theology (§124–125) and the need to pray together (§128). As the dialogue participants have gone through all of this themselves (cf. e.g. FR I:46; FR II:95; FR III:110–111), they jointly witness to the experience of the dialogue in the concluding paragraph of FR IV (§130). They strengthen their appeal to common witness in a way particularly appealing to the Classical Pentecostal readers: This document comes out of our experience of Dialogue with one another over twenty-five years on a variety of topics, with years of focused discussions on Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness. Strong bonds of affection and trust between Pentecostals and Catholics in the dialogue have created an atmosphere in which differences have been faced with candor, even when those differences seem to be irreconcilable. We hope that the text conveys something of the frustrating and rewarding moments that have been part of our experience over the years. We also hope that the text will help readers to re-experience what we ourselves experienced, namely, the joy of discovering together astonishing areas of agreement. But the text would lack integrity if it did not also offer to the reader the opportunity to re-experience with us the shocks of the gaps between our positions. Still we hold dear the unity in diversity which exists among us and look forward to the day when we may work more closely together despite our differences. In reality, what unites us is far greater than what divides us. Though the road to that future is not entirely clear to us we are firm in our conviction that the Spirit is calling us to move beyond our present divisions. We invite our readers to travel this road with us.

278

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

This statement invites further reflection. The emphasis on common experience and ‘strong bonds of affection and trust’ as fundamental to the production of the Final Report is noteworthy in view of the earlier considerations on the role of experience in theological argumentation. The understanding of a transmittability of experience is particularly interesting as well and it appears in two ways. First, the dialogue participants speak of their ‘experience of dialogue with one another of over twenty-five years’. Only Roman Catholic chairman, Kilian McDonnell, could at the time really claim this experience. The dialogue participants who wrote FR IV apparently wholly identified with the experience of the teams and individuals preceding them in the history of the IRCCPD. Second, it is suggested that the readers of this text can ‘re-experience what we ourselves experienced’, both joy over areas of agreement and shocks of the distance still present. On the basis of their common experiences the dialogue partners also conclude that ‘the Spirit is calling us to move beyond our present divisions’ and invite the readers in the apotheosis ‘to travel this road with us’ by joining in the experience. This address to the reader rather than to ecclesial authorities is unusual, but perfectly understandable in view of the limitations of the Classical Pentecostal dialogue partner. The dialogue participants give a common witness of their dialogue experience and argue for appropriation of this common witness by the readers as a means to growing Christian unity and more common witness.43 The relation between Christian unity and common witness has received considerable reflection in ecumenical theology in the past five years. It was extensively dealt with in one of the key preparatory reports of Edinburgh 2010, the grand centennial celebration of the 1910 World Missionary Conference, entitled ‘Towards Common Witness to Christ today: Mission and Visible Unity of the Church.’44 From Edinburgh 1910 on, the report explains, ‘unity was […] seen as a theologically undergirded precondition for the credibility of the proclamation of the gospel: divisions must be overcome to be able to give an authentic witness of Jesus Christ as the head of the One Body.’45 Unity is thus considered a prerequisite for common witness and not a means to it. Very discretely, however, the Edinburgh 2010 Report also moves towards the position that common witness can be seen as serving the goal of Christian unity. It carefully states that common witness ‘becomes the expression of our visible unity, which is realized through our deeds’ and that ‘visible unity is the work of humans […] being able to cooperate in the common call

43

44 45

Particularly the direct link of Christian unity and common witness with experience – not without reason a central theme in phase V – is a promising track for continuing research. ‘Documentation’, International Review of Mission 99, no. 1 (2010): 86–106. Ibid., 92. This formulation and the consequential understanding of Christian unity in this document is quite debatable in view of the 1910 World Missionary Conference. The relation between cooperation and the promotion of Christian unity was discussed explicitly in the preparatory Report of Commission VIII. This report does not deal with the relation of cooperation and unity theologically, but discusses it on the basis of numerous practical examples from the mission field (p. 133–137).

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

279

for mission through the grace of God.’46 While seeds of a reciprocal relation between Christian unity and common witness are present, the text does not firmly state it, as this would imply that common witness should be stimulated in service of the ecumenical quest – a perspective to which not all member churches of the WCC are inclined.47 Shortly after Edinburgh 2010, Societas Oecumenica, the European Society for Ecumenical Research, focused in its biannual consultation in Belgrade on precisely the question under consideration: ‘Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?’48 In view of the 1910 Edinburgh conference, this question is ironical, as those gathering at the World Missionary Conference a century ago started from the very reality of cooperation and common witness and sought to improve it rather than to question its appropriateness. The consequential evolution of the ecumenical movement, including the incorporation of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, makes the question a century later not only genuine but also provocative. The 2010 Societas Oecumenica conference revealed that, since around the year 2000, promoting common witness has more frequently been considered in individual churches and in ecumenical documents, not only as an aim of the ecumenical quest but also as a valuable instrument in service of Christian unity. This implies an evolution in recent decades. The relation between mission and unity in classical Roman Catholic and WCC texts was scrutinized in the opening lecture by Peter De Mey, then President of Societas Oecumenica.49 Teresa Francesca Rossi argued that from around the year 2000, ‘mission and missiological concerns were introduced into the reflection on unity in terms of a challenge posed to unity

46

47

48

49

Ibid., 97. In contrast, the preparatory Report of Commission VIII of Edinburgh 1910 notes that associations and conferences have ‘had considerable influence, direct and indirect, in promoting co-operation and even ecclesiastical union’ (p. 33, cf. p. 28, 50, 70, 80, 128). Note, however, that at the conference not a variety of churches but mostly Protestant mission societies were gathered. The Orthodox churches have explained their position most clearly in 1988 in a preparatory document for the 1989 conference on World Mission and Evangelism in San Antonio, entitled ‘ “Thy Will Be Done”: Mission in Christ’s Way for Orthodoxy Today’. The document only speaks of ‘inter-Orthodox solidarity in the field of mission’ and does not mention any concrete possibility of common witness with non-Orthodox Christianity. It rather considers the effort ‘[t]o seek unity with the non-Orthodox churches by a patient effort of witness in the dialogue with them so that they, too, may be able to bring their own gifts to full fruition’ as a missionary imperative of the Orthodox churches. See, respectively, George Lemopoulos, ed., Your Will Be Done: Orthodoxy in Mission (Tertios/WCC, 1989), 266, 255. Cf. Viorel Ionita, ‘Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity: An Orthodox Perspective’, in Edinburgh 2010: Mission Then and Now, ed. David A. Kerr and Kenneth R. Ross, Regnum Edinburgh 2010 Series 1 (Oxford: Regnum Books, 2009), 270. The proceedings are published as Peter De Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, eds., Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012). Peter De Mey, ‘Mission and Unity: The Common Witness of Separated Churches?’, in Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, ed. Peter De Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 21–47.

280

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

itself, though in an unprecedented way.’50 Since then, she states, ‘the search for unity considered [mission] as a potential means to resolve the ecclesiological impasse.’51 Methodist bishop and ecumenist Walter Klaiber explained in his paper that the Charta Oecumenica (2001) did not go far yet in this regard.52 While certainly aiming at better cohabitation of different churches in Europe, the document ‘contains conditions for a joint mission rather than concrete steps forward on the way to the task in view, the joint proclamation of the Gospel.’53 Clare Amos, Anglican ecumenist and WCC staff member, underlines Rossi’s claim that the reciprocal relation has become increasingly influential in recent theological work. She points to the 2007 report of the International Anglican and Roman Catholic Commission on Unity and Mission (IARCCUM), Growing Together in Unity and Mission. This report ‘suggests there has been enough convergence already to allow Anglicans and Roman Catholics to work together in significant ways in common mission’. In Amos’ view, ‘[t]he implication – though not explicitly stated – is that by working together in this way our two churches can travel further together on the road to unity’.54 The 2010 Edinburgh conference and the subsequent reflections in the Societas Oecumenica demonstrate that the broad ecumenical movement today is seriously considering the potential of common witness of separated Christians as a means of growing Christian unity, which is also being promoted by the IRCCPD. The 2007 Final Report of the third series of the Roman Catholic–Reformed (WARC) dialogue, ‘The Church as Community of Common Witness to the Kingdom of God’, is a clear example. It states that the dialogue partners’ ‘commitment not only to resolve doctrinal differences through dialogue, but also to achieve a greater degree of common witness is a vital contribution to ecumenism’ (§218, emphasis in the text). For some ecumenical dialogue partners, this is obvious, for others, it stretches their imagination.

The cycle: Forward and downward mobility The history of the IRCCPD shows that ecumenical dialogue, in particular with Classical Pentecostal participants, requires more than systematic theological 50

51 52

53

54

Teresa Francesca Rossi, ‘Unity and Mission: The Missing Link’, in Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, ed. Peter De Mey, Andrew Pierce and Oliver Schuegraf, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 163–191. Ibid., 170. The Charta Oecumenica is a joint declaration of the (Protestant) Conference of European Churches (KEK/CEC) and the (Catholic) Council of European Bishops’ Conference (CCEE) in 2001, containing ‘guidelines for the growing cooperation among the churches in Europe’. Online available at http://www.ceceurope.org/introduction/charta-oecumenica/, accessed 1 January 2014. Walter Klaiber, ‘Auf dem Weg zu einer missionarischen Ökumene: Das gemeinsame Zeugnis der Kirchen in einer nachchristlichen Gesellschaft’, in Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, ed. Peter De Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 193–205. Clare Amos, ‘Mission as a Challenge to Unity?’, in Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, ed. Peter De Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), 157–158.

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

281

interaction. A full ecumenical dialogue experience is needed, in which confrontation, spirituality and slowness have equally important roles to play, and in which common witness is not only consciously aimed for but also made use of. A particular kind of common witness, namely common witness of the dialogue experience and of the theological conclusions, is moreover essential for the progress of the IRCCPD in at least two particular ways. First, in view of the absence of the typical channels for ecumenical reception in the Classical Pentecostal constituency, common witness of the dialogue participants is essential to the downward mobility of the dialogue results. The dialogue partners therefore bring the dialogue results directly to the individual reader, who is not only informed on the theological progress of the dialogue but also personally invited to join in the dialogue experience. Every reader is invited to re-experience the joys and frustrations that the dialogue partners have gone through in the course of their discussions. This resonates with former participant William Henn’s estimation that in this inter-ecclesial relation progress towards unity can only be made if ‘the very intense fellowship experienced by the participants of the dialogue will touch a large part of the members of the separated communities’.55 Therefore, this experience is communicated not only by the Final Reports, but also through personal testimonies of the participants, who function as ambassadors of the IRCCPD (cf. 3.2). The Final Reports also invite the readers to personally participate in ecumenical conversations. Catholics and Pentecostals are encouraged to seek one another, to organize dialogues locally and to give common witness to their experience to others. Such local Catholic–Pentecostal dialogue initiatives would very much be served by the development of practical guidelines and material. Second, in view of the absence of institutional backing of the Classical Pentecostal dialogue partner, common witness of the dialogue participants is essential to the forward mobility of the dialogue itself. In the course of every phase of the IRCCPD, through confrontation, comparison and consideration, new areas of agreement are being discovered and new difficulties are being met. As a result, not only mutual recognition and respect have increased in the dialogue teams over the phases, but also the enthusiasm for continuation of the dialogue. This is clear in the main witnesses to the dialogue, the five Final Reports to date. In their closing paragraphs, the first three reports mention, respectively, the option (FR I:46), the hope (FR II:95) and the recommendation (FR III:109) of further dialogue. Final Report IV boldly expresses the ‘conviction that the Spirit is calling us to move beyond our present divisions’ (§13) and Final Report V requests God’s blessing over further dialogue (§285). Common witness of their dialogue results and experiences incites the dialogue partners to continue the ongoing conversation, notwithstanding the challenges and costs that are also connected to it. By means of its focus on dialogue experience and common witness, the ecumenical method of the IRCCPD keeps in motion a downward and forward spiral for the reception and the continuation of the dialogue. Over the decades, the theological 55

Henn, ‘Les dialogues œcuméniques de l’Église catholique avec les Églises méthodistes, baptistes et les Églises de Pentecôte suggèrent-ils une autre voie d’approche du dialogue œcuménique?’, 93.

282

Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

quality of the dialogue reports and their reception has continued to grow, even if the latter is currently still limited. As such, this unique theological dialogue aims in its own way to truly advance Christian unity. The road ahead is clearly long and the final destination is not even decided upon, but that does not worry the travellers as they focus consciously on the value of the journey itself and share the hope and expectation that, ultimately, the Spirit is their guide.

Appendix: Participants in Pentecostal Dialogue Team, Phases I–V1

1

Nota bene: The participants who came to the dialogue anonymously have not been integrated in this list.

FR

USA

USA

UK

RSA

BRD

FR

USA

Fischer Jean-Daniel

Frost, Robert C.

Hamilton Allan

Harper Michael

Hölscher F.

Krust, Christian

Le Cossec Clément

Lovett Leonard

RSA

USA

USA

Du Plessis David

Emmert Athanasios

USA

Corvin, Raymond O.

Du Plessis Justus

USA

USA

Christenson Larry

Collins David

GER

USA

Bittlinger Arnold

Nat.

Bringham Ray

NAME

Paper (P)

COGIC

GP

GMR

AFM

COE

ICFG

?

RCF

GOC

AFM

AG-USA

IPHC

EC

LCA

COG-A

LSC

Den.

Paid for ($) (Den or SC) (only if certain)

Official (of)

Observer (Ob)

Steering Committee (SC)

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Sex

Black

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Ethn.

Hon

Y

Y

DD

PhD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Rev

TheolEd

Canon|writer

Pastor

Academic

Pastor

Priest

ChurchOf

Preacher

Acad|ChurchOf

Pastor

Diverse

Pastor

Pastor

Particularities

Phase I

1

1

!

1

5

2

!

1

2

16

12

0

1

1

0

!5

#

Y

Y

Y

Orth

Y

Y

Y

Y

70

70

70

ChP Prep 70

71

71

71

71

71

71

71

Of

SC

72

72

SC

SC|P

Ph I: 72

SC

P

SC|P

SC|P

73

74

SC|P

Of|P

SC

SC

74

SC|P

Of

SC|P

75

P

SC|P

75

76

SC

Of

Of

SC

SC

76

CDN/ USA

USA

USA

RSA

UK

USA

USA

SWI

USA

USA

USA

SWI

USA

USA

USA

McTernan John

Meares John

Möller François P.

Roberts Tom

Spencer Carlton

Spittler Russel P.

Steiner Leonhart

Synan Vinson

Tappeiner Daniel

Tardibono John

von Orelli Alois

Whiting Francis

Whitaker, Robert

Williams, J. Rodman

Nat.

McAlister Robert

NAME

PC-USA

Ref

Bap

(R)C

IEC

PB

IPHC

SPMi

AG-USA

EF

EA

AFM

IEC-USA

IEC-IT

IEC

Den.

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Sex

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Ethn.

Y

DD

Dmed

Y

Y

Y

hon

3x

PhD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Rev

AcadEd

Pastor

Marriage Couns.

Psychiatrist

TheolEd

TheolEd/ ChurchOf

ChurchOf (PWC)

TheolEd

TheolEd/ ChurchOf

ChurchOf

ChurchOf

Mis Italy

Mis Brazil

Particularities

5

0

2

1

1

1

4

1

3

1

2

!4

8

!4

5

#

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

70

70

70

ChP Prep 70

71

71

71

71

SC|P

72

P|Of|$D

Of

SC|Of

Ph I: 72

SC

73

P

73

SC|Of|P

73

SC|P

74

74

SC|Of|P

74

SC|P

75

P

75

75

Of|P|$D

Of|P

SC|Of|P

Of|SC

75

SC

Of

Of

Of|SC|P

76

USA

CDN

LEB/ USA

Malki Elias

SWI

Kast David P.

Law Terry

USA

Haus Ronald

Lane James

USA

Foth Richard B.

AG-USA

USA

Ervin Howard M.

UK

UK

Edwards Hugh David

USA

RSA

Du Plessis Justus

Evans Desmond

USA

Finkenbinder Paul

ABC

USA

Carmichael William

Du Plessis David

Den.

USA

(A)C

?

ICMA

AG

AG-USA

AG-USA

AG-USA

COGOP

AFM

AG-USA

AG-USA

AG-USA

Nat.

NAME

Carmichael James

Paper (P)

Paid for ($) (Den or SC) (only if certain)

Official (of)

Observer (Ob)

Steering Committee (SC)

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Sex

ME

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Ethn.

“Y”

Dmin

Y

PhD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Mis Lebanon

Evangelist

Pastor

Mis SA/Pastor

Pastor

TheolEd

Mis Lat Am

Pastor

TheolEd

TheolEd/ ChurchOf

ChurchOf

Preacher

Publisher

Pastor

Rev Particularities

Phase II

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

5

16

12

4

1

#

Y

Ob

Ob

Of

SC

ChP Ph II: 77

79

P

Of

SC

SC

79

Ob

Ob

P

Ob

P

Of

SC

SC

80

81

81

81

Of

SC

SC

Ob

Ob

82

P

Of

SC

SC

82

USA

USA

RSA

UK

UK

USA

USA

NZL

Meares John

Möller François Petrus

Roberts Tom

Robinson Martin

Sandidge Jerry L.

Synan Vinson

Worsfold James E.

CDN/ USA

McAlister Robert

McConnell R. Douglas

Nat.

NAME

ApC

IPHC

AG-USA

COC

EA

AFM

IEC-USA

PEC

IEC

Den.

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Sex

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Ethn.

Y

1985

3x

Y

PhD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

ChurchOf

TheolEd/ ChurchOf

Mis Belgium/ Pastor

ChurchAdmin

ChurchOf

ChurchOf

Media

Mis Brazil

Rev Particularities

1

4

9

1

2

4

8

2

5

#

Y

Y

Of

P

77

Of|P|$D

SC|Of

Of|SC

ChP Ph II: 77

Of|$D

SC|Of

Of|SC|P

79

80

SC|Of

Ob

80

P

Ob

SC|Of

Ob

81

82

SC|Of

Of|SC

82

USA

RSA

Du Plessis David

Du Plessis Justus

MEX

SWE

Djurfeldt Olof

Gaxiola-Gaxiola Manuel J.

POL

Czajko Edward

USA

USA

Crotty Daniel L.

Forbes James A.

ARG

Cabrera Omer

UK

CDN

Belobaba Rose

USA

CDN

Belobaba Mitchell

Ervin Howard M.

USA

Amstutz John L.

Edwards Hugh David

Nat.

NAME

Paper (P)

ICFG

Den.

ACM

OUHC

ABC

COGOP

AFM

AG-USA

SPM

PCP

ICFG

VdF

ICFG

ICFGCDN

Paid for ($) (Den or SC) (only if certain)

Official (of)

Observer (Ob)

Steering Committee (SC)

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

M

M

Fem

Hisp.

Black

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Hisp.

White

White

White

Ethn.

DMin

Y

Y

DMin

PhD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Rev

ChurchOf, Oneness

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd/ChurchOf

ChurchOf

Preacher

Journalist

ChurchOf

Businessman

Pastor

Pastor

Pastor

TheolEd

Particularities

Phase III

1

1

10

5

16

12

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

#

Y

ChP

85

SC|Of

SC

Of|Ob

Of|Ob

Of|Ob

Ph III: 85

Of|Ob

Ob

86

Of|Ob

SC|Of

SC

Ob

Of|Ob

86

P

Of|Ob

SC|Of

Of

87

88

Of

SC|Of

Of|Ob|$SC

Ob

Of

88

89

SC|Of

89

USA

USA

USA

NL

Sandidge Jerry L.

Synan Vinson

Tarr Del

van Amerom H. N.

YUG/ CRO/ USA

USA

Volf Miroslav

USA

Robeck Cecil M.

RSA

Möller François Petrus, Jr.

Phillips Coleman

GB

Missen Alfred F.

USA

ITA

Lilli Silvano

USA

YUG

Kuzmic Peter

Paulk Earl

RSA

Krüger Veroni

Mueller Robert

UK

USA

Jenkins James D.

USA

Hills, Gordon

PAC

CDN

Gerard Bernice

Hamilton Allan

CPCCRO

BvP

AG-USA

IPHC

AG-USA

AG-USA

ICFG

ICCC

IAOG

AFM

AG-UK

IEC-IT

CPCYUG

AFM

COG-C

EPC

ICFG

Den.

Nat.

NAME

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

Fem

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Ethn.

1986

Y

Y

1985

Y

Hon?

Y2!

Y

Hon?

Hon?

PhD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Rev

TheolEd

ChurchOf

TheolEd

TheolEd/ ChurchOf

Mis Belgium/ Pastor

TheolEd

Pastor

Pastor

ChurchOf

ChurchOf

Pastor

Theol Ed.

pastor

ChurchOf

ChurchOf

pastor

Evangelism/media

Particularities

9

1

10

4

9

21

5

1

1

10

1

1

1

1

7

1

2

4

#

ChP

P|$SC

Ob

SC

85|$SC

Of|Ob

P|$SC

Ph III: 85

$SC

86

Ob?

SC

SC|P

Of

Of|Ob

Of|Ob

Of|Ob

86

Of

87

SC

SC

Of|Ob

Of ’|Ob

Of Ob

Of|?

87

$SC

SC|P

SC|P

Of|

Of|$D

Of ’

Of|?

88

$SC

89

SC

SC

Of|

Of ’

Of|?

89

SWI

USA

USA

CDN

USA

RSA

USA

Hollenweger Walter J.

Jenkins James D.

Johns Jackie

Kydd Ronald A.N.

Land Steven J.

Lapoorta Japie

McGee Gary B.

USA

Dirksen Murl O.

RSA

USA

Cole David

USA

USA

Bridges-Johns Cheryl

Ervin Howard M.

USA

Blumhofer Edith

Du Plessis Justus

Nat.

NAME

Paper (P)

AG-USA

AFM

COG-C

PAC

COG-C

COG-C

SRC

ABC

AFM

COG-C

OBSC

COG-C

AG-USA

Den.

Paid for ($) (Den or SC) (only if certain)

Official (of)

Observer (Ob)

Steering Committee (SC)

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

F

White

Black

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Y

Y

Y

Y

Hon?

Y

Y

Y

1998

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

ChurchOf

TheolEd

TheolEd

ChurchOf

UnivEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

Fem. Ethn. PhD Rev Particularities

Phase IV

9

3

2

9

3

7

1

10

16

1

9

5

1

#

Y

Y

ChP

P

Of

90

90

SC|Of

90

Of

91

Of ’

SC|Of

Ob

91

92

Of

SC

Of ’

SC|Of

92

Ob

SC

SC

P

Ob

93

93

Ob

SC

SC

(94)

94

94

95

SC

Ob

P

95

95

96

SC

96

97

SC

97

USA

USA

NL

YUG/CRO /USA

USA

NL

Tarr Del

Tinlin Paul

van der Laan Cees

Volf Miroslav

Wilson Everett

Zegwaart Huibert

USA

Sandidge Jerry L.

USA

USA

Robeck Cecil M.

USA

USA

Pruitt Raymond M.

Synan Vinson

BRA

Pinto Luis Carlos

Stathis Chris

USA

CHI/SWI

Palma Marta

Phillips Coleman

USA

USA

Overman Steve

RSA

Möller François Petrus, Jr.

Mundy Karen C.

PHIL

Nat.

body

NAME

VPE

AG-USA

CPCCRO

BvP

AG-USA

AG-USA

IPHC

COGOP

AG-USA

AG-USA

COGOP

ICFG

ICFG

IGP

ICFG

COG-C

AFM

AG-PHL

Den.

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

M

F

M

M

Sex

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Hisp.

White

White

White

White

Y

1986

Y

Y

Y

1985

Y

Y

Y

Y2!

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

ChurchOf

TheolEd

TheolEd

ChurchOf

Pastor

TheolEd

TheolEd/ ChurchOf

Mis Greece

Mis Belgium/ Pastor

TheolEd

TheolEd

Pastor

Pastor

Ecumenist

Pastor

UnivEd

ChurchOf

TheolEd/ MisPHL

Ethn. PhD Rev Particularities

11

1

9

1

1

10

4

1

9

21

7

1

5

4

15

2

10

1

#

ChP

$SC

90

SC

SC

Of

Of|$D

90

$SC

Of|Ob

Ob

91

91

Of|Ob

(SC)

SC

Of|Ob |$SC

Of

Of|$D

P

91

Of|Ob

Ob?|P

92

SC

Of

Ob|$SC

Of

Of|$D

92

Of|Ob

93

93

SC

Ob

Of

Ob|P

Of|$D

93

Of|Ob

94

SC|P

Of

SC|Of

Ob

94

Of|Ob

95

SC

Of

SC|Of

Of|$D

95

Of|Ob

96

SC

Of

SC|Of

Of|$D

96

Of|Ob

97

SC

Ob

SC|Of

97

USA

USA

Parker Stephen

RSA

Möller François Petrus, Jr

CHI/ SWI

USA

McGee Gary B.

Palma Marta

USA

Matsdorf Gary

Overman Steve

USA

CDN

Kydd Ronald A. N.

USA

Hunter Harold D.

Johns Jackie

USA

Hilliard Philip

AFM

RSA

USA/ GER

De Witt Peter

Endicott Clayton

OBSC

Cole David

COGOP

IGP

ICFG

AFM

AG-USA

ICFG

PAC

COG-C

IPHC

AG-USA

COGOP

COG-C

USA

USA

Bridges-Johns Cheryl

Den.

Nat.

NAME

Paper (P)

Paid for ($) (Den or SC) (only if certain)

Official (of)

Observer (Ob)

Steering Committee (SC)

M

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

Sex

White

Hisp.

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

White

Y

Y2!

Y

Y

Y

Y

“Y”

1998

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

AcadEd

Ecumenist

Pastor

ChurchOf

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

Pastor

ChurchOf

ChurchOf

TheolEd

TheolEd

Ethn. PhD Rev Particularities

Phase V

4

4

15

10

9

1

9

3

1

1

4

1

9

5

#

SC|Of

Of|$D

98

Of|SC|P

Of|Ob

Of

98

98

99

(SC-abs)

Of|$D

Ob

99

P

SC

99

SC|Of

0

Of

00

SC|Of

1

Of|Ob

Of

01

Of

SC|Of

P

Ob

Of

02

Of

SC|Of

Of|$D

Of|Ob

Of

03

Of

SC|Of

4

Of

Of|SC

04

SC|Of

Of

Of|SC

05

Of

SC|Of

Of|SC

06

USA

USA

USA

USA

SWI

NL

Pruitt Raymond M.

Robeck Cecil M.

Spittler Russel P.

Wenk Matthias

Zegwaart Huibert

Nat.

Pratt Thomas D.

NAME

VPE

BP

AG-USA

AG-USA

COGOP

AG-USA

Den.

M

M

M

M

M

M

Sex

White

White

White

White

White

White

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

ChurchOf

ChurchOf

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

TheolEd

Ethn. PhD Rev Particularities

11

1

3

21

7

1

#

SC

Of

98

SC

Of

P

99

Of|P

SC

Of

00

Of|P

SC

Of

01

02

SC

02

Of

SC

03

Of

SC

04

Of

SC

05

Of

SC

06

Abbreviations of Denominations/ church affiliation (Anglican) Charismatic

(A)C

American Baptist Church, USA

ABC

Apostolic Church

ApC

Apostolic Church of Mexico

ACM

Apostolic Faith Mission, RSA

AFM

Assemblies of God

AG

Assemblies of God, Philippines

AG-PHL

Assemblies of God, UK

AG-UK

Assemblies of God, USA

AG-USA

Baptist

Bap

Bewegung Plus

BP

Broederschap van Pinkstergemeenten

BvP

Christ’s Pentecostal Church, Yugoslavia

CPC-YUG

Church of England

COE

Church of God (Anderson, IN)

COG-A

Church of God (Cleveland, TN)

COG-C

Church of God in Christ

COGIC

Church of God of Prophecy

COGOP

Churches of Christ, UK

COC

Croatian Pentecostal Church, Croatia

CPC-CRO

Eglise Apostolic (France)

EA

Elim Fellowship, USA

EF

Elim Pentecostal Church, UK

EPC

Episcopalian Church, USA

EC

Gemeinschaftsverband Mülheim/Ruhr

GMR

Greek Orthodox Church

GOC

Gypsy Pentecostals

GP

Iglesia Misión Pentecostal, Chile

IMP

Independent Assemblies of God Intl., USA

IAOG

International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

ICFG

ICFG, Canada

ICFG-CDN

Abbreviations of Denominations/church affiliation International Churches and Missionary Association

ICMA

International Communion of Charismatic Churches

ICCC

International Evangelical Church

IEC

International Evangelical Church, Italy

IEC-IT

International Evangelical Church, USA

IEC-USA

International Pentecostal Holiness Church

IPHC

Lutheran Churches of America, USA

LCA??

Lutheran at Schloss Craheim, Germany

LSC

Open Bible Standard Churches, USA

OBSC

Original United Holy Church International, USA

OUHC

Pentecostal

Pent

Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada

PAC

Pentecostal Church, Poland

PCP

Plymouth Brethren, USA

PB

Presbyterian

Pres

Presbyterian Church, USA

PC-USA

Protestant Episcopal Church, USA

PEC-USA

Reformed

Ref

Reformed Charismatic

(R)C

Reformed Church of France

RCF

Swedish Pentecostal Movement

SPM

Swiss Pentecostal Mission

SPMi

Swiss Reformed Church

SRC

Verenigde Pinkster- en Evangeliegemeenten

VPE

Vision de Futuro

VdF

295

Sources and Bibliography IRCCPD Final Reports Final Report I: ‘Final Report of the Dialogue between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and the Leaders of Some Pentecostal Churches and Participants in the Charismatic Movement within Protestant and Anglican Churches, 1972–1976.’ Final Report II: ‘Final Report of the Dialogue between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostals, 1977–1982.’ Final Report III: ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: The Report from the Third Quinquennium of the Dialogue between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1985–1989.’ Final Report IV: ‘Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness. Final Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1990–1997.’ Final Report V: ‘On Becoming a Christian: Insights from Scripture and the Patristic Writings with Some Contemporary Reflections. Report of the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue between Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders and the Catholic Church, 1998–2006.’ All Final Reports are published in Information Service and are online accessible at the website of the Centro Pro Unione (Rome).

Primary documents on the IRCCPD IRCCPD Information (consulted and referenced) ‘Relations with Pentecostals’. Information Service 16 (1972/I), 23. ‘Relations with Pentecostals, Zürich-Horgen (Switzerland), 20–24 June 1972’. IS 19 (1973/I), 8. ‘Second Meeting with Pentecostals’. IS 22 (1973/IV), 30–31. ‘Third Meeting with Pentecostals, Schloss Craheim, Germany, 10–14 June 1974’. IS 25 (1974/III), 20–21. ‘Fourth Meeting of the Dialogue with Pentecostals, Venice, 21–26 May 1975’. IS 28 (1975/III), 14–15. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, Meeting in Rome, 26–29 May 1976’. IS 32 (1976/III), 31–32. ‘Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, Rome, 3–7 October 1977’. IS 35 (1977/III–IV), 17. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, Rome, 8–12 October 1979’. IS 41 (1979/IV), 9–10. ‘Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue’. IS 47 (1981/III–IV), 127–128. ‘Roman Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue: Tenth Session, Collegeville, Minnesota 25–29 October 1982’. IS 50 (1982/IV), 128.

Sources and Bibliography

297

‘Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’. IS 56 (1984/IV), 111. ‘Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: Riano, 21–26 May 1985’. IS 57 (1985/I), 14–15. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, 24–30 May 1986’. IS 62 (1986/IV), 199–200. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, Venice, 1–8 August 1987’. IS 64 (1987/II), 68. ‘Pentecostal/Roman Catholic International Dialogue, 20–27 August 1988’. IS 68 (1988/III–IV), 162–163. ‘Pentecostal/Roman Catholic International Dialogue, 2–9 September 1989’. IS 72 (1990/I), 1–2. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, 14–20 July 1990’. IS 75 (1990/IV), 168. ‘Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue 1988–1990’. IS 78 (1991/III–IV), 167–168. ‘Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue, 14–21 July 1991’. IS 78 (1991/III–IV), 204–205. ‘Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, 18–25 July 1992’. IS 82 (1993/I), 28–29. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, Paris, France, 24–31 July 1993’. IS 84 (1993/III–IV), 153–154. ‘Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue, Kappel am Albis, Switzerland, 23–30 July 1994’. IS 86 (1994/III–IV), 126–127. ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Brixen, Italy – 15–22 July 1995’. IS 89 (1995/II–III), 94–95. ‘The Pentecostal/Catholic Dialogue’. IS 91 (1996/I–II), 42–45. ‘Pentecostal-Roman Catholic International Dialogue, Brixen/Bressanone, Italy, 13–20 July 1996’. IS 92 (1996/III), 105. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal International Dialogue – Bolton, Ontario, Canada, 1998’. IS 98 (1998/III), 161. ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal International Dialogue, Venice, 23–30 July 1999’. IS 102 (1999/IV), 246–47. ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal International Dialogue, Vienna, 7–14 July 2000’. IS 104 (2000/III), 147. ‘International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue, Celje (Slovenia), June 30–July 7, 2001’. IS 107 (2001/II–III), 88–89. ‘International Pentecostal-Catholic Dialogue, 12–19 July 2002’. IS 110 (2002/III), 179–180. ‘Pentecostal/Catholic International Dialogue, Rottenburg (Germany), 15–22 July 2003’. IS 113 (2003/II–III), 79. ‘Relations with the Pentecostals’. IS 115 (2004/I–II), 61–63. ‘International Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Prague, Czech Republic, June 30–July 6, 2005’. IS 119 (2005/III), 142–143. ‘International Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Monastery of Bose (Italy), 2–9 July 2006’. IS 122 (2006/II), 67–68. ‘International Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Rome, June 10–16 2011’. IS 136 (2011/I), 21. ‘Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Helsinki, Finland, 28 June – 5 July 2012’. IS 139 (2012/I–II), 36. ‘International Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: Sixth Round of Conversations, Baltimore, MD, USA, 13–19 July 2013’. IS 142 (2013/II), 14–15.

Archival Sources Archival sources are not listed here. The location of each key document is repeated in the relevant footnote.

298

Sources and Bibliography

Bibliography Álvarez, Carmelo E. ‘Joining the World Council of Churches. The Ecumenical Story of Pentecostalism in Chile’. In Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments, edited by Wolfgang Vondey, 34–45. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Álvarez, C., P. Correa, M. Poblete, and P. Guell. Historia de la Iglesia Pentecostal de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Rehue Ltda, s.d. Amos, Clare. ‘Mission as a Challenge to Unity?’. In Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, edited by Peter Demey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf 149–162. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Anderson, Allan. Spreading Fires: The Missionary Nature of Early Pentecostalism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007. Anderson, Allan. To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity. Oxford Studies in World Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Anderson, Allan. ‘Varieties, Taxonomies, and Definitions’. In Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, edited by Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, Andre F. Droogers, and Cornelius van der Laan, 13–29. The Anthropology of Christianity 10. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010. Anderson, Allan, Michael Bergunder, Andre F. Droogers, and Cornelius Vanderlaan. Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods. The Anthropology of Christianity 10. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010. Anderson, Robert Mapes. Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Appold, Kenneth G. ‘Dialogue with Pentecostals and Its Implications for Ecumenical Method – Some Initial Thoughts’. Expanded Staff Meeting, Strasbourg, 3 April 2005. Appold, Kenneth G. ‘The Pentecostal Challenge to Traditional Ecumenism’. Strasbourg Summer Seminar, 10 July 2006. Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture, and Community. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 28. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Avis, Paul. ‘Are We Receiving “Receptive Ecumenism”?’. Ecclesiology 8, no. 2 (2012): 223–234. Balmer, Randall Herbert. ‘Willful Naïveté: American Evangelicalism and the StoneCampbell Tradition’. Stone-Campbell Journal 7, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 211–223. Barrett, David B., and Todd M. Johnson. ‘Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 2004’. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 28, no. 1 (January 2004): 24–25. Barrett, David B., and Todd M. Johnson. ‘Global Statistics’. In The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by S.M. Burgess and E.M. Van der Maas, 294. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2002. Barrett, David B., and Todd M. Johnson. World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200: Interpreting the Annual Christian Megacensus. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2001. Barrett, David B., Todd M. Johnson, and Peter F. Crossing. ‘Global Table A. 50 Shared Goals: Status of the Mission, AD 1900 to AD 2025’. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 30, no. 1 (2006): 28. Barr, James. Fundamentalism. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1978.

Sources and Bibliography

299

Beale, David O. In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850. Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986. Bebbington, D. W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. London: Routledge, 1988. Beek, Huibert van. Revisioning Christian Unity: Journeying with Jesus Christ, the Reconciler at the Global Christian Forum, Limuru, November 2007. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009. Bennett, Dennis J. Nine O’Clock in the Morning. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications, 1970. Bergunder, Michael. ‘Constructing Pentecostalism: On Issues of Methodology and Representation’. Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 27, no. 1 (2007): 52–71. Bergunder, Michael. ‘The Cultural Turn’. In Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, edited by Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, Andre F. Droogers, and Cornelius van der Laan, 51–73. The Anthropology of Christianity 10. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010. Berkelmans, Frans, ed. Katolieke charismatiese vernieuwing: Teologiese verklaring en pastorele toelichting ‘Verklaring van Mechelen 1974’. Spiritualiteit 8. Nijmegen: Gottmer, 1976. Bernard, David K. ‘Response to Perspectives on Koinonia’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 143–146. Bidwell, Kevin J. ‘The Church as the Image of the Trinity’: A Critical Evaluation of Miroslav Volf ’s Ecclesial Model. WEST Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Bittlinger, Arnold. Papst und Pfingstler: Der römisch katholisch-pfingstliche Dialog und seine ökumenische Relevanz. Studien zur interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentums 16. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978. Bliss, Frederick M. Understanding Reception: A Backdrop to Its Ecumenical Use. Marquette Studies in Theology 1. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1993. Blumhofer, Edith L. Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1993. Bouyer, Louis. ‘Charismatic Movements in History within the Church Tradition’. One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 148–161. Brinkman, Martien E. ‘A Different Kind of Ecumenism’. In Rethinking Ecumenism: Strategies for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Freek L. Bakker, 93–104. IIMO Research Publications 63. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2004. Bundy, David. ‘Documenting “Oneness” Pentecostalism: A Case Study in the Ethical Dilemmas Posed by the Creation of Documentation’. ATLA Summary of Proceedings 53 (1999): 155–175. Burgess, S. M., and E. M. Van der Maas, eds. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Cerillo, Augustus. ‘The Beginnings of American Pentecostalism: A Historiographical Overview’. In Pentecostal Currents in American Protestantism, edited by Edith L. Blumhofer, Russell P. Spittler, and Grant A. Wacker, 229–259. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Charles, J. Daryl. ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together: One Year Later’. Pro Ecclesia 5, no. 1 (Winter 1996): 73–90. Clooney, Francis X. Comparative Theology: Deep Learning across Religious Borders. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Clooney, Francis X., ed. The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation. London: T&T Clark, 2010.

300

Sources and Bibliography

Colborn, Frank. ‘Reflections on Perspectives on Koinonia’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 146–149. Cole, D. ‘Pentecostal Koinonia: An Emerging Ecumenical Ecclesiology among Pentecostals’. PhD diss., Fuller Seminary, 1998. Collins, Paul M., and Barry A. Ensign-George, eds. Denomination: Assessing an Ecclesiological Category. Ecclesiological Investigations 11. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Colonomos, Ariel. ‘Évangélistes en réseaux: la lusophonie a l’épreuve de la latinité en amérique’. Lusotopie (1999): 347–354. Colson, Charles W., and Richard John Neuhaus. Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995. Coulter, Dale M. ‘Baptism, Conversion, and Grace: Reflections on the “Underlying Realities” Between Pentecostals, Methodists, and Catholics’. Pneuma 31, no. 2 (2009): 189–212. Coulter, Dale M. ‘The Development of Ecclesiology in the Church of God (Cleveland, TN): A Forgotten Contribution?’. Pneuma 29, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 59–85. Cox, Harvey. Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995. Creemers, Jelle. ‘Een Geest: Tien jaar dialoog tussen Katholieken en Pinkstergelovigen in Nederland’. Perspectief 2, no. 4 (2009): 7–14. Creemers, Jelle. ‘How Hard Questions Can Soften Relations: Dialogical Method in Pentecostal Ecumenical Involvement’. Paper presented at the Ecclesiologial Investigations, Assisi, 18 April 2012. Creemers, Jelle. ‘Intertwined Problems of Representation and Reception in Pentecostal Ecumenical Involvement: A Case Study’. One in Christ 45, no. 1 (2011): 142–161. Creemers, Jelle. ‘Local Dialogue as a Means to Ecumenical Reception? The International and Dutch Pentecostal-Catholic Dialogues in Close-Up’. Exchange 42, no. 4 (2013): 366–384. Creemers, Jelle. ‘Time Will Teach Us: Reflections on Thirty-Five Years of Pentecostal – Roman Catholic Dialogue’. Ecclesiology 5, no. 3 (2009): 322–444. Cross, Anthony R. ‘The Evangelical Sacrament: Baptisma semper reformandum’. Evangelical Quarterly 80, no. 3 (July 2008). Crowe, Terrence Robert. Pentecostal Unity: Recurring Frustration and Enduring Hopes. Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1993. Dabney, D. Lyle. ‘Saul’s Armor: The Problem and the Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today’. Pneuma 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 115–146. Daniels, Eugene. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 52–54. Dayton, Donald W. ‘Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: Its Emergence and Significance’. Wesleyan Theological Journal 13 (Spring 1978): 114–126. Dayton, Donald W. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, 1987. De Chirico, Leonardo. ‘Christian Unity vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism: A Critique of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together dialogue’. Evangelical Review of Theology 27, no. 4 (October 2003): 337–352. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘Aesthetics and Pathos in the Vision of God: A Catholic–Pentecostal Encounter’. Pneuma 26, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 99–117. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘Catholic vs. Pentecostal Missiologies: Toward Reconciliation by Catholic Reception of Baptism in the Holy Spirit’. Missiology 35, no. 3 (2007): 337–346. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘Mary, the Unwelcome (?) Guest in Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’. Pneuma 29, no. 2 (November 2007): 214–225.

Sources and Bibliography

301

Del Colle, Ralph. ‘Nature and Grace: Why This Catholic Delineation of the “Supernatural” Is Important for Pentecostals’. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18, no. 1 (May 2009): 111–122. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘On Becoming a Christian: Commentary on the Fifth Phase Report of the International Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue’. One in Christ 43, no. 1 (2009): 98–121. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘Pentecostal/Catholic Dialogue: Theological Suggestions for Consideration’. Pneuma 25, no. 1 (2003): 93–96. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘Postmodernism and the Pentecostal-Charismatic Experience’. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8, no. 17 (October 2000): 97–116. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘The Holy Spirit and Christian Unity: A Case Study from Catholic/ Pentecostal Dialogue’. In Kirche in ökumenischer Perspektive: Festschrift für Kardinal Walter Kasper zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Walter, Klaus Krämer, and George Augustin, 290–305. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘The Holy Spirit: Presence, Power, Person’. Theological Studies 62, no. 2 (June 2001): 322–340. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘The Implications of “Religious Experience” for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: A Catholic Perspective’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 45, no. 4 (Fall 2010): 525–542. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘The Pursuit of Holiness: A Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37, no. 3–4 (Summer-Fall 2000): 301–320. Del Colle, Ralph. ‘Whither Pentecostal Theology? Why a Catholic Is Interested’. Pneuma 31, no. 1 (2009): 35–46. De Mey, Peter. ‘Mission and Unity: The Common Witness of Separated Churches?’. In Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, edited by Peter De Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, 21–47. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. De Mey, Peter, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, eds. Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. De Monléon, A. M. ‘The Historic Background of the Pentecostal Movement. A Reaction to David J. Du Plessis’ Paper’, 1–8. Rome, 1973. De Witte, Pieter. Doctrine, Dynamic and Difference: To the Heart of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Differentiated Consensus on Justification. Ecclesiological Investigations 15. New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2012. De Witte, Pieter. ‘La recepción ecumenica y la tensión entre la tradición y la renovación’. Mayéutica 37 (2011): 105–137. ‘Documentation’. International Review of Mission 99, no. 1 (2010): 86–158. Dollar, George W. A History of Fundamentalism in America. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1973. Dulles, Avery Robert. ‘Ecumenism and Theological Method’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 17, no. 1 (Winter 1980): 40–48. Du Plessis, David J. ‘The Historic Background of Pentecostalism’. One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 174–179. Duprey, Pierre. ‘L’Eglise catholique et le dialogue œcuménique’. Episkepsis 10, no. 212 (1979): 6–16. Ervin, Howard. ‘Hermeneutics: A Pentecostal Option’. In Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin Presented to Him by Colleagues and Friends on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Paul Elbert.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985.

302

Sources and Bibliography

Evans, Gillian R. ‘Ecumenical Historical Method’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31, no. 1–2 (Winter-Spring 1994): 93–110. Evans, Gillian R. Method in Ecumenical Theology: The Lessons so Far. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Fey, Harold Edward, and Ruth Rouse. A History of the Ecumenical Movement: Vol. 2; 1948–1968, 4th ed. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993. Fiedler, Klaus. ‘Edinburgh 2010 and the Evangelicals’. Evangelical Review of Theology 34, no. 4 (October 2010): 319–334. Fiedler, Klaus. The Story of Faith Missions: From Hudson Taylor to Present Day Africa. Oxford: Regnum books, 1994. Fischer, Balthasar. ‘Baptism of the Spirit: The Meaning of the Expression “Baptism in the Spirit” in the Light of Catholic Baptismal Liturgy and Spirituality’. One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 172–173. Foster, Douglas A., Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams, eds. The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005. Gäbler, Ulrich. ‘Erweckung im europäischen und amerikanischen Protestantismus’. Pietismus und Neuzeit 15 (1989): 24–39. Gasper, H. ‘Global Players im Gespräch? Zum Dialog der römisch-katholischen Kirche mit den Pfingstkirchen’. Ökumenische Rundschau 56, no. 3 (July 2007): 317–333. Gelpi, Donald L. ‘Discerning the Spirit among Catholic Charismatics’. Dialog: A Journal of Theology 41, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 26–34. Gelpi, Donald L. Experiencing God: A Theology of Human Experience. New York: Paulist Press, 1978. Gelpi, Donald L. ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: A Roman Catholic Response’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 149–151. Gelpi, Donald L. The Turn to Experience in Contemporary Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 1994. George, Timothy. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 55–57. Gibbs, Eddie. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 57–60. Goff, James R. ‘The Theology of Charles Fox Parham’. In Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, edited by Gary McGee, 57–71. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991. Gómez, Juan F. Usma. ‘Evangelización, proselitismo y testimonio común: un estudio crítico de la cuarta fase del diálogo internacional católico-pentecostal (1990–1997)’. PhD diss., Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a S. Thoma Aq. in Urbe, 2001. Goss, Ethel E. The Winds of God: The Story of the Early Pentecostal Movement (1901–1914) in the Life of Howard A. Goss. New York: Comet Press, 1958. Grass, Tim. ‘Dialogue between Evangelicals and Orthodox: Past, Present and Future’. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 27, no. 3 (July 2010): 186–198. Gros, Jeffrey. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 60–63. Groupe des Dombes. For the Conversion of the Churches. Translated by James Grieg. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1993. Gusmer, Charles W. ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Rome 1979: The Ministry of Healing in the Church’. One in Christ 21, no. 1 (1985): 51–60. Haight, Roger. Christian Community in History: Vol. 1; Historical Ecclesiology. New York: Continuum, 2004.

Sources and Bibliography

303

Haight, Roger. Christian Community in History: Vol. 2; Comparative Ecclesiology. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2005. Haight, Roger. Christian Community in History: Vol. 3; Ecclesial Existence. New York: Continuum, 2008. Hall, Jimmy Louis. ‘Response to the Report from the Third Quinquennium of the Dialogue between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders (1985–1989)’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 152–54. Harper, Michael. Three Sisters: A Provocative Look at Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Catholic Charismatics and Their Relationship to One Another. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1979. Haykin, Michael A. G., and Kenneth J. Stewart, eds. The Emergence of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities. Leicester: Apollos, 2008. Henn, William. ‘Les dialogues œcuméniques de l’Église catholique avec les Églises méthodistes, baptistes et les Églises de Pentecôte suggèrent-ils une autre voie d’approche du dialogue œcuménique?’. In Nouveaux apprentissages pour l’Église: Mélanges en l’honneur de Hervé Legrond, o.p., edited by Gilles Routhier and Laurent Villemin, 85–106. Paris: Cerf, 2006. Hess, Hans. ‘Mission Theology in Dialogue between Catholics and Pentecostals’. One in Christ 39, no. 4 (October 2004): 3–23. Hietamäki, Minna. Agreeable Agreement: An Examination of the Quest for Consensus in Ecumenical Dialogue. Vol. 8. Ecclesiological Investigations. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Hindmarsh, D. Bruce. The Evangelical Conversion Narrative: Spiritual Autobiography in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hocken, Peter. ‘Baptized in Spirit – An Eschatological Concept: A Response to Norbert Baumert and His Interlocutors’. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13, no. 2 (2005): 257–268. Hocken, Peter. ‘Charismatic Movement’. In New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas, 477–519. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2002. Hocken, Peter. ‘Church, Theology of the’. In NIDPCM, edited by S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas, 545. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Hocken, Peter. ‘Dialogue Extraordinary’. One in Christ 24, no. 3 (1988): 202–213. Hocken, Peter. ‘Ecumenical Dialogue: The Importance of Dialogue with Evangelicals and Pentecostals’. One in Christ 30 (1994): 101–123. Hocken, Peter. ‘Signs and Evidence: The Need for Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue on the Relationship between the Physical and Spiritual’. Pneuma 11, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 123–133. Hocken, Peter. ‘The Catholic Charismatic Renewal’. In Century of The Holy Spirit: Hundred Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901–2001, edited by Vinson Synan, 209–232, 462–465. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Hollenweger, Walter J. ‘Common Witness between Catholics and Pentecostals’. Pneuma 18, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 185–216. Hollenweger, Walter J. Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Hollenweger, Walter J. ‘Roman Catholics and Pentecostals in Dialogue’. The Ecumenical Review 51, no. 2 (April 1999): 147–159. Hollenweger, Walter J. ‘The Koinonia of the Establishment’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 154–157. Hollenweger, Walter J. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 63–65.

304

Sources and Bibliography

Höschele, Stefan. ‘On the Ecumenical and Separating Potential of Revivals: A Case Study of the Millerite Movement’. In Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, edited by Peter Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, 337–355. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Hubbard, David A. ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: A Response’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 157–160. Hunter, Harold D. ‘Sketches of Perspectives on Koinonia’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 161–166. Hunter, Harold D. ‘Two Movements of the Holy Spirit in the Twentieth Century? A Closer Look at Global Pentecostalism and Ecumenism’. One in Christ 38, no. 1 (January 2003): 31–39. Introvigne, Massimo. Aspettando la Pentecoste: Il quarto ecumenismo; Intervista a Matteo Calisi e Giovanni Traettino. Padova: Edizioni Messaggero Padova, 1996. Ionita, Viorel. ‘Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity: An Orthodox Perspective’. In Edinburgh 2010: Mission Then and Now, edited by David A. Kerr and Kenneth R. Ross, 263–275. Regnum Edinburgh 2010 Series 1. Oxford: Regnum Books, 2009. Irvin, Dale T. ‘Pentecostal Historiography and Global Christianity: Rethinking the Question of Origins’. Pneuma 27, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 35–50. Jacobsen, Douglas. ‘The Ambivalent Ecumenical Impulse in Early Pentecostal Theology in North America’. In Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments, edited by Wolfgang Vondey, 3–19. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Jeremias, Joachim. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. Library of History and Doctrine. London: SCM Press, 1960. Johnstone, Patrick, and Jason Mandryk. Operation World: Twenty-First-Century Edition. Rev. ed. Milton Keynes: Authentic Lifestyle, 2006. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Ad ultimum terrae: Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1990–1997). Studien zur interkulturellen Geschichte des Christentum 117. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘An Exercise on the Frontiers of Ecumenism: Almost Thirty Years of Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue’. Exchange 29, no. 2 (2000): 156–171. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti ‘ “Anonymous Ecumenists”? Pentecostals and the Struggle for Christian Identity’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 13–27. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Are Pentecostals Oblivious to Social Justice? Theological and Ecumenical Perspectives’. Missiology 4, no. 29 (2001): 417–431. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Authority, Revelation, and Interpretation in the Roman CatholicPentecostal Dialogue’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 89–114. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Church as Charismatic Fellowship: Ecclesiological Reflections from the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue’. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001): 100–121. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘David’s Sling: The Promise and Problem of Pentecostal Theology Today: A Response to D. Lyle Dabney’. Pneuma 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 147–152. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Pentecostalism and the Claim for Apostolicity: An Essay in Ecumenical Ecclesiology’. Evangelical Review of Theology 25, no. 4 (2001): 323–336. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Pentecostal Missiology in Ecumenical Perspective: Contributions, Challenges, Controversies’. International Review of Mission 88, no. 350 (1999): 207–225. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology’. In Studying Global Pentecostalism: Theories and Methods, edited by Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder,

Sources and Bibliography

305

Andre F. Droogers, and Cornelius van der Laan, 223–244. The Anthropology of Christianity 10. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2010. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Spirituality as a Resource for Social Justice: Reflections from the Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’. Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 6, no. 1 (January 2003): 83–96. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Spiritus ubi vult spirat: Pneumatology in Roman CatholicPentecostal Dialogue (1972–1989). Schriften der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft 42. Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Society, 1998. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Toward a Pneumatological Theology: Pentecostal and Ecumenical Perspectives on Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Theology of Mission. edited by Amos Yong, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Trinity as Communion in the Spirit: Koinonia, Trinity, and Filioque in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’. Pneuma 22, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 209–230. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. ‘Unity, Diversity, and Apostolicity: Are There Any Hopes for Rapprochement between Older and Younger Churches?’. In Believing in Community: Ecumenical Reflections on the Church, edited by P. De Mey, P. De Witte, and G. Mannion, 487–506. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 261. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2013. Kasper, Walter. A Handbook of Spiritual Ecumenism. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2007. Kay, William K. Apostolic Networks in Britain: New Ways of Being Church. Studies in Evangelical History and Thought. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2007. Kay, William K., and Anne E. Dyer, eds. European Pentecostalism. Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 7. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Kepnes, Steven. ‘A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning’. Modern Theology 22, no. 3 (July 2006): 367–383. King, Gerald Wayne. ‘Disfellowshiped: Pentecostal Responses to Fundamentalism in the United States, 1906–1943’. PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2009. Klaiber, Walter. ‘Auf dem Weg zu einer missionarischen Ökumene: Das gemeinsame Zeugnis der Kirchen in einer nachchristlichen Gesellschaft’. In Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, edited by Peter Demey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, 193–205. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Lee, Paul D. ‘Pneumatological Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: A Catholic Reading of the Third Quinquennium (1982–1989)’. PhD diss., Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1994. Lemopoulos, George, ed. Your Will Be Done: Orthodoxy in Mission. Karetini/Geneva: Tertios/WCC, 1989. Lens, Patrick. ‘Hoe word je christen? Opnieuw ontdekken van de charismatische “oergrond” ’. presented at the Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007. Locklin, Reid B., and Hugh Nicholson. ‘The Return of Comparative Theology’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78, no. 2 (June 2010): 477–514. Macchia, Frank D. ‘God Present in a Confused Situation: The Mixed Influence of the Charismatic Movement on Classical Pentecostalism in the United States’. Pneuma 18, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 33–54. Mannion, Gerard, ed. Comparative Ecclesiology: Critical Investigations. Ecclesiological Investigations 3. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

306

Sources and Bibliography

Mansfield, Patti Gallagher. As by a New Pentecost: The Dramatic Beginning of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University Press, 1992. Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Marsden, George M. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991. McAlister, Robert. ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, Rome 1979: The Ministry of Healing in the Church’. One in Christ 21, no. 1 (1985): 43–51. McAlpine, Thomas H. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 67–70. McClendon, James W. Jr Doctrine: Systematic Theology, Volume II. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994. McClymond, Michael J. ‘Revivals and Revivalism, Definitions and Theories of ’. In Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America, edited by Michael J. McClymond, 1:366–370 Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘Can Classical Pentecostals and Roman Catholics Engage in Common Witness’. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 3, no. 7 (1995): 97–106. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘Catholic Charismatic Renewal and Classical Pentecostalism: Growth and the Critique of a Systemic Suspicion’. One in Christ 23, no. 1–2 (1987): 36–61. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘Communion Ecclesiology and Baptism in the Spirit: Tertullian and the Early Church’. Theological Studies 49(1988): 671–693. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘Does the Theology and Practice of the Early Church Confirm the Classical Pentecostal Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit?’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (1999): 115–134. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘Five Defining Issues: The International Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue’. One in Christ 31, no. 2 (1995): 100–121. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘Improbable Conversations: The Classical Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue’. One in Christ 31, no. 1 (1995): 20–31. McDonnell, Kilian, ed. Presence, Power, Praise: Documents on the Charismatic Renewal. Vol. 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1980. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘Response to Martin Parmentier on Baptism and Spirit Baptism in the Church Fathers’. Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 3 (January 1998), http://www.fullnet.net/np/archives/cyberj/kilian.html. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘The Distinguishing Characteristics of the Charismatic-Pentecostal Spirituality’. One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 117–28. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘The Function of Tongues in Pentecostalism’. One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 332–354. McDonnell, Kilian. ‘The Pros and Cons of Dialogue with Roman Catholics’. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8, no. 16 (April 2000): 90–101. McGee, Gary B. Miracles, Missions and American Pentecostalism. American Society of Missiology Series 45. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010. McGee, Gary B. ‘Pentecostal Missiology: Moving Beyond Triumphalism to Face the Issues’. Pneuma 16, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 275–281. McLoughlin, William G. Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform: An Essay on Religion and Social Change in America, 1607–1977. Chicago History of American Religion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1980. McPherson, Aimee Semple. This Is That: Personal Experiences, Sermons and Writings of Aimee Semple McPherson, Evangelist. Los Angeles, CA: Bridal Call Publishing House, 1919.

Sources and Bibliography

307

McTernan, John. ‘Water Baptism: A Response to the Paper – The Distinguishing Characteristics of Charismatic Spirituality by Fr Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B’. One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 203–205. Menzies, Glen W. ‘A Pentecostal Response to On Becoming a Christian’. Ecumenical Trends 39, no. 1 (2010): 5–6, 15. Meyendorff, Paul. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 70–72. Meyer, Harding, Hans Jörg Urban, and Lukas Vischer, eds. Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung: Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene, 1931–1982. Vol. 1. Paderborn: Verlag Bonifatius-Druckerei, 1983. Meyer, Harding, and Lukas Vischer, eds. Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level. Ecumenical Documents 2/ Faith and Order Paper 108. New York: Pauline Press/WCC, 1984. Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 4nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004. Miller, Donald E, and Tetsunao Yamamori. Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007. Miranda, Jesse. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 72–75. Möller, F. P. ‘Faith and Experience’. One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 306–315. Montes Adolfo Gonzalez, ed. Enchiridion Oecumenicum: relaciones y documentos de los diálogos interconfesionales de la Iglesia Católica y otras iglesias cristianas y declaraciones de sus autoridades (1964–1984); con anexos de grupos no oficiales del diálogo teológico interconfesional. Bibliotheca Oecumenica Salmanticensis 12. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 1986. Morris, Jeremy. ‘Whose History? Historical Method and Ecclesiology in Ecumenical Context’. Ecclesiology 2, no. 1 (2005): 89–106. Mouw, Richard. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 75–77. Mühlen, Heribert. A Charismatic Theology: Initiation in the Spirit. Translated by Edward Quinn and Thomas Linton. London: Burns & Oates/Paulist Press, 1978. Mühlen, Heribert ‘Mysterium – Mystik – Charismatik’. Geist Und Leben 46, no. 3 (1973): 247–256. Murphy, Karen Jorgenson. ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: The Fifth Quinquennium of the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue in Historical-Theological Perspective’. PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2013. Murray, Paul D. ‘Families of Receptive Theological Learning: Scriptural Reasoning, Comparative Theology, and Receptive Ecumenism’. Modern Theology 29, no. 4 (October 2013): 76–92. Murray, Paul D., and Luca Badini Confalonieri, eds. Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Ochs, Peter. ‘Philosophic Warrants for Scriptural Reasoning’. Modern Theology 22, no. 3 (July 2006): 465–482. O’Connor, Edward. ‘The Hidden Roots of the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church’. In Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, edited by Vinson Synan, 169–192. Plainfield, NJ: Bridge Logos, 1975. Oeldemann, Johannes, Friederike, Nüssel, Uwe Swarat, and Athanasios Vletsis, eds. Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung: Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte

308

Sources and Bibliography

interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene 4; 2001–2010. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt/Bonifatius, 2012. O’Gara, Margaret. The Ecumenical Gift Exchange. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. Oliverio, L. William. Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account. Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 12. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ‘Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Final Report, 2002–2007’. Pneuma 30, no. 2 (2008): 203–224. Parmentier, Martien. ‘Water Baptism and Spirit Baptism in the Church Fathers’. Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 3 (January 1998), http://www.pctii. org/cyberj/cyberj3/martin1.html. Plaisier, B. ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: Een protestantse bijdrage bij de dialoog tussen de Rooms Katholieke Kerk en de Pinksterkerken’. presented at the Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007. Price, Constance Marie. ‘Pneumatology in the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 1972–1997: Areas for Further Study’. Doctoral dissertation, University of St Michael’s College, 2008. Raiser, Konrad. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 78–80. Rausch, Thomas P. ‘Perspectives on Koinonia: A Response’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 172–175. Reddin, Opal. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 81–86. Reed, David A. In Jesus’ Name: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 31. Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2008. Rethmann, Albert-Peter. ‘Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Pfingstbewegung und ihre Praxis’. In Pentekostalismus: die Pfingstbewegung als Anfrage an Theologie und Kirche, edited by Tobias Keßler and Albert Peter Rethmann, 15–33. Weltkirche und Mission 1. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2012. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘An Emerging Magisterium? The Case of the Assemblies of God’. Pneuma 25, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 164–215. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: An Update on the Fifth Round of Discussions’. Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas 82, no. 854 (June 2006): 473–508. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Do “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors”? Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness’. Asia Pacific Theological Seminary. Accessed 1 January 2014. http://www.apts.edu/aeimages//File/AJPS_PDF/99-1-robeck.pdf. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr Ecumenism and Ecumenical Opportunities for Pentecostals, 2010. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Lessons from the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue’. In Pentecostalism and Christian Unity. Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments, edited by Wolfgang Vondey 82–98. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Making Sense of Pentecostalism in a Global Context’. presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society of Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, MI, 13 March 1999. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: An Important Theme in the International Roman Catholic – Pentecostal Dialogue’. PentecoStudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements 7, no. 2 (2009): 1–28. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘ “On Becoming a Christian”: Some Thoughts on the International Roman Catholic – Pentecostal Dialogue’. presented at Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007.

Sources and Bibliography

309

Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Pentecostal Origins from a Global Perspective’. In All Together in One Place: Theological Papers from the Brighton Conference on World Evangelism, edited by Harold D. Hunter and Peter Hocken, 166–180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Pentecostals and Christian Unity: Facing the Challenge’. Pneuma 26, no. 2 (Fall 2004): 307–338. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Pentecostals and the Apostolic Faith: Implications for Ecumenism’. Pneuma 8, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 61–84. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Pentecostals and the Larger Church: The Current Status’. presented at the Pentecostal World Fellowship, January 2014. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: Challenges and Lessons for Living Together’. In Pentecostal Power: Expressions, Impact, and Faith of Latin American Pentecostalism, edited by Calvin Smith, 249–276. Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: Some Pentecostal Assumptions’. Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 21 (2001): 3–25. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Some Reflections on Current Catholic-Pentecostal Relations: What Are We Learning?’. In Festschrift for Msgr. John Radano, edited by Donald Bolen and Nicolas Jesson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, forthcoming. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Specks and Logs, Catholics and Pentecostals’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 77–83. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘Taking Stock of Pentecostalism: The Personal Reflections of a Retiring Editor’. Pneuma 15, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 35–60. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘The Assemblies of God and Ecumenical Cooperation: 1920–1965’. In Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, edited by Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies, 107–150. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 11. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2001. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘The Challenge Pentecostalism Poses to the Quest for Ecclesial Unity’. In Kirche in ökumenischer Perspektive: Festschrift für Kardinal Walter Kasper zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Walter, Klaus Krämer, and George Augustin, 306–320. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘The International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: An Update on the Fifth Round of Discussions’. University of Stellenbosch, 21 September 2004. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘What Should Roman Catholics Know about Pentecostalism?’. The Catholic World 276–281 (December 1995). Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘When Being a “Martyr” Is Not Enough: Catholics and Pentecostals’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 3–10. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr ‘William J. Seymour and “the Bible Evidence” ’. In Initial Evidence: Historical and Biblical Perspectives on the Pentecostal Doctrine of Spirit Baptism, edited by McGee Gary, 72–95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr and Jerry L. Sandidge. ‘Dialogue, Catholic and Pentecostal’. In NIDPCM, 576–582. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Robeck, Cecil M. Jr., and Jerry L. Sandidge. ‘The Ecclesiology of Koinōnia and Baptism: A Pentecostal Perspective’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 27, no. 3 (Summer 1990): 504–534. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977.

310

Sources and Bibliography

Root, Michael. ‘The Jubilee Indulgence and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’. Pro Ecclesia 9, no. 4 (Fall 2000): 460–475. Rossi, Teresa Francesca. Manuale di ecumenismo. Introduzioni e trattati 40. Brescia: Queriniana, 2012. Rossi, Teresa Francesca. ‘On Becoming a Christian: Reflections and Insights’. Ecumenical Trends 39, no. 1 (2010): 2–4. Rossi, Teresa Francesca. ‘Unity and Mission: The Missing Link’. In Mission und Einheit: Gemeinsames Zeugnis getrennter Kirchen? – Mission and Unity: Common Witness of Separated Churches?, edited by Peter De Mey, Andrew Pierce, and Oliver Schuegraf, 163–191. Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 91. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Rouse, Ruth, Stephen Charles Neill, and Harold Edward Fey, eds. A History of the Ecumenical Movement: Vol. 1; 1517–1948, 4th ed. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1993. Ruokanen, Miikka. Hermeneutics as an Ecumenical Method: In the Theology of Gerhard Ebeling. Schriften Der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft B13. Helsinki: Luther-AgricolaSociety, 1982. Rusch, William G. Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007. Ryan, Thomas. ‘Reception: Unpacking the New Holy Word’. Ecumenism 70 (1983): 27–34. Saarinen, Risto. God and the Gift: An Ecumenical Theology of Giving. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005. Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930. 1970; repr., Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press, 2008. Sandidge, Jerry L. ‘A Pentecostal Response to Roman Catholic Teaching on Mary’. Pneuma 4, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 33–42. Sandidge, Jerry L. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977–1982): A Study in Developing Ecumenism. 2 Vols. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987. Sandidge, Jerry L. ‘Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue: A Contribution to Christian Unity’. Pneuma 7, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 41–61. Scampini, Jorge Alejandro. La conversión de las iglesias, una necesidad y una urgencia de la fe: La experiencia del Groupe des Dombes como desarrollo de un método ecuménico eclesial (1937–1997). Cahiers œcuméniques 42. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires Fribourg, 2003. Schaff, Philip, ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 14 vols. First Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 14 vols. Second Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975. Schreck, Paul A. ‘New Maps for the Journey: Metaphoric Process in Ecumenical Theology’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 159–179. Schrotenboer, Paul, ed. ‘An Evangelical Response to Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’. Evangelical Review of Theology 13, no. 4 (October 1989): 291–313. Schuegraf, Oliver. Der einen Kirche Gestalt geben: Ekklesiologie in den Dokumenten der bilateralen Konsensökumene. Jerusalemer theologisches Forum 3. Münster: Aschendorff, 2001. Schuegraf, Oliver. ‘Finding Bilateral Agreement: The Rules of the Game’. Ecumenical Review 55, no. 3 (July 2003): 264–271. Scruggs, Ryan. ‘Faith Seeking Understanding: Theological Method in Thomas Merton’s Interreligious Dialogue’. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46, no. 3 (June 2011): 411–426.

Sources and Bibliography

311

Spittler, Russell P. ‘Are Pentecostals and Charismatics Fundamentalists? A Review of American Uses of These Categories’. In Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, edited by Karla Poewe, 103–116. Studies in Comparative Religion. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. Stackhouse Jr., John G., ed. Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion?. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Stålsett Jr., Sturla J., ed. Spirits of Globalisation: The Growth of Pentecostalism and Experiential Spiritualities in a Global Age. London: SCM Press, 2006. Stephenson, Christopher A. Types of Pentecostal Theology: Method, System, Spirit. American Academy of Religion Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Stransky, Thomas F. ‘Commentary on Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness’. PCPCU Information Service 97 (1998): 57–61. Sullivan, Francis A. Charisms and Charismatic Renewal. Ann Arbor, IL: Servant Books, 1982. Sutton, Matthew A. ‘ “Between the Refrigerator and the Wildfire”: Aimee Semple McPherson, Pentecostalism, and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy’. Church History 72, no. 1 (March 2003): 159. Synan, Vinson. ‘Response to Perspectives on Koinonia’. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 175–178. Synan, Vinson. ‘Speaking in Tongues’. One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 323–331. Synan, Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971. Synan, Vinson. The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Synan, Vinson. ‘The Role of the Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Spirit in the Mystical Tradition’. One in Christ 10, no. 2 (1974): 193–202. Tchonang, Gabriel. ‘Les impasses du dialogue catholique-pentecôtiste’. Revue des sciences religieuses 86, no. 1 (2012): 71–90. Tchonang, Gabriel. L’essor du pentecôtisme dans le monde: Une conception utilitariste du salut en Jésus-Christ. Collection Eglises d’Afrique. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2009. Thigpen, T. P. ‘Catholic Charismatic Renewal’. In NIDPCM, edited by S. M. Burgess and E. M. Van der Maas, 460–467. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2002. ‘Thirteen Responses to “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness” ’. Pneuma 21, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 52–88. Thomas, John Christopher. ‘ “Where the Spirit Leads” – the Development of Pentecostal Hermeneutics’. Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education 30, no. 3 (December 2009): 289–302. Thurian, M., ed. Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’ Text. 6 vols. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986. Tjørhom, Ola. ‘An “Ecumenical Winter”? Challenges in Contemporary Catholic Ecumenism’. Heythrop Journal 49, no. 5 (2008): 841–859. Valentin, Elieser. ‘The Episcopacy in the Pentecostal Tradition’. Presented at the Assisi 2012 Gathering, Assisi, 20 April 2012. Vandervelde, George. ‘Response to Perspectives on Koinonia’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 178–181. Voicu, Sever J., and Giovanni Cereti, eds. Dialoghi internazionali, 1931–1984. Enchiridion oecumenicum: Documenti del dialogo teologico interconfessionale 1. Bologna: Dehoniane, 1986.

312

Sources and Bibliography

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Sacra Doctrina. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Vondey, Wolfgang. Heribert Mühlen: His Theology and Praxis; A New Profile of the Church. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004. Vondey, Wolfgang, ed. Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Vondey, Wolfgang, ed. Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, Volume 2: Continuing and Building Relationships. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013. Vondey, Wolfgang. ‘Presuppositions for Pentecostal Engagement in Ecumenical Dialogue’. Exchange 30, no. 4 (2001): 344–358. Vondey, Wolfgang. ‘The Denomination in Classical and Global Pentecostal Ecclesiology: A Historical and Theological Contribution’. In Denomination: Assessing an Ecclesiological Category, edited by Paul M. Collins and Barry A. Ensign-George, 100–116. Ecclesiological Investigations 11. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Wacker, Grant. ‘Are the Golden Oldies Still Worth Playing? Reflections on History Writing among Early Pentecostals’. Pneuma 8, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 81–100. Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Wacker, Grant. ‘Playing for Keeps: The Primitivist Impulse in Early Pentecostalism’. In The American Quest for the Primitive Church, edited by Richard T. Hughes, 196–219. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988. Wagner, Benjamin A. ‘Cautious Embrace: The Assemblies of God and the Charismatic Renewal’. Assemblies of God Heritage 29 (2009): 34–43. Walgrave, J. H. ‘Experience and Faith’. One in Christ 19, no. 4 (1983): 316–323. Ware, Steven L. ‘Restoring the New Testament Church: Varieties of Restorationism in the Radical Holiness Movement of the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries’. Pneuma 21, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 233–250. Warrington, Keith. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Wenk, Matthias. ‘Conversion and Initiation: A Pentecostal View of Biblical and Patristic Perspectives’. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 8, no. 17 (October 2000): 56–80. ‘Word and Spirit, Church and World: The Final Report of the International Dialogue between Representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1996–2000’. Pneuma 23, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 9–43. Wright, Nigel G. Free Church, Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision. Waynesboro, VA: Paternoster Press, 2006. Yong, Amos. ‘Pentecostalism and the Theological Academy’. Theology Today 64 (July 2007): 244–250. Zegwaart, Huibert. ‘Christian Experience in Community’. Cyberjournal for PentecostalCharismatic Research 11 (2002), http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj11/zagwaart.html. Zegwaart, Huibert. ‘Reactie op “On Becoming a Christian” ’. presented at the Hoe word je een Christen?, VU Amsterdam, 30 November 2007. Zegwaart, Huibert. ‘The Place of the Church in the Economy of Salvation. Roman Catholic and Pentecostal Perspectives: Room for Rapprochement?’. The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 21 (2001): 26–40. Ziefle, Joshua R. David Du Plessis and the Assemblies of God: The Struggle for the Soul of a Movement. Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies 13. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Zopfi, Jakob. ‘Candid Thoughts on Perspectives’. Pneuma 12, no. 2 (Fall 1990): 182–183.

Sources and Bibliography

Newspaper articles ‘At a Glance’. Pentecostal Evangel (21 October 1990), 27. ‘Bidden voor niet-Latijns-Amerikaanse Paus’. Nederlands Dagblad (Saturday, April 16, 2005), front page. ‘Roman Catholics and Pentecostals Hold Dialogue’. Church of God Evangel (November 1992), 31–32. ‘Special People Performing a Special Function’. Advance vol. 35 no. 4 (March/April 1990), 22. ‘The Winter of Ecumenism’. The Tablet (13 January 1990).

313

Index adult baptism. See believers baptism American Baptist Church 294 Amos, Clare 280 Anderson, Allan 10, 11, 12–13, 18, 28, 82, 101, 246 Apostolic Church 61, 76, 88, 112, 158, 226 apostolic era. See restorationism Apostolic Faith Mission 41, 49, 61, 62, 88 apostolicity 10, 70, 109 Assemblies of God (AG) 17, 34, 41, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 72, 76, 79, 86, 90, 156, 164, 246 authorities, church 113, 203, 208, 255 authority 46, 47, 127, 128, 207, 208, 209, 217, 218, 234, 235, 242, 243, 244, 245, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258 Avis, Paul 272, 273 awakenings. See revivalism Balmer, Randall 25 baptism 2, 16, 17, 30, 110, 111, 114, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 182, 196, 197, 217, 220, 222, 224, 226 baptismal formula 29, 30, 76 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) 2, 175 baptism in the holy Spirit 13, 18, 21, 22, 23, 34, 74, 75, 78, 103, 108, 110, 111, 116, 168, 171, 172, 204, 205, 251 Bebbington, David 15, 18, 20 believers 13, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 30, 43, 44, 128, 131, 132, 148, 158, 159, 160, 161, 197, 198, 202 believers baptism 2, 16, 114, 175, 179, 205 Belobaba, Rose 87 Bergunder, Michael 10, 13, 101 BewegungPlus 62, 79 Bible 17, 22, 124, 125, 127, 130, 181, 182, 186, 202, 208, 224, 226, 239, 241, 243, 244, 245, 251, 258. See also Scripture

biblical 69, 142, 156–8, 162, 163, 172, 173, 180, 184, 230, 234, 236, 241, 250, 251, 252, 267 bishops 6, 17, 44, 46, 145, 146, 209, 217, 222, 244, 249, 256 Bittlinger, Arnold 40, 60, 83, 84, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 196, 197, 199 Bouyer, Louis 113, 115 Bridges Johns, Cheryl 42, 52, 79, 80, 81, 172 Brinkman, Martien 268 Broederschap van Pinkstergemeenten 53, 61, 62 Bundy, David 29 Burbidge, Michael 6 Burgess, Stanley 11, 12, 17, 32, 33, 34, 76 Carlson, Raymond 50 Carmichael, William L. 41, 50, 52, 63, 84, 87, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 137 Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) 27, 34–5, 67, 109, 112, 142, 200, 244, 251, 254 Cerillo, Augustus 11 charismatic manifestations 115, 116, 117, 197, 198, 202, 203, 210, 219, 220, 248, 257 Charismatic movement, Protestant 9, 12, 13, 29, 33, 48, 57, 73, 74, 94, 202, 203 Charta Oecumenica 229, 280 church free 43, 44, 45, 47, 274 invisible 17, 141, 148, 177 local 17, 44, 141, 146, 163, 222 universal 44, 45, 142, 148 visible 17, 141, 148, 177 church fathers 71, 170, 242, 243, 248 Church of God 9, 17, 49, 61, 62, 79 Church of God in Christ 49, 79, 88

Index Church of God of Prophecy 61, 62, 79 church history 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 112, 113, 117, 141, 143, 202, 206, 209, 218, 223, 238, 239, 244, 275 church leaders 1, 64, 65, 68, 95, 138, 208, 215 church order 44, 46, 144, 146, 217, 221, 223, 225, 267 Clooney, Francis X. 273 Cole, David 6, 42, 51, 54, 64, 65, 68, 78, 86, 88, 89, 90, 99, 139, 170, 171, 172, 186, 188, 253 common witness 45, 93, 108, 151, 152, 226, 227, 230, 231, 232, 237, 248, 258, 267, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281 Comparative Theology 273, 274 composition, Pentecostal dialogue team’s 5, 39, 41, 42, 79, 83, 85, 94, 95, 197 confrontation 14, 35, 160, 161, 188, 194, 210, 230, 270, 271, 272, 281 constituencies 38, 40, 41, 71, 93, 95, 96, 107, 200, 201, 226, 233, 234, 239, 264, 265 convergences 159, 162, 164, 166, 167, 170, 171, 177, 215, 216, 218, 220, 229, 230, 251, 253, 254, 258, 274, 280 conversion 18, 20, 21, 22, 30, 74, 75, 146, 148, 171, 176, 177, 178, 219, 239, 241, 247, 251, 252, 267 personal 15, 16, 17, 19, 58 conversionism 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 43, 44, 149, 196 cultures 32, 51, 115, 230, 232, 237, 243 Dabney, Lyle 263–4 Dalton, William 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130 Daniels, Eugene 238 Del Colle, Ralph 69–71, 100, 169, 171, 172, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249, 258, 267 De Mey, Peter 19, 279, 280 de Monléon, Albert 109, 116 denominations 19, 22, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 60, 61, 62, 72, 73, 79, 94, 95, 96, 148 dialogue local 90 Lutheran-Roman Catholic 194

315

Dialogue, Anglican-Catholic 275 Dialogue, Baptist– Catholic 2, 235 Dialogue on Mission, Evangelical-Roman Catholic 2 dialogues, local 83, 90, 91, 96, 265 diversity 9, 10, 12, 16, 81, 92, 93, 95, 144, 145, 232, 234, 235, 236, 242, 243, 249, 251, 265, 277 ethnic 87, 88, 89, 92, 93 non-theological 92, 93 drafts 105, 106, 107, 113, 121, 123, 129, 140, 153, 162, 165, 170, 171, 172, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 191 du Plessis, David 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 72, 76, 78, 101, 102, 108, 109, 197 du Plessis, Justus 41, 42, 48, 50–5, 61, 65, 76, 78, 82, 84, 85, 88, 94, 143, 146, 151, 154, 155, 156, 228 Duprey, Pierre 41, 52, 61, 67, 84, 85, 102 early church 25, 28, 46, 59, 68, 141, 157, 183, 184, 209, 210, 218, 238, 239, 241, 243, 248, 256 ecclesiality 43, 44 ecclesiology 4, 15, 16, 17, 27, 43, 44, 68, 113, 141, 142, 143, 173, 191, 225, 233, 235, 272, 274, 276 comparative 222, 274 free church 43, 44, 47, 57 Roman Cathoic 44, 45, 223 ecumenical reception. See reception Edwards, Jonathan 18 Elim Fellowship 61, 79 Elim Pentecostal Church 61 Emmert, Athanasios 113, 115 Endecott, Clayton 86, 170, 171, 253 Ervin, Howard 48, 54 ethnicities. See diversity, ethnic Eucharist 2, 110, 114, 118, 143, 144, 145, 175, 204, 211 European Pentecostal Theological Association 10, 70, 71 Evangelicalism 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 31, 51, 67, 69, 132, 158, 266, 269 Evangelii Nuntiandi 157, 160, 162, 163 evangelization 19, 151, 152, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 227, 230, 231, 233, 236, 272, 277

316 Evans, Gillian R. 193, 194, 212, 213, 275, 276 evidence, initial 13, 21, 22, 116 experience charismatic 115, 117–18, 204, 247 common 148, 219, 278 personal 15, 18, 26, 119, 143, 236, 257 religious 109, 113, 115, 117, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 207, 210, 219, 244, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 273, 276 faith common 196, 219, 268, 275, 277 profession of 177, 178, 179 faith missions 21, 22, 23, 24 faith and reason 130, 132, 133, 210 Fiedler, Klaus 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 Finished Work 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 94 Fischer, Balthasar 110, 114, 116 freedom, religious 231, 232, 238 Fundamentalism 26, 31–3, 127, 130, 132, 231, 238 Gäbler, Ulrich 20 Gasper, Hans 71, 91, 171, 172, 191, 229 Gaxiola-Gaxiola, Manuel J. 76, 77, 81, 85, 88 Gaxiola-Gaxiola, Manuel Jesús 76 gender 92, 93, 95 George, Timothy 233 Gibbs, Eddie 229 Giblet, Jean 104, 106 gifts, spiritual 12, 13, 18, 27, 28, 46, 59, 104, 108, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, 129, 142, 160, 198, 205, 223 Global Christian Forum (GCF) 4, 19, 266 globalization 81, 82 Gómez, Juan Usma 6, 92, 99, 134, 136, 153, 156, 157, 169, 170, 171, 172, 188, 215, 233 gospel, full 12, 18, 26, 27, 73 grace 30, 71, 74, 112, 122, 143, 150, 163, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 196, 237, 244, 246, 247, 248, 279 Groupe des Dombes 267 Gusmer, Charles 125, 131 Haight, Roger 274 Hamer, Jerome 101, 102, 103

Index hard questions 102, 103, 120, 121–4, 128, 129, 134, 135, 139, 144, 152, 156, 161, 162, 167, 169, 187, 188, 190, 271 Classical Pentecostal 103, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 145, 146, 150, 159, 167, 178, 183 Roman Catholic 103, 122, 126–31, 144, 146, 150, 160, 161, 164, 177, 183, 267 healing 67, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 133, 159, 211, 212, 273 Henn, William 71, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 180, 181, 184, 191, 275, 281 hermeneutics 25, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 176, 193, 202, 212, 218, 223, 242, 249, 252, 254, 255, 257 Hindmarsh, Bruce 15, 16 Hispanics 87, 88 Historical Method 194, 275, 276 history, common 275, 276 Hocken, Peter 10, 14, 17, 27, 33, 34, 68, 69, 71, 76, 199, 269 holiness 3, 30, 71, 74, 78, 79, 81, 143, 175, 223, 268 Holiness movement 11, 12, 13, 21, 27 Holiness-Pentecostal Movement 79, 80, 81, 111 infant baptism 19, 111, 114, 116, 118, 158, 173, 178, 181, 205, 217, 219, 220, 224, 246 Initiation, Christian 117, 118, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 204, 205, 239, 251 International Anglican and Roman Catholic Commission on Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) 280 International Church of the Foursquare Gospel 49, 61, 62, 88 International Communion of Charismatic Churches 61 International Evangelical Church 61 International Pentecostal Holiness Church 49, 52, 79, 174 interpretation 111, 124, 125, 126, 130, 132, 181, 182, 183, 184, 202, 209, 210, 218, 223, 240, 241, 242, 246, 251 involvement, female 86, 87

Index Jenkins, James 155 Jeremias, Joachim 181 Jesus 16, 17, 23, 30, 45, 125, 126, 129, 148, 166, 174, 197, 217, 219, 225, 240, 241, 242, 268 Jesus’ Name 30, 76, 77, 277 Johnson, Todd M. 13, 76, 82 Joint Steering Committee 40, 83, 86, 89, 105, 107, 108, 120, 121, 135, 140, 153, 168, 228 Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 17, 55, 70, 73, 157, 167, 168, 218, 255, 263–4, 268 Kasper, Walter Cardinal 70, 71 Ko, Maria 6, 140, 171, 186, 189, 191, 192 koinonia 44, 76, 92, 136, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 160, 215, 220, 221–3, 266, 270, 277 eucharistic 144, 145 imperfect 219, 220, 222 Kydd, Ronald 55, 79, 80, 85, 87, 89, 152, 153, 154, 156, 168 Legrand, Hervé, 138, 142, 146, 147 Lovett, Leonard 88 Mannion, Gerard 70 Marcial Maçaneiro 6, 91 Marsden, Bruce 32 Mary 66, 67, 71, 122, 130, 136, 209, 212, 213, 220, 276 McAlister, Robert 125, 128, 129 McAlpine, Thomas H. 167, 233 McClendon, James Wm 26 McDonnell, Kilian 40, 41, 61, 62, 63, 102, 111, 114, 120, 121, 126, 138, 151, 153, 155, 156, 169, 185, 245, 269 McGee, Gary B. 18, 23, 24 McLoughlin, William 20, 21, 24 McPherson, Aimee Semple 26, 32 McTernan, John 105 Meeking, Basil 52, 63, 64, 90, 102, 120, 121, 135, 137–8, 143 Menzies, William W. 49, 70, 85, 158, 159, 162, 163, 164 Meyendorff, Paul 233, 238 ministry 2, 46, 122, 123, 125, 128, 129, 131, 142, 143, 145–6, 160, 161,

317

208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 266, 267. See also ordination miracles 13, 18, 23, 33, 124, 125 Miranda, Jesse 68, 227 missiology 10, 70, 71, 158 missions 18, 22, 23, 24, 44, 45, 116, 117, 158, 159, 162, 163, 227, 229, 230, 235, 236, 245, 279, 280 Montague, George T. 168, 170, 184 Moore, David 6, 72, 99, 100 Mühlen, Heribert 35, 112, 115, 116, 141, 142–5, 147, 148 Müller, Karl 156, 157, 162, 163, 164, 166 Murphy, Karen 91, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 180, 181, 182, 248 Murray, Paul D. 273 mysticism 112, 116 Neo-Pentecostals. See Charismatic movement, Protestant Netherlands, Pentecostal-Catholic Dialogue in the 91, 266 non-theological variety 82, 93 observers 6, 42, 52, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64–5, 71, 72, 73, 76, 85, 87, 95, 136, 137 official representation 38, 60–2, 72, 264, 265 Oneness Pentecostalism 29–31, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 133, 226 Open Bible Standard Churches 62 ordinances 16, 222, 224. See also sacraments ordination 28, 46, 146, 150, 211, 212. See also ministry ordo salutis 172, 175, 176, 177, 181 Original United Holy Church International 79, 88 Orthodox Churches 2, 48, 279 Palma, Marta 85, 86, 88, 91 paper presenters 40, 41, 54, 55, 65, 80, 108 patristic writings 69, 169, 170, 172–5, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 249, 250, 251, 258, 259, 267 Paul 166, 252 Pauline 27, 28, 46, 141, 173, 182, 201

318

Index

Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada 49, 61, 62, 87 Pentecostalism, definition of 47, 57, 81, 82, 102, 197, 198 Pentecostal Steering Committee (PSC) 39, 40, 41, 42, 50, 54, 57, 78, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 136, 137 Pentecostal World Conference (PWC) 49, 151 Pentecostal World Fellowship (PWF) 45, 49, 50, 51, 57, 118 perfection 21, 22 Pierce, Andrew 19, 279, 280 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) 68, 85, 89, 91, 92, 151, 153, 155, 168, 226 Pope John Paul II 138, 235, 244, 245 Pope Leo XIII 244, 245 Pope Paul VI 108, 209, 235, 244 power 10, 21, 22, 27, 33, 42, 74, 77, 129, 146, 157, 197, 198, 204, 209, 210, 231, 247, 248, 267 Pratt, Thomas D. 172, 175, 176, 180–1, 184 prayer 104, 107, 108, 125, 128, 137, 139, 161, 197, 198, 199, 200, 204, 205, 240, 241, 245, 246, 276, 277 joint 106, 154, 186, 200, 267, 268 press release 61, 63, 65, 66, 76, 104, 105, 121, 138, 199, 275, 276 proselytism 19, 85, 93, 151, 152, 165, 168, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 238, 271, 272, 275 Protestants, Charismatic 40, 47, 48, 53, 56, 61, 63, 80, 82, 102, 107, 134, 198, 205 Radano, John 52, 54, 70, 91, 137, 138, 140, 143, 153, 156, 168, 170, 172 Raem, Heinz-Albert 153, 154, 155, 156 Raiser, Konrad 229, 230, 232 re-baptism 17, 19 reception 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 49, 65, 68, 72, 73, 90, 93, 94, 95–6, 175, 177, 251, 281 Receptive Ecumenism 213, 272, 273 recognition, official 49, 50, 61 redaction process 167, 168, 187, 191, 275 Reddin, Opal 59, 227, 228, 233, 235 Redemptoris Missio 157, 158, 162, 163

Reed, David A. 30–1, 76 Reformed Churches 3, 16, 99, 264 religions 11, 20, 32, 73, 157, 160, 164, 166, 238, 273 representatives, official 49, 61, 62, 65, 263 responses, Roman Catholic 218 restorationism 17, 21, 24–8, 59, 92, 145, 174, 198, 218, 242, 244, 247, 256 revivalism 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 revivals 18, 19, 20–4, 28, 74 rites 108, 110, 114, 116, 125, 128, 177, 178, 183, 205, 246, 251 Robeck Jr, Cecil M. 6, 14, 16, 41, 42, 51, 55, 59, 68–70, 74, 76, 78, 79, 89, 136, 141, 148, 155, 156, 188 Roman Catholic Initiation of Adults (RCIA) 179, 246, 252 Root, Michael 271 Rossi, Teresa Francesca 6, 70, 99, 186, 246, 250, 268, 279, 280 Rusch, William G. 38 sacramentology, Catholic 146, 150, 226 sacraments 15, 16, 17, 19, 128, 133, 145, 146, 150, 179, 211, 212, 222, 223, 224, 225, 250, 251, 266, 267. See also ordinances salvation 15, 16, 17, 20, 30, 71, 74, 78, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 175, 176, 180, 209, 216 sanctification 12, 21, 22, 30, 74, 116, 118, 205, 251 Sandidge, Jerry L. 6, 16, 17, 51, 53, 54, 66, 67, 76, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 106, 107, 123, 138, 151, 185 Schoch, Paul 126, 127, 128 Schuegraf, Oliver 19, 193, 279, 280 science 25, 32, 203, 256 Scriptural Reasoning 273, 274 Scripture 25, 26, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132, 162, 202, 207, 208, 210, 211, 216, 217–21, 223, 234, 241–4, 248, 255. See also Bible authority of 26, 179, 202, 255 interpretation of 159, 217, 218, 223, 255 Scripture and tradition 127, 130, 132, 202, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 218, 219, 221, 233, 234, 242, 245, 254, 255

Index Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity 2, 4, 41, 67, 85, 91, 102, 123, 195, 196, 212 Seymour, William J. 16, 22 social justice 70, 77, 129, 131, 133, 227, 230, 245 Societas Oecumenica 100, 279, 280 Society for Pentecostal Studies (SPS) 54 sources 5, 6, 127, 132, 194, 200, 201, 210, 227, 228, 233, 234, 237, 239, 241, 246, 249, 254, 255, 259 theological 194, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 210, 214, 216, 218, 220, 228, 241, 244, 248, 249, 254, 255, 256, 275 written 131, 133, 147, 148, 149, 186 Spirit Baptism. See baptism in the Holy Spirit spiritual ecumenism 268, 271 spirituality 110, 112, 116, 119, 185, 186, 188, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 207, 212, 213, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272 Catholic 104, 204, 266 charismatic 111, 112, 113 Pentecostal 11, 12, 13, 73, 92, 94, 103, 104, 108, 219, 254 spiritual practices 207, 211, 212, 213, 267 Steering Committee (SC) 31, 32, 39, 40, 42, 91, 103, 104, 107, 108, 140, 156, 185 structural unity 200, 207, 228, 229, 240, 253, 273 structures 34, 38, 40, 41, 43, 46, 65, 129, 144, 146, 161, 162, 184, 186, 215, 219, 231, 232, 239, 250 denominational 46, 47, 49 Synan, Vinson 30, 32, 34, 52, 53, 54, 61, 67, 68, 111, 112, 115, 116, 126, 127, 128, 147, 224 Tarr, Dell 59, 143, 144, 153 Tchonang, Gabriel 4, 58 theological method 5, 121, 193, 194, 195, 200, 206, 207, 215, 226, 227, 239, 252, 253, 264, 267, 269, 274, 275 theology baptismal 173, 179, 217 constructive 142, 254, 256, 263, 264, 271, 274

319

sacramental 125, 179 systematic 11, 26, 73, 141, 197, 247, 271 Third World 41, 55, 81, 83, 84, 86, 161 tongues 12, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 34, 59, 67, 75, 116, 198, 210, 212, 252, 257 tradition and traditions 28, 31, 142, 208, 213, 221, 242, 265, 272 ecclesial 27, 74, 272 mystical 108, 111, 112, 205 role of 202, 255 spiritual 186, 244 theological 164, 194, 255, 273 transformation 4, 25, 82, 177, 178, 236, 248 translations 83, 91, 92, 109, 111, 112, 113, 181, 243 Trask, Thomas 51, 155 treasurer 41, 42, 84 Trinitarian Classical Pentecostalism 29, 30, 31, 78, 79 Trinitarian theology 16, 28, 29, 31, 43, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 133, 142, 143, 147, 160, 162, 179, 222, 236 Triune God 147, 149, 197, 224, 268 truth 3, 12, 25, 32, 109, 173, 195, 199, 200, 208, 209, 216, 232 Unitatis Redintegratio (UR) 31, 145, 163, 196, 209, 219, 235, 244, 268 unity 44, 45, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 198, 199, 227, 229, 238, 240, 241, 277, 278, 279, 280 Christian 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 44, 45, 59, 69, 92, 116, 149, 163, 197, 219, 235, 247, 257, 274, 278–9 van der Laan, Cornelis 53, 65 Vatican Council II 2, 34, 110, 112, 113, 147, 209, 210, 214, 218, 219, 234, 235, 238, 242, 244, 245, 256 Vereb, Jerome 121, 123 Vischer, Lukas 67 visible Christian unity 1, 19, 58, 148, 149, 193, 219, 277, 278 voices 54, 56, 57, 64, 77, 83, 84, 86, 87, 250, 253, 265, 275

320

Index

Volf, Miroslav 43, 44, 52, 54, 85, 94, 140, 143, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153, 187, 191, 215 Vondey, Wolfgang 2, 3, 14, 38, 45, 46, 67, 69, 100, 112, 193, 197 Wacker, Grant 11, 21, 24, 27, 28 Ware, Steven L. 26 Willebrands, Johannes Cardinal 101, 103, 151 women 83, 86, 87, 92 World Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) 32, 33

World Christianity 82 World Council of Churches (WCC) 1, 2, 3, 4, 67, 88, 99, 100, 230, 235, 279 World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) 2 World Missionary Conference 1, 235, 278, 279 Wright, Nigel 44 Zegwaart, Huibert 55, 69, 71, 85, 86, 171, 247 Zimmerman, Thomas F. 50, 151 Zopfi, Jakob 68, 225