Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches and Ecumenism: An Interview with Mel Robeck

 

A conversation with Professor and Pentecostal Statesman Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.

 

PneumaReview.com: As a Pentecostal, how do you define ecumenism?

Mel Robeck: The term “ecumenism” is derived from the Greek word oikoumene, which comes from the noun, oikos. The basic meaning of oikos is “house,” and by extension, oikoumene refers to those things, which have to do with the household. I understand the ecumenical household to be the “Household of God,” the Church, the whole “People of God,” the Christian community. From my perspective, then, ecumenism is a term reserved primarily for the issues of relationship that exist between Christians. My understanding of what constitutes a Christian is fairly simple. A Christian is one who confesses that Jesus Christ is his or her Lord and Savior.

In my ecumenical work, I begin with the biblical premise that there is only one Church and that all who confess Jesus Christ are part of that Church, regardless of their denominational label. But if we drive down the street in any of our cities, we can see that there is something wrong. How is it that we have so many denominations—over 30,000 around the world today—while there is only one Church? Why is it that many of these denominations have nothing to do with one another, yet there is only one Church? Why do we speak against one another, and yet we say that we belong to the same Church?

Many people who are not Christians ask these same questions. Unfortunately, these questions compromise the message of reconciliation that we preach, the message that God has offered through Jesus Christ, a means of breaking down all barriers between God and humankind, and between all individuals. The result is that those outside the Church are either confused about the effectiveness of the Gospel, or they are completely scandalized by what they view as our “hypocritical” claims.

The so-called “Ecumenical Movement” first came into being as a direct result of these evangelistic and missionary concerns. The World Council of Churches, which was founded, in part, as a result of these concerns, seeks to overcome the historic divisions between its member denominations. Along the way, it has also addressed other human, inter-religious, and environmental issues that represent the concerns of the churches that are members of the Council. The World Council of Churches has invited all Churches who can confess that “Jesus Christ is both God and Savior according to the Scriptures” to join together in a common quest for visible Christian unity. Very few Pentecostals have taken them up on their offer.

As a Pentecostal, I believe that this invitation is a legitimate one that is consistent with the Gospel. I believe that we must begin by acknowledging the spiritual, and therefore, the invisible character of the unity that makes Christians part of the Church—but the Church does not stop there. The Church while invisible, at the same time shows a visible face to the world. We have been made one by the Holy Spirit, but our inability to live and work together with other Christians with whom we may at times have deep differences, is clearly confusing to the world. For the sake of mission alone, then, we need a united witness to the reconciling power of the Gospel. I view such a pursuit as nothing more than a response to the Pauline exhortation of Ephesians 4:3 (NRSV), “making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” While interdenominational cooperation is a good first step, it is limited in what it can actually achieve. It allows us to continue to live with the status quo, cooperating on our own terms, and not when it is difficult for us. Interdenominational cooperation does not ultimately challenge us toward fuller healing and reconciliation, while a genuine quest for some form of “visible unity” challenges us at a very deep level.

 

 

PneumaReview.com: Why should Pentecostal/charismatics be involved in ecumenical dialogue?

Mel Robeck: I am convinced that most of our real differences do not so much lie where we say they do, that is, in our various theological positions. Yes, our doctrinal differences are sometimes deep and they are very real. But our most substantive differences lie in a history packed with personal relationships that have been broken, in the misinformation that has been sown between us, in our differing sociologies and social locations, in our unwillingness to admit that during our time of division the other could have changed, or that God could be working among them when they strive toward some form of visible unity. All too often, we seem to have a psychological need to be “right”—that is, to be in control.

Pentecostal/charismatics do have a right to critique both the theology and practice of other Christians, but we would not be genuine if we did not also affirm the right of others to critique ours. What we don’t have is the right to reject interaction or participation with them out of hand. We have the responsibility to challenge them to greater levels of conformity to the Word of God, but we don’t have the right to disinherit them as our siblings, our brothers and sisters “in Christ.” Our unwillingness to take up this responsibility leaves “them” without the gifts that God has given to us for the Church and it leaves “us” without the gifts that God has given through them for the Church. We really do need one another, and we all suffer because of our unwillingness to admit that simple fact. What is extremely sad to me is the fact that all too often we criticize “them” for not exhibiting the very things that “we” view as our strengths. “We” withhold from “them” what God has given to “us.” By doing this, “we” condemn “them” to failure when “we” could be “their” source of healing. In the end, I believe that “we” will be held accountable for what we refuse to offer to “them” that would enable “them” to be whole, and “we” will be held accountable for what “we” refuse to accept in the help that the Lord offers to “us” through “them.”

In their “Decree on Ecumenism” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1), the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who gathered in Rome for the Second Vatican Council made a very important assertion.

Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but they differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ himself were divided. Certainly such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature.

If the divisions of the Church truly hold such implications for the proclamation of the Gospel that we are called to share with the world (Matthew 28: 19-20), and which we lift up as one of our reasons for being, then it is important for our congregations and denominations to work at those things that divide us from one another. One way for this to happen is for Christians of good will, who are troubled by the current state of affairs, to sit down with one another and talk about their differences. Essentially, that is all that ecumenical dialogue is. Dialogue can help us to understand one another. It can help us to clear out the “dead wood” that separates us. It can help us to acknowledge our differences. It can help us to plan how to move forward together.

 

 

PneumaReview.com: How does ecumenical dialogue relate to the faith, life, and work of the local church?

Mel Robeck: The way that I look at ecumenism—that it embraces those things that affect the “Household of God”—means that I see it as having an enormous impact upon the ongoing faith, life, and work of the Church. To the extent that my local congregation sees itself as part of that universal Church, or to word it another way, to the extent that the universal Church finds its expression in my local congregation, I am already involved in ecumenism. This relationship between the local and the universal aspects of the Church is sometimes referred to in terms of the Church’s “catholicity.” When I try to interact with others who make the same claims about their local congregations as I do with respect to its universal ecclesial nature, I engage in ecumenical dialogue.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, first drafted in AD 325 and expanded in AD 381 is a creed that all Pentecostal/charismatics should be able to embrace. This creed names what have traditionally been called the four “marks” or attributes of the Church. The Creed says, “We believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” When that one church has been divided and we have developed different doctrines, issues of faith are placed at the center of our division. Ecumenical dialogue is a useful tool in helping us to understand our continuing unity, even though there might be diversity over certain theological issues. Ecumenical dialogue can also help us to resolve such differences.

When Christians in the United States and Christians in other parts of the world find themselves fighting against one another because their governments are aligned against one another, we are brought face to face with issues of real life. Ecumenical dialogue is a useful tool in helping us resolve our differences, or in educating us to the political realities that we might otherwise miss. In the end, it can help us to recognize whether it is the blood of American soldiers or Christian Palestinians, for example that is more important to us as members of the “Household of God.”

When one set of churches says that the way to be the most helpful to people around the world is to engage in some form of active social justice, and another set of churches says that what is most essential is that we preach the Gospel and engage in evangelism and mission, ecumenical dialogue can be a useful tool in helping us to prioritize how best to meet the specific needs of a specific people in a specific life setting with the resources we share. The point of all ecumenical dialogue is to build and/or maintain bridges of communication between all parties.

 

 

PneumaReview.com: Why do so few ecumenical documents reach pastors and congregations?

Mel Robeck: Ecumenical work takes place through a variety of methods. One of the most common is in the development of documents that are intended to lay out points of agreement and disagreement, prospects for convergence, and areas in which common action are possible. Literally hundreds of ecumenical documents have been written at the local, regional, national, and international level over the past half century. Very few of these documents have found a place in the ongoing life of the local congregation. This is a tragedy, for in some places this is seen as a vote against the development of all formal ecumenical documents as though such things were completely irrelevant to the life of ordinary Christians, and perhaps even to the Church as a whole. But this is not the case.

Part of the reason that these documents are not more widely received is the fact that they are often technical in nature. All divisions that separate Christians have come about at some point in history, in many cases these divisions may have taken place centuries ago. Many ecumenical documents presuppose a certain level of understanding of the historical factors that led to these divisions as well as historical developments that have taken place since the original break. At the beginning of the 21^st Century, few Pentecostal or charismatic leaders possess the level of training in church history (with the possible exception of their own), that is necessary to enable them to interact meaningfully with what appears in many ecumenical documents. Insofar as potential readers do not know that history they are disadvantaged.

Similarly, the authors of most ecumenical documents are the Church’s theologians who pay close attention to the language of division. Like those who work in any trade or profession, these specialists have sometimes developed and employed a jargon that functions as an in-house form of shorthand. As a result, their work does not always communicate clearly to the person in the pew. Reading some ecumenical documents is like reading through some legal documents. The experts know what they mean, but ordinary lay people do not. In the case of Pentecostalism, where education has seldom received the support it deserves even in the preparation of pastors and other church leaders, some of these documents are largely incomprehensible. The theological vocabulary is simply above their ability to engage it.

What this suggests is that those historians and theologians who write ecumenical documents need to think seriously about the audience toward which these documents are aimed in order to guarantee that they receive the attention they deserve. It suggests that Pentecostals might be able to offer better critiques of or be better able to embrace many ecumenical documents were they to have the academic tools necessary to evaluate them fairly and accurately. It also suggests that we need more and better historical/theological translators who can bridge the gap between those from the academy that produces many of these documents and the ordinary pastor or the layperson in the pew.

 

 

At a much deeper level within the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition, however, lies the fact that virtually any move toward greater ecumenical understanding or cooperation is viewed with extreme suspicion. We are suspicious of these documents, suspicious that they may be documents of compromise. This suspicion is easily substantiated with a simple reading of the Bylaws that some groups have adopted in order to marginalize or exclude the ecumenical agenda from their midst, or in various practices that are designed to do the same, for example, the unwillingness to allow publication of articles on the subject that might be construed as supportive of ecumenism, or even the willingness to preach against it from a context that lacks understanding. As a result of this suspicion, few Pentecostal leaders have been willing to allow any forum to exist in which ecumenism is explored objectively. With few exceptions, I believe that they fear the response of the people. Frequently the people are more ecumenical than their leaders are. As a result, Pentecostal leaders often do not allow their constituencies to know of any situation in which Pentecostals are participating ecumenically, they do not inform their constituencies of any documents that ecumenists have produced unless it is to criticize them, and they refuse to publish any article that might contribute to a change in the status quo.

 

PneumaReview.com: What could Pentecostal/charismatics do that would foster greater understanding and cooperation between Christian communities?

Mel Robeck: There are several different ways in which believers can get involved in genuine ecumenical activity. First, prayer, a staple of Pentecostal/Charismatic life, can play an enormous role in helping to form ecumenical sensitivity. When we pray for others, they move from the margins of our lives to areas of more central importance. It is the case that all too often, we do not pray for other churches by name. We may offer prayers for other “Christians” generally, or we may single out a specific group such as “persecuted Christians,” and these times of prayer are all good. What we tend not to do is to pray for other denominations, or local congregations, or pastoral and church leaders by name.

Our ecumenical sensitivity can be improved if we look at “the other” as though they were us, and pray specifically for their needs. Anyone can call another church and ask a few simple questions. “How can I best pray for your congregation? What are your needs? How can we help bear your burdens?” These are non-threatening ways to begin dialogue between congregations.

Many times throughout the year, my local congregation prays for other specific congregations in our community—Pentecostals, Methodists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and others. When John Paul II travels and is given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Church as a whole, we lift him up in prayer as well. In the recent sexual scandals that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church, rather than add our voices to its condemnation, we have lifted its leaders up in prayer, asking that God would give them wisdom in how best to address the situation. It seems to me that by praying for these “others” we take our place within the Church as a whole, and we become one with them in a new way.

 

 

Second, we need to educate ourselves more broadly. Most of us receive information regarding other churches from our pastors or from those periodicals or news sources that are published by our own congregations or denominations. Pentecostals and Charismatics may also read more broadly from Evangelical sources, but it is extremely rare that they move outside their comfort zones and read more broadly from more liberal Protestant, or Orthodox, or Roman Catholic sources.

I spend about three months each year in other countries. Over the past 15 years this has taught me just how important it is to see and hear the news from a variety of perspectives. As a North American, I can have a far too narrow perspective on global realities if all I do is listen to the North American sources. The same could be said if I limited myself to news originating only in Europe, or Africa. Similarly, the Church is part of the global reality, and we need to develop a global perspective on the One Church of Jesus Christ, which is “catholic” in the sense of being a universal Church.

Having such a global perspective on the Church may help to overcome our fears regarding ecumenism. Unfortunately, the apologetic that was developed to support the rise of Pentecostalism and in many cases the rise of the Charismatic and subsequent renewal movements, has been a triumphalistic apologetic, one that is “over against” the historic churches. Whether this apologetic employs the “lost and restored” motif of Joel 2, or the “latter rain” motif of Acts 2 or the multiple “wave” theory championed early by Frank Bartleman and often by C. Peter Wagner to support a form of Restorationism, it has clearly made judgments against the churches that gave them birth. When such an apologetic is linked to an uninformed eschatological perspective that simply assumes that Revelation 17 and 18 speaks specifically about existing ecumenical organizations such as the World Council of Churches or such denominations as the Roman Catholic Church as supporting the agenda of the Antichrist, the results can be devastating to the relationships that might be possible were we to trust the Lord to lead us.

Third, we could place the support of theological education higher on the agenda in our local congregations. While this action would focus more narrowly on the training of our pastors, and more broadly on the young people of our congregations, it would also contribute to the education of the majority of our people, because the sermons we hear would be different from many that are preached today. In my local congregation, people know that I know something about other churches, and about many of the ideas or actions that are reported in the local press or on their television news. They will often seek me out to talk with them about such things. What this shows is that they are interested in what is going on in the Church at large, and not simply in our local congregation.

 

 

Fourth, Pentecostal and Charismatic leaders could open up various forums in which the issue of ecumenism is openly discussed from a variety of perspectives. Currently, such forums do not exist in which either pastors or laypeople can learn or participate. There is currently no institutional organ published by any classical Pentecostal denomination that is willing to carry any story that provides positive information on efforts to develop greater Christian unity. By being better informed about other Christians, and by speaking about their strengths as much as we have been willing to speak of their weaknesses in our classrooms, from our pulpits, and in our periodicals, we would be forming new attitudes about the nature of the Church.

Finally, each year there are a number of times in which cooperative efforts between congregations may be possible. Most of us are familiar with such things as Good Friday services or Easter Sunrise services. Often we do not think of these services and celebrations as having genuine ecumenical significance. But they do! Most Pentecostals and charismatics, however, do not know that for nearly a century the “Week of Prayer for Christian Unity” has existed and a vast number of historic churches participate in it. In some countries this week has been linked with the events of the Easter season. In the United States and Canada, it has typically been celebrated during the month of January. Sometimes the impetus comes from local or regional councils of churches, but frequently there are joint prayer services that are offered within this context.

The Pentecostal congregation in which I worship has made this event a priority for itself for several years. Our pastor preaches a sermon based upon the same text that has been chosen for the celebration of this week worldwide. Later that day, the churches in the Los Angeles area worship together. We have enjoyed rich ecumenical worship and fellowship experiences in settings as diverse as Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal and Presbyterian churches. Some members of our congregation have developed long term relationships with people from these other congregations. They would not want to return to their previous position of isolation.

 

 

Fourth, many historic congregations are actively involved in a variety of social concerns. They feed the hungry, offer temporary housing for the homeless, and work toward greater community development among the poor and the marginalized. Pentecostals, too, take seriously some of these points, but often they don’t see them as being linked with their expression of faith. It seems to me that this is an area that Pentecostals and Charismatics need to study, and then find a role to play in it.

 

PneumaReview.com: How can a believer be involved in dialogue with other churches?

Mel Robeck: Ecumenical dialogue may be undertaken at many different levels. The level of dialogue that is most common is an informal one. It is one that may be found within families in which at least two different faith traditions are present. During the past generation, we have watched as the children of many Christians have married across denominational lines. It has become quite common for a Catholic boy to marry a Pentecostal girl, for a charismatic man to marry a non-charismatic woman. Once this occurs, you have an ecumenical household. The situation gets more complex when you include the immediate family of the bride and groom or when the new couple has children. Sometimes the differences that emerge between them can be very intense. Beliefs are lifted up with great feeling. Left unresolved, the potential for division in this young marriage may be very high. Yet, many families have learned how to love one another across these ecumenical divides, and most frequently, they have arrived at the decision to love one another precisely because they have been willing to sit down with one another around a common table and get to know one another. Ecumenical dialogue is like that.

The ecumenical dialogues that have been initiated between Pentecostals and the Roman Catholic Church, between Pentecostals and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and as part of the Joint Consultative Group recently initiated between Pentecostals and the World Council of Churches are all dialogues that have as their stated purpose, greater understanding. They are theological discussions that require participants with specialized training to communicate across theological divides.

The dialogue with Roman Catholics as well as with the Reformed Churches have stated explicitly in their published reports that they are not in discussion for the purpose of merging with one another or with negotiating institutional unity. They recognize that they are coming together with very difficult histories and they need to find a way to talk with each other. “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness,” released by the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue in 1999 stated, “The goal is not structural unity, but rather the fostering of this respect and mutual understanding between the Catholic Church and classical Pentecostal groups. (Introduction, ¶2).” The final report of the first round of discussions with the World Alliance of Reformed Church, published under the title “Word and Spirit, Church and World,” set three goals for the Dialogue. They were to (1) increase “mutual understanding and respect,” (2) seek ways to strengthen one another by identifying areas of “theological agreement, disagreement, and convergence,” and (3) explore “various possibilities for common witness” (Introduction, ¶5). In the case of the Joint Consultative Group, the discussion is too new to have yet published any results.

 

 

Divisions between the people of God have been taking place for centuries. In earlier days, hard lines were drawn and those who didn’t agree with the majority were excommunicated as “heretics.” In more recent times, the designation “heretic” has come under increasing fire. In 1960 it was difficult to imagine that certain “heretics” at the time of the Reformation might be “rehabilitated” by the Roman Catholic Church any time soon. But just five years later, the Second Vatican Council had published its “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” that acknowledged that at the time of the Reformation, schism took place because “Men of both sides were to blame” (Unitatis Redintegratio 1.3).

As a result of such admissions, today the hymns even of Martin Luther can be found in modern Roman Catholic hymnals. The point is, many things have taken place within the ecumenical world since the mid-20^th Century, and Pentecostals and Charismatics could find themselves in a position that they did not believe possible if they would sit down at a table and talk. Many of the divisions to which we are party are not divisions of our own making or even of our own choosing. I was reared in the home of Assemblies of God ministers. That means that by virtue of my inheritance, it could be argued that I stand “over against” those who are not part of the Assemblies of God, or who are not part of the Pentecostal Tradition. One of the questions that I needed to settle for myself was whether I was satisfied with that position. Was it really necessary for me to take the divisions of my forebears as my own, or was it possible to resolve some of the reasons for division that my forebears viewed as essential to their spiritual well being? Did I have to embrace their enemies as my enemies? Or were there events that had taken place subsequent to the original division that might make it possible for that division to be placed into a new perspective, perhaps even annulled? Could reconciliation really take place?

It is with this as background that I have come to view any attempt to move toward a kind of ecumenical dialogue that may extend the possibility to develop a reconciled history to be worth our investment. The recent Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith that the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church made together is, thus, an important witness to the essential oneness of those traditions. Revisiting our reasons for separation from one another, or the reason for our coming into existence, learning how to express those reasons or concerns in language that can ultimately be embraced by the other, allowing them to interact with our challenges to them, and allowing them to challenge us at places that trouble them—all of these actions—are worthy of pursuit. It is, first and foremost, these things that have been the focus of most modern ecumenical dialogues. It is my hope that more of these actions will take place, and that Pentecostals and Charismatics will be willing and able to support them.

 

PR