Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 2 of 5) by Amos Yong

Pneuma Review Spring 2001

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

II. Classical Pentecostal Objections to Ecumenism

Given this biblically defined ecumenism [Editor’s note: please see part 1 in the Winter 2001 issue], then, why is it that most Pentecostals remain staunchly anti-ecumenical? While many reasons have been given, three stand out as representing a fair consensus. First, Pentecostals believe that the unity of the Church should be understood spiritually rather than visibly. Second, many Pentecostals believe that the ecumenical movement represents churches that have betrayed the essence of the gospel, especially doctrinally. Finally, correlative with the previous objection, Pentecostals are generally concerned that non-Pentecostal churches are devoid of the life that is found only in the Spirit of God as ‘pentecostally’ experienced and defined, thus fulfilling the biblical prophecy of widespread apostasy in the last days. Let me respond to each in order.

Objection 1: Spiritual rather than visible unity

Pentecostals have always valued the spiritual unity that they have found in the experience of the charismata, especially speaking in tongues. Manifestations of tongues and other spiritual gifts are, for them, a more incontrovertible sign of the Spirit’s presence and activity in their lives and congregations. The institutional, organizational, and architectural forms of non-Pentecostal churches do not impress Pentecostals. These are considered to be merely outward signs of pomp and circumstance that all human constructions can display, but which do not guarantee inward and spiritual vitality. Rather, these outward paraphernalia are symptomatic of the hierarchicalism, patriarchalism, and traditionalism endemic to the history of the church, all of which has been conveniently covered up or obscured by stain glass windows, Gothic architecture, and iconography that is distracting at best and bewitching at worst. The point is that the unity of the church is found, not in outward forms of organization and agreement, but in the spiritual togetherness that genuine Christians experience through the Spirit in the name of Jesus.

A brief response proceeds along three lines. First, Pentecostals should recognize that this argument actually has its roots in the Reformation and post-Reformation era and is driven by an ideology of individualism. The basic assumption is that God works first and foremost through individuals and not institutions or organizations. Just as sola Christus neglected the Holy Spirit, sola fide neglected sanctifying works, and sola Scriptura neglected the role of tradition in reading and interpreting the Word of God, so did the unspoken emphasis on the individual neglect the centrality and importance of the community of faith. Since the Reformation, the Church has been struggling to counteract the influential but exaggerated importance of Luther’s “here I stand!” A myriad of individuals after the German reformer have come to similar conclusions regarding their parent Protestant churches and movements resulting in the emergence of innumerable denominations.

Pentecostals are especially prone to such developments given the restoration of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers during the Reformation. Empowered by a dynamic and liberating experience of the Holy Spirit, Pentecostals have understood their lives and ministries as commissioned by the Spirit. This includes an emphasis on spiritual freedom that makes for an even greater tendency toward individualism, independence, and self-aggrandizement. The fragmentation of Pentecostalism into hundreds of thousands of house churches, independent churches, parachurch groups, apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and teaching ministries operating in isolation, not to mention denominations as well as sects and (even!) cults, is evidence of this infection with the individualist strain.

This accent on individualism, however, does not tell the entire story about why Pentecostals claim to understand the unity of the Church in spiritual rather than visible terms. Now, I cannot speak for the 500 million plus Pentecostals estimated today that represent the breadth of global Pentecostalism; rather, my Pentecostal affiliation is more specifically North American, and of the classical type that traces its roots back to denominations emerging out of the Azusa Street revival. Yet I sometimes wonder if Pentecostals reject as valid outward forms of structural unity because they are motivated by fear—fear that they would be compromising their former decisions to come-out-from-among-those visible denominations; fear that pursuing such relationships would jeopardize their identity as Pentecostals; fear that visible unity would camouflage the lack of spiritual fervor; fear that outward signs would eliminate reliance on the inner witness of the Spirit. These are, along with other issues yet to be discussed, legitimate areas of concern. But to recoil from engagement simply because there are issues of concern is inappropriate, and this especially for Pentecostals who claim to be led by the Spirit.

Finally, however, I find it odd that Pentecostals object to the notion that there have to be visible signs of unity for the Church given their own insistence on the import of outward signs. Most classical North American Pentecostals continue to hold to some version of tongues speaking as evidence of receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Glossolalic tongues in these cases are outward signs and manifestations—“initial physical evidence,” as some denominations put it—of the Spirit’s infilling. Why would the true unity of the Church not be accompanied by such outward signs and evidence as well? Christians are coming to increasing agreement that the gospel truthfully proclaimed and faithfully lived out is not only spiritual. Rather, it is most truly spiritual when practically embodied, whether in concrete acts, tangible encounters, palpable manifestations, physical healings, and, I would suggest, visible signs. Perhaps it might be objected that visible signs do not translate to structural or organizational unity, or that the evidence of Spirit baptism is biblically derived in contrast to the goals of the ecumenical movement. I have addressed the biblical issues above, and will focus on the ecumenical movement itself below. Part of my motivation for accepting the invitation of the editor of The Pneuma Review to write this piece is to present evidence for a biblical and “pentecostally” informed ecumenism to the readers of this journal. I ask you to render judgment at the conclusion of this article.

Objection 2: The erosion of the gospel, especially doctrinally

A second reason Pentecostals have given for their anti-ecumenical stance is their belief that the ecumenical movement is built on an insecure doctrinal foundation. Specifically, the doctrinal basis of the ecumenical movement is watered-down at best and supportive of heresy at worst. At best, Pentecostals feel that the Basis of the World Council of Churches (WCC), for example, is either too hollow or admits of too much latitude in what it does not say:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Thus, many Pentecostals feel that this platform is minimalist in allowing agreement across a wide spectrum of churches. At worst, some denominations that adhere to doctrines clearly rejected by the historical church—such as universalism or annihilationism, or the advocacy of homosexuality as a viable lifestyle—would also be able to sign on.

Let me respond in this instance with three counter-questions. First, on a more rhetorical note, since when have Pentecostals elevated doctrinal or creedal purity above their experience of the Spirit? It seems to me that such happens among Pentecostals only as an act of self-righteous indignation against those on whom they look down. Pentecostals have always been much more interested in the demonstration of Spirit’s power than in wise and persuasive words (1 Cor. 2:4). I certainly do not want to minimize the importance of doctrine; as a theologian, doctrines are what concern me supremely. My point here is twofold: to highlight what appears to be the case—that Pentecostals seem to have resorted to the ‘doctrinal argument’ as a convenient excuse for not engaging in ecumenical activity—and to suggest that such seems to be an ironic reverse application of fundamental Pentecostal intuitions and priorities.

Yet the doctrinal issue should not be ignored. To begin addressing that concern, let me pose the second counter-question. What is or should be the norm by which doctrinal creeds in general and statements in particular are to be measured? This is not an idle question since it is arguable that most classical Pentecostal denominations—Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, etc.—appear to have adopted the basic framework and even wording of doctrinal statements from fundamentalism during the first quarter of the twentieth century. This occurred in part because of the polemics between fundamentalists and modernist or liberals during that period of time. The emerging Pentecostal churches were confronted with few theological alternatives: either fundamentalism or liberalism. Thankfully, Pentecostal leaders during that time opted for the former rather than the latter.

This decision, however, came with a price. Whereas the liberals followed the modernist emphasis on religious experience and subjectivist feeling to the neglect of the authority of the written Word of God, fundamentalists insisted on the priority of Scripture to the neglect of sensitivity to the Spirit’s illuminative inspiration. The one subsumed Scripture to contemporary experience while the other denied the validity of pneumatic experiences as false enthusiasms in favor of a wooden reading of Scripture. The result is that Pentecostal doctrinal statements have not reflected the richness of our experiences of the Spirit. Rather, they have tended to be not much more than a reproduction of fundamentalist doctrines, almost verbatim, with the addition of one or two paragraphs regarding the person and work of the Spirit, and tongues as initial evidence. Is this, however, what a genuinely Pentecostal doctrinal and theological framework should be like? Is it not the case that Pentecostals should be the first to continue the struggle for an authentic balance of the Word and Spirit? Do we not need to continuously rethink about the relevance and applicability of our doctrines and theologies for each generation? Why then did we allow the primary rules and assumptions underlying doctrinal thinking and formulation to be set by fundamentalists whose worldview is articulated according to various axioms that are at odds with what we as Pentecostals believe and experience? It goes without saying that Pentecostal doctrinal construction should not bow to the pressures exerted by liberals either.

My proposal is not that that we as Pentecostals should discard doctrinal reflection, but that we should go about that task according to the rules of the game that Pentecostals play, rather than abide by rules that Pentecostals can never win with. We should, in other words, set out our own terms for reflecting and articulating doctrine. To remain within a fundamentalist framework will force us to use their categories, restrict our theological and doctrinal methodology, and require us to continue answering their questions and concerns rather than figure out and resolve our own. That this is no figment of my imagination is demonstrated in the extensive debate over the continuance of the charismata featured in almost every issue of this journal. Even after publication of Jon Ruthven’s groundbreaking book which effectively demolished the cessationist argument, we are still having to defend the validity of the charismata. I am not trying to disparage these arguments. They are important and need to be made. My point is to call attention to the fact that our doctrinal and theological agenda is driven by fundamentalist concerns. What about our obligation to engage the arguments of liberals, and to battle for the truth with those on the left instead of those on the right? Or, to return to the focus of this essay, what about our obligation to witness in the context of the wider Christian (read: ecumenical) community? What about our calling to theological and doctrinal debate with those having ecumenical concerns? More to the point, is it not time for Pentecostals to take the Pentecostal message to the farthest reaches of the Christian community? And if that question is answered affirmatively, does that not require a distinctively Pentecostal kind of ecumenism?

Having issued the challenge the way that I have, however, assumes that all ecumenists and even churches that participate in the ecumenical movement are liberals. That this is far from the truth should not need to be stated. There are Christian movements, communities and denominations that are far from liberal theologically or doctrinally. Various Pentecostal and evangelical type churches are WCC members, as well as Eastern Orthodox churches that are stridently conservative on theological matters. In fact, many of these Orthodox churches, longtime members of the WCC, have been contemplating withdrawing from the WCC precisely for these reasons. This raises the third counter-question in all its specificity: what exactly is the goal of the ecumenical movement and what role should doctrine play in this regard?

There is a widespread perception among Pentecostals that the ecumenical movement is a last days ploy by Satan to deceive the elect. In fact, the ecumenical movement in general and the WCC more specifically have been thought to be representative of the great harlot of Revelation 17-18. Pentecostals fear that the ecumenical vision of a worldwide unity is a masquerade for the beast’s establishing a global anti-Christian church. I will return to this issue later. For now, however, it suffices to note that the WCC understands itself to be a cooperative fellowship of churches, each of which have a “‘sustained independent life and organization,’ including the right to decide to apply for WCC membership without the permission of any other body or person.” In short, the WCC operates with the understanding that local denominations and churches large enough to apply (at least 10,000 members) are fully autonomous and remain such.

Clearly, the WCC does not see itself as a Church, much less the world church that Pentecostals are suspicious about. Rather, member churches retain their own autonomy and WCC programs and initiatives are considered only as recommendations by the member churches to the churches. These are in no way binding upon individual denominations or churches except insofar as they are received as reflecting biblical truth and explicitly adopted to guide Christian practice. Given the predominance of Protestant churches in the WCC and the increasing trends toward the establishment of indigenous national churches (see also below), the trajectory of contemporary ecumenism is in the direction of an ecclesiology that emphasizes unity only amidst diversity rather than toward increasing authoritarianism, hierarchicalism, or any other kind of control (whether considered in terms of the WCC, or the Roman Catholic Church). Assuming for the moment that this is true, such an arrangement is certainly more conducive to Pentecostal participation. But what then about the role of doctrine in the quest for Christian unity?

It is here that the wide variety within Christendom needs to be appreciated. Some churches, like the Orthodox, think of theology and doctrines in its literal sense as orthodoxa—right worship, right liturgy, right contemplation and meditation, and so on. Other, more conservative Protestant churches, think of theology and doctrines as simple biblically derived or grounded propositional restatements, without concern for right interpretation. The Catholic church, on the other hand, thinks of theology and doctrines always in terms of the conjunction between Scripture and tradition. Without making further distinctions, it should be clear that the doctrinal statement of the WCC needs not be understood as a minimalist device designed to gain widespread acceptability. Rather, it should be seen as the fundamental essence of the gospel to which all Christians should adhere and from which all Christians should theologize. In this case, Christian ecumenism now becomes the arena where all of those who call Jesus Christ as their Lord celebrate their diversity and bless each other and the world with their gifts. This is a far cry from the rhetoric that castigates ecumenism as a deceitful subterfuge of the enemy focused on eroding the truth of the gospel.

Objection 3: The apostasy of the church in the last days

There is, however, one more related and frequently heard objection that Pentecostals have leveled against the ecumenical movement: the concern that ecumenical churches are spiritually dead, representing the last days apostasy predicted in Scripture (cf. Matt. 24:10-12 and 2 Thess. 2:3). This is related, of course, to the apocalyptic mentality that was pervasive among early Pentecostals. First generation Pentecostal pioneers were imbued with the missionary spirit and viewed taking the gospel to the farthest reaches of the earth as the final opportunity for the heathen to convert before the coming of the Lord (Matt. 24:14). The established church was certainly in no position to be used of the Lord for this final mission, having abandoned doctrinal truth, spiritual fervor, and missionary empowerment. In fact, as the church of the last days, the established churches were, like the Laodiceans, about to be spewed out of the mouth of the Lord because of their lukewarmness (cf. Rev. 3:14-22). It is for this reason that God had to raise up an obedient remnant through the pentecostal outpouring of the latter rain—so that the gospel could be taken where it had previously failed to go.

By way of response, I would like to make three observations. First, I think it is important to note that Pentecostals have, until very recently, uncritically appropriated the eschatological framework of a foreign theological system (again) through which they’ve understood the “last days.” This system is called dispensationalism. What is ironic is that most turn-of-the-twentieth century dispensationalists were also cessationists regarding the charismata precisely because of their dispensationalism framework of interpreting Scripture. Pentecostals, fundamentalists, and most Bible-believing Christians, however, were attracted to this very literal way of reading of Scripture, and therefore swallowed dispensationalism almost without question.

The fact of the matter, however, is that Pentecostal intuitions about the “end times” derive more so from their experience of the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days than from any previously laid-out theological grid or hermeneutical framework. It is precisely because of the empowering experience of the Holy Spirit that Pentecostal have much more of an already-not yet eschatological orientation. For Pentecostals, the present dynamism of the Spirit’s reality means that the Spirit-filled believer values the embodied character of Christian life, is committed to holistic forms of missionary work, and is empowered to make a difference in this world. This explains why Pentecostals believe in the physical healing power of God. It also undergirds Pentecostal convictions about the miraculous, and about the power of prayer. Certainly, Pentecostals maintain an expectancy about the coming of the Lord—the not-yet aspect of their eschatological faith. However, such is far less an other-worldly attitude that seeks to escape gloomy historical future than it is an expression of vibrant love for their Lord.

My point is not to undermine Pentecostal belief in the imminent return of Christ. Such is the proper stance the Bible indicates we should have regarding the parousia: Maranatha—“Come, O Lord!” (1 Cor. 16:24). Instead, I want to raise the question again of why Pentecostals have uncritically bought into a dispensationalist system of thinking that is, at various points, wholly antithetical to their experience. I am certainly convinced that the “last days” commenced with the founding of the Church at the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17), so I am not even suggesting that the entire dispensationalist scheme be discarded. I am only querying into the Pentecostal appropriation of the full range and details of dispensationalist eschatology. It may be the case that Jesus will return tomorrow. I don’t think, however, that the dispensationalist time lines will therefore be vindicated. Too many variants have been proposed, too many adjustments have had to be made, too many confusing speculations have been proffered, and too many mistakes have impaired the credibility of dispensationalist eschatology. If that is the case, then the uncritical correlation between the ecumenical movement and the great harlot of Rev. 17-18 is at least called into question. I say this not to baptize the ecumenical movement as an unblemished work of God. Surely this also is not the case as my exposition in the next section hopes to show. I am only asking that Pentecostals come to a fresh reading of Scripture on eschatology and other matters by beginning with Pentecostal—rather than dispensationalist, fundamentalist, or any other—premises, sensibilities, and experiences.

My next two observations will be much more succinctly stated. I am concerned that Pentecostals continue to perpetuate the idea that all mainline or established churches are spiritually dead. This is especially disconcerting in view of the charismatic renewal movement that has swept the world during the past two generations. Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians/Anglicans, United Church of Christ members, Baptists of all stripes, and even Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have all been touched and transformed by fresh encounters with the Holy Spirit. All of these denominations and churches have charismatic churches and have developed ministries designed to foster and nurture charismatic experience, piety, and mission. And while some who have experienced the Holy Spirit have left to join Pentecostal churches, many have chosen to remain committed members of these mainline churches and are fervent ecumenists. On the other hand, we have also recently begun to see many leave Pentecostal churches for mainline, Catholic and Orthodox churches because of their depth of tradition, the richness of their liturgy, and the sense of greater connectedness that Christian life within these communities evoke. How can Pentecostals continue to believe that those involved in the ecumenical movement are apostate or lukewarm churches in the last days?

Finally, even if we grant that the established churches are, generally speaking, spiritually dead, given the revivalist fervor that the charismatic renewal movement has had in some quarters of these churches, I believe that we as Pentecostals have an obligation to engage these churches and be instruments for their further renewal and revival. We can and should take heart from the difference that even one person can make. I am thinking about the life work of one of the first globally recognized Pentecostal ecumenists, David DuPlessis. Here was a man who was obedient to the Spirit’s leading to take the pentecostal message to the mainline churches, and he experienced rejection by his Pentecostal community in the process of doing so. Yet it is undeniable that this one man was a catalyst for the charismatic renewal in the mainline churches. And, what else does it mean to be such catalysts other than we be Pentecostal ecumenists? How else can we hope to be used of God apart from engaging in the ecumenical task? Not to take up this challenge will render a guilty verdict on the charge that Pentecostals are guilty of continuing to perpetuate the scandal of Christian disunity before a world looking for the love of God.

Notes

¹ The WCC Basis is functionally equivalent to denominational statements of faith. However, the WCC is also careful to insist that the Basis “is not a ‘confession of faith’ in the formal theological sense. But as a brief expression of the foundation of what the Council is and for what it does, it offers some important clues for understanding the WCC” (Marlin Van Elderen, Introducing the World Council of Churches, rev. ed. (Geneva: Risk Book Series/WCC Publications, 1992), 4.

² My use of the term “fundamentalism” follows George Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture: The shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).

³ I have previously developed this idea at greater length: “Between Two Extremes: Balancing Word-Christianity and Spirit-Christianity (A Review Article),” The Pneuma Review 3:1 (Winter 2000): 78-83.

⁴ See Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Postbiblical Miracles (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); see my review of this book in The Pneuma Review 3:2 (2000): 64-65.

⁵ For a discussion of Pentecostal churches in the WCC, see Walter Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 384-87.

⁶ The Assemblies of God, for example, “disapproves of ministers or churches participating in any of the modern ecumenical organizations on a local, national, or international level in such a manner as to promote the ecumenical movement [in part] because: …(c) We believe that the combination of many religious organizations into a world superchurch will culminate in the religious Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18” (Assemblies of God Constitution and Bylaws, Article 9, §11). While this position is characteristic of many fundamentalist denominations, moderate evangelical churches have distanced themselves from this kind of rhetoric. And, insofar as classical Pentecostal denominations in North America like the Assemblies of God have recently come to align themselves more so with evangelicalism than fundamentalism, this kind of reasoning regarding the ecumenical movement may need to be revisited. The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, for example, does not have either a constitutional or position statement against ecumenical involvement. More important than mimicking one another, however, the truth is at stake. Classical Pentecostals of all types need to move beyond stereotypes they have inherited from those they have previously affiliated with and investigate the charges raised on their own terms.

⁷ See Marlin Van Elderen, Introducing the World Council of Churches, rev. ed. (Geneva: Risk Book Series/WCC Publications, 1992), 4-6.

⁸ By this, I am thinking about the tendency to think of one’s doctrines simply in terms of “what the Bible says,” without recognizing that all biblical statements have to be interpreted—the latter resulting in the rampant denominationalism, factionalism, and sectarianism among conservative Protestants.

⁹ Gerald T. Sheppard was one of the first—and by no means the last—to have raised this question: see his “Pentecostalism and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism: Anatomy of an Uneasy Relationship,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 6 (1984): 5-33.

¹⁰ DuPlessis was defrocked of his Assemblies of God credentials in 1962 for his ecumenical involvement. These were restored to him much later (in 1980) after history had confirmed his Pentecostal commitment and the value of his service to the wider causes of Christ. For DuPlessis’ own account, see his The Spirit Bade Me Go (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1970). More complete assessments can be found in Martin Robinson, “David du Plessis – A Promise Fulfilled,” in Jan A. B. Jongeneel, et al., eds. Pentecost, Mission and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Theology, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 75 (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 143-55, and idem, “To the Ends of the Earth: The Pilgrimage of an Ecumenical Pentecostal, David J. du Plessis (1905-1987)” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham, England, 1987) (this latter is usually available through the interlibrary loan services at your local library).