Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 4 of 5) by Amos Yong

Pneuma Review Fall 2001

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

IV. Pentecostal Ecumenism: A Survey

If it is true to say that Pentecostalism has always been ecumenical, it is also true to say that in certain respects, the ecumenical movement has always been “pentecostal.” In what follows, I want to tease out three elements of what I call “pentecostal ecumenism” wherein central features of Pentecostalism are highlighted. These include the missionary thrust of the modern ecumenical movement, its concern for charismatic unity, and its emphasis on what I call the “diversities of the Spirit.” Let me comment on each in order.

Missionary Pentecostal ecumenism

Few Pentecostals today realize that the ecumenical movement was initially launched as a missionary movement, and in many respects retains that focus today. As missiologists and historians have noted, while the twentieth was the century of Pentecostal missions, the nineteenth was that of the Protestant missionary enterprise. It was during the nineteenth century that what we now call the mainline churches established themselves on every continent. It was also during this same time that problems were identified, many of which were far too large for the mission agencies of these individual churches and denominations to resolve on their own. The heart of the modern ecumenical movement was thus birthed at a global mission conference which convened at Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910, and from which the International Missionary Fellowship (IMF) was established in 1921. Meanwhile, it was realized that missionary work could not proceed apart from confronting both the social and political injustices prevalent during the inter-war years and the doctrinal differences that separated the churches. Thus emerged the Life and Work world conference (1925) and the Faith and Order world conference (1927). These combined to form the WCC in 1948.¹⁶ In 1961, the IMF officially joined forces with the WCC, thus re-affirming the WCC’s commitment to the missionary witness of the churches.

I am getting ahead of the story without having made my point which is this: the early twentieth century was a time during which churches in the West awoke to the power of ecumenical unity for carrying out the task of the Great Commission. As the various churches began to assess the daunting project of world evangelization, they realized that such could be accomplished much more efficiently if they worked together rather than separately. In short, it was the missionary endeavor that brought hitherto self-sufficient groups, movements, and denominations together. I should not need to point out that the central impetus toward Pentecostal organization was also the collaborative power of common mission. Fulfilling the missionary mandate has done more to bring the Church together since the Reformation than anything else.

And this task has not been lost on the ecumenical movement today. Certainly, the world at the beginning of the twenty-first century is quite different from when the IMF was founded. Yet missions remains the raison d’être of the WCC, this being clearly reasserted in the WCC’s Ecumenical Affirmation on Missions and Evangelism published in 1982. These Affirmations emphasize the importance conversion, the application of the gospel to every realm of life, the centrality of the churches to God’s mission, mission as the way of Christ, the mandate of taking the good news to the poor, the mandate regarding global witness (to all six continents), and the challenge to witness among people of other faith and religious traditions.

Yet it goes without saying that the missionary focus of the ecumenical movement has changed over the course of a century. Clearly, the evangelistic edge has been blurred and, in some cases, been replaced among some denominations almost completely by socio-economic and political projects. Yet it is also the case that many of these projects, especially those that target the transformation of socio-economic and political structures, will never be accomplished by individual churches or single denominations working alone. Instead, the resources and cumulative power of the entire Church of Jesus Christ will need to be mobilized toward action if these kinds of changes are to be realized.

Now, although these kinds of organized activities are not central to Pentecostal missions, they are certainly not completely absent either. Certainly, no Pentecostal would deny that they are important features of missions and that they should remain part of the Church’s task. And, if Pentecostals do not take up these tasks, they can and should thank God for their missions minded ecumenical brothers and sisters who are doing so. What I am saying is that missions is as pivotal to modern ecumenism as it is to modern Pentecostalism. And, insofar as missions is an indispensable feature of Pentecostalism, in that regard, it is appropriate to speak of a “Pentecostal ecumenism.”

But, more importantly, I am convinced that both sides can provide that which is lacking in the missions efforts of the other should they come together. In fact, it is well known among ecumenical circles that there is a vitality and enthusiasm among Pentecostal missionaries that is contagious. Our ecumenical brothers and sisters have been looking to us for inspiration and would welcome joining our efforts. There lies before us another golden opportunity. Will we continue only criticizing the ecumenical movement or will we join to our much-needed criticism loving and Spirit-empowered action for the benefit of the lost in the world and for the increase of the Kingdom of God? And who knows, perhaps in the process our own missionary aspirations will also be fulfilled as we commune with other members of the body of Christ and glean from their depth and the richness of their traditions.

Charismatic-Pentecostal ecumenism

The ecumenical movement is also “pentecostal” in a second way: with regard to its valuing the charismatic impulses to Christian unity. The onset of the charismatic renewal in the mainline churches brought about an awareness of its unitive power for Christianity in much the same way as such dawned on early twentieth century Pentecostals. In fact, this common experience of the Spirit has not only served to bring mainline Protestants together, but also catalyzed their relationships with conservative evangelicals and Pentecostals. It is not unusual for home Bible study and prayer groups to include representatives from all the established denominations as well as independent Pentecostal and charismatically oriented individuals. Certainly, organized groups like the Women’s Aglow and the Full Gospel Businessmen’s mentioned earlier¹⁷ are powerful and concrete examples of such grassroots ecumenism. These times of Bible reading and prayer have brought out the essential unity that Christians experience in Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit. They have also enabled the realization of the things that are trivial versus those which are important. Thus, Christians have been mobilized in these contexts to stand united on a greater front than ever before on social issues such as civil rights, abortion, and other matters. In fact, in the process, Pentecostals have even begun to realize the common convictions that they have with their Roman Catholic brothers and sisters on some of these issues.

It is also evident that the charismatic explosion in the mainline churches opened the door for Pentecostal participation in formal ecumenical activities. Beginning in 1961 when the Iglesia Pentecostal de Chile and the Misión Iglesia Pentecostal (also of Chile) joined as member churches of the WCC, there has been a slow trickle of Pentecostal churches into the ecumenical movement. Today, Pentecostal churches from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Argentina, and various sub-Saharan churches have taken out WCC memberships. In addition to WCC involvement, various Pentecostal churches have established long-term relationships with mainline denominations, and individual Pentecostals have been active at national, regional, and other levels of ecumenical activity. Some have even served on the staffs of the WCC, the National Council of Churches (NCC), and other regional ecumenical organizations like the Latin American Council of Churches (CLAI).¹⁸

It is undeniable that the charismatic renewal in the mainline churches has served to raise the consciousness of its members to the centrality of the Spirit’s presence and activity both in the Church and in the world. This was nowhere more evident than in the seventh WCC convocation held in Canberra, Australia, in February 1991. The theme of this gathering was “Come Holy Spirit, Renew the Whole Creation” (cf. Ps. 104:30). Work sections were formed under the headings “Giver of Life—Sustain Your Creation!,” “Spirit of Truth—Set Us Free!,” “Spirit of Unity—Reconcile Your People!,” and “Holy Spirit—Transform and Sanctify Us!” Reports from those who attended testified of the powerful spirit of unity present as Christians from all over the world gathered to worship, pray, sing, dance, and rejoice together in Jesus’ name. Clearly, such an event would not have been possible apart from the charismatic renewal and the Pentecostal presence in the WCC. It is further arguable that events exactly like these—recall Toronto, Brownsville, Pensacola, etc.—are what transform the lives of delegates and, by extension, the congregations to which they belong.

Certainly, however, not all that has flown under the banner of charismatic renewal in the ecumenical movement can or should be endorsed by Pentecostals. Even as Pentecostals have “dropped the ball” with regard to specific issues in their own history, so have ecumenists as well. Thus, it was clear that when one of the plenary speakers of the Canberra conference invoked the spirits of war-torn and destitute Korean people and prayed for healing, that went too far for most participants and delegates.¹⁸

Again, however, discerning participation rather than sectarian withdrawal is in order. Pentecostal revivals have by no means been free and clear of disruptive and unholy manifestations themselves. The proper response is not to ban revivals but to sift the wheat from the chaff. In the same way, one can and should expect that all genuine movements of the Spirit in the ecumenical world will be accompanied by manifestations that will require discernment. This makes Pentecostal participation all the more important, given that we, of all persons, are those most sensitive to the need for discernment of spirits and to openness to that particular gift of the Holy Spirit. In any case, in all of these respects—the openness to the movements of the Spirit, the embracing of the operations of the charismata, and the need for discernment at every turn—“pentecostal” elements are prevailing among mainline churches to the point that in some circles, they have become a staple. To that extent, it is also appropriate to recognize the emergence of a “pentecostal ecumenism.”

“Diversities of the Spirit” ecumenism

As is always the case, however, there are two sides to every story. That which allowed the invocation of Korean han spirits to the WCC conference is also that which has allowed Pentecostal presence and participation in the WCC to flourish. But what is “it” that has allowed these very contrasting phenomena to “co-exist”? My hypothesis is that such can be attributed to the real presence of a genuinely Pentecostal conviction: what I call the “diversities of the Spirit.” This is the commitment to seeing the full expression of the “different kinds of gifts, … different kinds of service, … different kinds of working” but all of the same Spirit, Lord, and God (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-6). Paul envisioned such diversification of giftings, of course, through the metaphor of the body of Christ having many parts, many members, many functions, and many components (1 Cor. 12:12-31). This same diversification is intrinsic to the Church itself, as its founding narrative in Acts 2 discussed earlier clearly exemplifies. The sending of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecostal resulted in establishment of one living organism, the body of Christ, with many members. The many find their wholeness in the one, and the one’s effectiveness and beauty is to be found in the diversities of its members, including not only those from around the world (Acts 2:9-11), but also all of its sons and daughters, men and women, young and old (Acts 2:17-18).

Now this emphasis on the “diversities of the Spirit” is a central value of the contemporary ecumenical movement. I need to be clear at this juncture about not approving whatever happens in the WCC—such as the controversial circumstances at Canberra—as being a genuine manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Even Paul strongly cautions the Corinthian believers that charismatic phenomena inevitably comes mixed with human and, at times, demonic influences, and requires—as has been repeatedly emphasized—discernment and judgment. No, my point is that the ecumenical movement is not about imposing a like-mindedness or uniformity of belief or practices on its constituency. Rather, its goal is to lift up the name of Jesus Christ through common witness and common mission. And, its conviction is that such common witness and common mission sustains (or, should sustain) rather than destroy national, regional, local and indigenous manifestations and expressions of the gospel. In other words, the ecclesiology of the ecumenical movement is profoundly pluralistic rather than hegemonic, representing, ecumenists believe, the biblical emphasis on the “diversities of the Spirit.”²⁰

On the practical level, then, the ecumenical movement is more about affirming differences than it is about making churches the world over fit into one mold. In fact, the plurality of churches, liturgies, pieties, traditions, and expressions are affirmed. Each church is understood to play a vital role in the overall mission of the Church; each contributes to the symphony that declares God’s saving presence and activity in the world by the power of Spirit; each provides distinct witness to the world, and brings their own gifts to the head of the Church, Jesus Christ. In fact, as the contingent of churches from the non-Western world has consistently increased in the WCC, it is becoming increasingly clear that the traditional (read: Western) norms for discernment—whether at the level of the manifestation of the charismata or even at the more fundamental level of ecclesiologies as a whole—will continue to be challenged, resulting in a re-emphasis on Scriptural criteria.²¹

Of course, embracing the “diversities of the Spirit” includes with it potential problems as well. Apart from issues discussed previously, there is the important matter of an extreme tolerance that might set in such that truth is compromised. Ecumenists certainly have been charged with being pluralistic relativists, refusing to offend others who might believe or practice differently than they do. On this score, the ecumenical movement needs the Pentecostal movement, but only insofar as the latter does not mute the prophetic voice of the Spirit of God. An ecumenism without truth is simply an empty, outward unity. Pentecostals who are fearful on this point should be critically engaged on this front. Our obligation should be a discerning participation and engagement, not sectarian withdrawal and unqualified condemnation. Ecumenism needs Pentecostalism in order for it to be genuinely biblical. Who among us will respond to this call?

Notes

¹⁶ The Faith and Order section of the WCC has been active up through to the present. Some Pentecostals who have been deeply involved in the interdenominational activities with the charismatic movement and many other large independent charismatic churches may have noticed that more often than not, such “ecumenism” has emphasized experience to the neglect of doctrine! This is ironic in light of the charge leveled against ecumenical organizations such as the WCC that it has abandoned the truth of the gospel for visible unity and social programs (see my earlier discussion in Part II, Obj. 2). However, the internal policies and vision of the WCC is motivated in part by the fact that its quest for unity, including the work done by Faith and Order, does not bypass serious doctrinal issues. Instead, the WCC wants to ensure that the fellowship of the churches “is not based on the illusion that differences can be overcome by ignoring them” (van Elderen, Introducing the World Council of Churches, 5).

¹⁷ See Part 3, Summer 2001 (Vol 4, No 3), page 21.

¹⁸ See, e.g., article on the “World Council of Churches” by J. L. Sandidge in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee and Patrick H. Alexander (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1988), 901-3.

¹⁹ Upon returning from Canberra, Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., an ordained Assemblies of God minister and professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, penned these thoughts which may reflect the sentiments of many who witnessed that event: “The second [speaker] was a young Korean Presbyterian woman, Professor Chung Hyun Kyung, who made a stunning presentation as an introduction to the theological theme [of the conference]. She attempted to speak from the perspective of a minjung theology which she believed to be especially representative of Asian women. At points, I found her to be genuinely prophetic. At other times, I was very uncomfortable. I worried that she had passed outside the bounds of orthodoxy as, for example, when she ‘summoned’ various spirits of Han, spirits of those who had been touched by anger, resentment, bitterness and grief…. To be sure, there is much to be said for the communion of saints, even among evangelicals and Pentecostals. It is also the case that our understanding of the church allows us to see ourselves in relationship with those who have gone before us in the church. Furthermore, as one who comes from a tradition which rose first among the poor, the disenfranchised and marginalized in North American society, I could identify at points with her minjung concerns. But the summons of departed spirits to come to the assembly, if that is what was really intended, seemed to me to be more akin to the liturgies of Spiritism or was more rooted in ancestor worship than it was in the classical expressions of Christianity” (see Robeck, “A Pentecostal Reflects on Canberra,” in Bruce J. Nicholls and Bong Rin Ro, eds., Beyond Canberra: Evangelical Responses to Contemporary Ecumenical Issues [Oxford: Regnum Books, 1993], 108-20; quote from 111-12).

²⁰ This may explain, at least in part, why the Roman Catholic Church has never become a member of the WCC since it is rather a bit more convinced that Christian unity includes uniformity under one head, identified of course, under the papal symbol. Since Vatican II, however, Rome has certainly been involved in ecumenical activity.

²¹ And, of course, it is ironic that some in the ecumenical movement are threatened by the possibility that the WCC might some day be dominated by the presence of hundreds if not thousands of independent Pentecostal churches, the majority of which would derive from the two-thirds world! On this point, see Donald W. Dayton, “Yet Another Layer of the Onion, or, Opening the Ecumenical Door to Let the Riffraff In,” The Ecumenical Review 40 (1988): 87-110.