Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
God The 33 Present in a Confused Mixed Influence of the Movement on Classical in the United Frank D. Macchia especially many, especially Situation: Charismatic Pentecostalism States Beyond question we face a confused situation in Christendom, and in today’s Charismatic Movement. It is extremely difficult for those who have adopted inflexible standards of doctrine and behavior, to see how God can be in the present, seemingly confused, , situation.’ I in the United States have decades to come to terms extraordinary the chief opponents of the latter-day wonders. Apparently, members Pentecostals, The Pentecostal confusion, and, most surprisingly for was due not only to the of revival, but This confused response to the Charismatic movement2 by an official of the Assemblies of God is typical of what many classical Pentecostals felt in their struggle over the past three with the obvious proliferation of signs and gifts of the Holy Spirit among members of mainline churches. In the past, Pentecostals viewed these churches as bestowal of supernatural signs and without the permission of Pentecostals, the Spirit of God was suddenly being felt in Charismatic Renewal among of major Protestant churches in the Roman Catholic Church. however, unexpected work of the Spirit among alleged opponents also to the influence that these Renewal movements were having on In other words, Pentecostals not only had to wrestle with the dramatic work of the Spirit in the mainline churches, they also had to come to terms with the possibility that the movement renewal for Pentecostal churches. This confusion was rooted in the Pentecostal ambivalence toward a Renewal movement that both repelled and influenced the classical Pentecostal churches. many classical Pentecostals. may serve as a source of Identity The Problem of Pentecostal To speak of the influence of the Charismatic movement on classical Pentecostalism raises a number of questions about the identity and characteristics of these movements. Classical Pentecostalism is a diverse movement both culturally minority and Oneness Pentecostals Solutions,” and theologically. For example, have been less influenced by the ‘ Joseph Flower, “The Charismatic Movement: Some Problem Areas and Pt. 2, Advance 8 (October 1972): 11. 2 The term “Charismatic” is used broadly in this article to depict both Catholic and Protestant participants identified with renewal. 1 34 Charismatic movement than has the majority of white Trinitarian Pentecostals.’ This influence is due in part to the compatibility between the Trinitarian Pentecostals and the largely middle class social location and the Trinitarian confession of the Charismatic movement. The baptism in the Holy Spirit as a post-conversion empowerment for gifted service, especially as evidenced by unknown tongues, was at least the most controversial, and, therefore, outstanding distinctive of classical Pentecostalism in its formative years. More recently, however, scholars of Pentecostalism, such as Donald Dayton, have insisted classical Pentecostalism be defined by a broader Gestalt of spirituality, or “full” Gospel, which included conversion, Spirit baptism, bodily healing, and an eschatological expectation for the soon return of Christ.4 4 Steve Land and William Faupel have argued convincingly that the eschatological or apocalyptic passions were central to the Pentecostal movement, calling forth intense holiness, empowered missionary witness, and a revival of extraordinary gifts, such as tongues and divine healing. Bom in American revivalism and the Holiness movement, Pentecostalism came to accent a series of crisis experiences with God which included conversion, holiness, and Spirit baptism. Of course, Pentecostalism has been divided throughout most of its history over the issue of the crisis nature of sanctification But all Pentecostals believed that the urgency of the moment in the light of the soon-coming Parousia of Christ called forth very dramatic experiences of holiness and empowerment for gifted witness. North American, particularly white, Pentecostalism has lost a degree of its eschatological fervor as it has gradually abandoned the urban poor for the suburban middle class. Store-front and tent meetings that tended to function as eschatological “colonies”‘ of enthusiastic believers were soon replaced by mega churches and ministries that focused attention on success for middle class Christians in the here-and-now. The potential for an identity crisis among these classical Pentecostals intensified when they were faced with a dramatic Renewal ‘ Kenneth Kantzer, “The Charismatics among Us,” Christianity Today, 22 February 1980, 26. ‘ I am grateful to Cecil M. Robeck for this insight. Donald Roots Dayton, Theological of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987). ‘ Steve Land. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffeld, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); William Faupel. The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought (Ph.D. Dissertation; Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham, 1989). 6Those Pentecostals who emerged from a Wesleyan background held that a crisis sanctification experience must precede the experience of Spirit baptism, while “baptistic” Pentecostals came to believe that sanctification was a process, which excluded the necessity of a crisis experience in between conversion and Spirit baptism. 7 I am grateful to Miroslav Volf for this characterization. 2 35 movement of the Spirit of God that had some of the characteristics of early Pentecostalism but occurred in foreign and threatening theological and liturgical contexts. Yet, the penchant of many within the Charismatic movement to favor church renewal over eschatological fervor offered an alternative spirituality to a number of Pentecostal churches that were losing touch with their eschatological roots. Herein lay a major source of the ambivalence of many Pentecostals toward the Charismatics. As important as the more holistic doctrinal approach to defining Pentecostalism is, Walter Hollenweger believes that this “ideengeschichtliche” (“idea-historical”) approach is not adequate by itself Fundamental for Hollenweger is the “realgeschichtliche” approach, which focuses on the actual hermeneutics of the movement. Hollenweger finds in primitive Pentecostalism a Catholic spirituality mediated through Wesleyanism and an African oral liturgy and expression of Christian identity that utilized the story, the vision, and prayers for bodily healing. The emphasis on prayer for bodily healing reveals the effort of early Pentecostals to overcome the Western dualism between spirit and matter and to replace it with a wholistic spirituality that proceeds from an g integration of body and soul, nature and spirit, or society and person.8 This unique wedding of Catholic and African spiritualities holds the key for understanding the appeal of Pentecostalism in the Third World and explains the ecumenical significance of the movement. Hollenweger noted that the greatest weakness of classical Pentecostalism has been its failure to realize its potential for ecumenical diversity. In the words of Cecil Robeck, Pentecostalism is ecumenical and multicultural, though much of the movement does not yet realize it.9 Perhaps, the greatest influence of the Charismatic movement will be in confronting Pentecostalism with its own potential for ecumenism. Such a confrontation implies a threat and a risk for many Pentecostals; but, then, so did the original Azusa Street revival. At first, the Charismatic movement did not pose much of a threat. Most of those involved early on in the movement during the late 1950s and early 1960s were Protestant and open to adopt a Pentecostal theological orientation.’° But the threat and consequent confusion was felt among many Pentecostals when the Charismatic movement reached the Roman Catholic Church in the late 1960s. Suddenly, Pentecostals . 8 Walter J. Hollenweger, “Priorities in Pentecostal Research: Historiography, Missiology, Hermeneutics and Pneumatology,” in Experiences of the Spirit, ed. Jan A. B. Jongeneel (Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, 1989), 82 9 Cecil M. of a Robeck, Jr., Stock of Pentecostalism: The Personal Reflections Retiring Editor,” PNEUMA: The Journal “Taking of the Sociely for Pentecostal Theology 15 (Spring 1993): 39-51. ‘° Walter J. Hollenweger, “After Twenty Years’ Research on 87 Pentecostalism,” Theology (November 1984): 407-409. 3 36 had to make, in the words of Vinson Synan, an “agonizing reappraisal” of what it meant to be Pentecostal.” Commenting on the Sixth International Conference on the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church (1972), Synan remarked, “They were singing ‘our’ songs and exercising ‘our’ gifts. It was more than I could take.”‘2 The presence of the Charismatic movement in the Catholic Church was most unexpected for Pentecostals and posed significant theological and ecumenical challenges for Pentecostalism. This challenge and the accompanying confusion was due to the use by Catholic Charismatics of critical biblical scholarship and sacramental theology to interpret Pentecostal experience, both of which were taboo for Pentecostals, especially during a decade in which they were passionately seeking to identify with American Evangelicalism.’3 Aspects of Catholic piety and life that seemed strange or sinful to classical Pentecostals, such as devotion to Mary, remained vibrant among many Catholic Charismatics. The Charismatics among the Protestants, who shared basic features of Pentecostal doctrine, have been generally less threatening theologically for Pentecostals. But some of these Protestant Charismatic groups, including the so-called “third wavers,” emphasized demonology more than the God of redemption or used certain methods of “imparting” the Spirit that seemed fanatical to most denominational Pentecostals.14 The revivals of holy laughter and animal imitations taking place in the Toronto revival are receiving mixed responses by Pentecostals.” The Charismatic movement offers great diversity, which must be kept in mind when discussing the tensions produced by the influence of Charismatics on Pentecostalism. ‘ Tensions Produced by the Influence on Doctrine As noted above, an expectation of a post-conversion Baptism in the Holy Spirit was a major doctrinal distinctive of early Pentecostalism. ” Note the struggle of Vinson Synan in Charismatic Bridges (Ann Arbor, MI: Word 12 of Life, 1974), 16-25. ” Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 25. Russell P. Spittler, “Theological Style among Pentecostals and Charismatics,” in Doing Theologv in Today’s World, eds. J. D. Woodbridge and T. E. McComiskey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 291-318; on the Pentecostals to gradual attempt by gain acceptance from Evangelicals see Gerald “Word and Sheppard, Spirit: Scripture in the Pentecostal Tradition, Part One,” Agora 1 (Spring 1978): 4-5, and 17-22; and, “Word and Spirit: Scripture in the Pentecostal Tradition, Part Two,” Agora 2 (Summer 1978): 14-19. ‘” Note, for example, the tensions revealed in Thomas Pratt’s article entitled, “The Need to Dialogue: A Review of the Debate on Signs, Wonders, Miracles and Warfare in the Literature of the Third Wave Movement,” PNEUA1A: The Journal Spiritual of the Societv for Pentecostal Theology I 3 (Spring 1991 ): 7-32. “Frank D. Macchia, “The ‘Toronto Blessing’: No Laughing Matter,” Journal Penlecostal of Theology 8 (April 1996): 3-6. 4 37 among Spirit bestowed in the sacraments. explanation of this Pentecostal capacity to experience consciously fundamentally Church.” According to Henry The Charismatic movement produced a variety of views concerning the nature of Spirit baptism.’6 Spirit baptism came to be viewed popularly Catholic Charismatics as a “release” or “actualization” of the experience Typical was Kilian McDonnell’s as a widening of one’s the Spirit that is at work this kind of sacramental has also circles.” to accept other views “release,” “actualization,” Pentecostals, though most of their Charismatic movement criticized the in Christian initiation and in the sacramental life of the Lederle, interpretation “comes close to being the official Catholic position and ‘8 received support from Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian Though Catholic and Protestant Charismatics would come of Spirit baptism, the sacramental interpretation drew the most attention from classical Pentecostals. or the like provoked of the Charismatic residue of revivalistic Testament theology shared this criticism The expressions different responses from published responses to the view of Spirit baptism suggested the Spirit’s empowerment and ‘ Charismatics because of the the Spirit as a “less” and a “more” bestowals.21 by these terms.” At the same time that the Charismatic movement was gaining force, the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism was being criticized outside movement by James Dunn and Dale Bruner as a that was inconsistent with the New assumption concerning gifting of all believers by virtue of initiation.2° Many Charismatics of classical Pentecostalism. Kilian McDonnell preferred the avoidance of the term “Spirit baptism” among Catholic Pentecostal usage of this term to quantify with regards to a series of Spirit In the words of Simon Tugwell, “more than fundamental Christianity can only be less than the Gospel.” ‘ 1 a Lederle, ‘9E.g., Flower, Company, I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations the Charismatic ‘6Henry of ‘Spirit Baptism’ in Renewal Movement (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988). “Kilian McDonnell, “The Distinguishing Characteristics of the Charismatic-Pentecostal Spirituality,” One in Christ 10 (1974): 117-28. Treasures Old and New, 106. “The Charismatic Movement,” 11; Ray Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal Looks at the New Pentecostals,” Christianity Today, 7 June 1974, 10. 20 James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1970); Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1970). 22 McDonnell, “Distinguishing Characteristics,” esp. 123ff Simon Tugwell, “Baptism in the 268. Holy Spirit,” Heythrop Journal 13 (July 1972): This was also Bruner’s major criticism, to which Lederle remarked, “few Pentecostals, if any, would recognize themselves in rightly Bruner’s picture.” But Lederle still believes that Pentecostals imply stages and discontinuities in the Christian life. He suggests the as “Augustinian” model of continuity in the Christian life preferable, Treasures Old and New, ch. 1, esp. 28-29. 5 38 Speaking theologically experiences or “actualization” represented a among Charismatics in an theology. groups not traditionally Pentecostal, release or manifestation The British Pentecostal giant, Spirit baptism as a “bubbling of the Spirit’s “release” creative language birthed attempt to be sensitive to the Pentecostal concern for dramatically new from the Spirit, but without the assumption of “amounts” or “levels” of the Spirit’s bestowal assumed to be part of Pentecostal Some Pentecostal ministers, particularly those active in experience teaching publications of by shifting referred to Spirit baptism as a in the lives of believers. forth” that she had ever read in official of the indwelling Spirit Donald Gee, for example, referred to of the Spirit who indwells believers .2′ That such metaphors typical of Charismatic language continue to create tensions within classical Pentecostalism is shown in a recent flurry of negative responses to an article by Assemblies of God Naval Chaplain, Stanford Linzey, in which he characterized the of Spirit baptism as a “manifestation” of the indwelling Spirit bestowed at conversion.” In her letter to the Editor of Advance, the journal that printed the article, Central Bible College professor Opal Reddin charged that this characterization of Spirit baptism “is the most potentially damaging” the Assemblies of God. Her reason was simple: “The Baptism [in the Spirit] comes from above, not from within. ,21 Pentecostal scholars Roger Stronstad and Robert Menzies recently have responded to criticisms of the Pentecostal doctrine of subsequence the focus away from the entire issue of whether or not there is still “more” of the Spirit to be received after conversion or initiation. They have directed attention instead to the distinction between Paul and Luke with regard to the “reception” Spirit’s reception is identified with Christian initiation. For Luke, the reception of the Spirit is for prophetic service and is not salvific. The bestowal of the Spirit for Luke assumes initiation to salvation but is not an aspect of that initiation.26 In the words of Herman Gunkel, Paul’s understanding of the Spirit’s reception is while Luke’s understanding is “post-faith.”27 Defining the is salvific and “pre-faith” Gospel Publishing Opal Reddin, Roger Stronstad, of the Spirit. For Paul, the “Donald Gee, Now that You’ve Been Baptized in the Spirit (Springfield, MO: House, 1972), 27. 24 Stanford Linzey, “Receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” Advance 29 (June 1993): 9. Letter to the Editor, Advance 29 1993): 42. The Charismatic (November Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988); Robert Menzies, Empowered for Witness: The in Spirit Luke-Acts (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). 27H. Gunkel states, “For Acts it is commonplace that to be a believer and to be seized by the Spirit are separate events. Only the believer, of course, can receive the but whoever has faith does not on that account to faith does not result from the already have the Spirit.” Gunkel, Spirit in Acts but is a of receiving the Spirit. It is different for Paul. The Influence of the Spirit, trans. R. A. Harrisville and P. A. Quanbeck II (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Spirit, According prerequisite 6 39 precise relationship between these bestowals of the Spirit is the theological challenge facing Pentecostal scholars. The proposals put forth by Charismatics and their influence on Pentecostal language should provide Pentecostals with the kind of creative tensions that might give rise to more meaningful theological formulations. It remains to be seen how the exegetical work of Stronstad and Menzies will be worked out theologically so as to enhance the conversation between Charismatics and Pentecostals. How are we to negotiate theologically the continuities and creative tensions in the various understandings of the Spirit’s reception shared by Luke, Paul, and John as well? Many theologians of the Charismatic movement no doubt will continue to ask if the Pentecostal understanding of the reception of the prophetic Spirit as a dramatically new event not to be identified with Christian initiation still does not contradict the identification of Spirit bestowal and gifting as an aspect of Christian initiation. By distinguishing the Spirit of prophecy from the abiding Spirit granted at initiation and given to secure an enduring Christian identity, do Pentecostals run the risk of disturbing the continuity of Christian faith and service, thereby giving rise to discontinuous levels of Christian identity? On the other hand, if Charismatics view all Christian gifting and experience as merely an “actualization” or “release,” of that which is received in Christian initiation, do they run the risk of viewing the Spirit as a “possession” of believers that is received and secured “once and for all?” Where in this understanding is the eschatological Spirit who is free to confront us in radically new ways that are not simply contained in conversion or in the rites of initiation? Elsewhere, I have argued that a basic difference in theological orientation exists between the “theophanic” spirituality favored by Pentecostals and the “incarnational” spirituality implied in sacramental theologieS.2′ The theophanic approach to pneumatology emphasizes the eschatological in-breaking of the Spirit in ways that are extraordinary, unpredictable, and radically new. The distinction that Pentecostals have traditionally made between initiation and Spirit empowerment for gifted service must be viewed in the light of this eschatological orientation, in which experiences of empowerment are not viewed as realizations of capacities already possessed (welling up from within) but as radically new possibilities called forth by the eschatological Spirit of God. This eschatological context is more helpful for understanding the distinction between conversion and Spirit baptismal experiences assumed by Pentecostals than the Gnostic “levels” of spirituality often used to interpret Pentecostal doctrine. The incamational approach, on the other hand, focuses on the abiding presence of Christ through the Spirit in the . Press, 1979), 17. 28 Frank D. Macchia, “Tongues as a Sign: Towards a Sacramental of Pentecostal Understanding Experience,” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 15 (Spring 1993): 61-76. 7 40 The Church, which is at work in believers through the sacraments. tensions between Pentecostals and Charismatics over how to understand the baptism in the Holy Spirit has its roots, in part, in this difference of orientation. In a similar vein, Peter Hocken has made a helpful distinction between the “renewal” theology of Charismatics, which highlights the renewal of the Church, and the “revival” theology of Pentecostals which emphasizes evangelism in the light of the soon return of Christ. is not normally accompanied , awareness of the Second Coming as an object of Christian Hope. The with the past.” 29 Revival language, on the other hand, has an outlook towards the future and involves hope Hocken notes: “Renewal language future is seen as in linear continuity by much more creatively with if they would view such of issues. influences on their language of the above-mentioned cluster the need to note a continuity between the abiding Spirit in the lives of believers and the subsequent experiences for the Second Coming. 30 Pentecostals can come to terms Charismatic influences in the context Pentecostals can appreciate called forth by visitations of the eschatological Spirit, without . of believers from instead to view the Spirit’s empowerment sacrificing their focus on the latter. Gordon Anderson has attempted such a formulation of Spirit baptism recently by arguing that Pentecostals have never meant to sever the Spirit’s empowerment the Spirit of conversion. Pentecostals have preferred Pentecostals people of God from being toward being a prophetic liberation. Perhaps both and meaningful interpretations of believers as the bringing service is the fulfillment of for helping to nudge the . toward more creative of the Spirit. Spirit Pentecostals interesting of the Spirit of conversion to “fullness” in the lives of believers.3′ If believe that prophetic conversion, there is potential in Pentecostalism a self-centered cult of personal redemption movement for both personal and social Pentecostals and Charismatics can continue to influence each other in the area of pneumatology of the empowerment The Pentecostal doctrine of tongues as the initial evidence of baptism has also been an interesting source of creative tension between and many Charismatics. Vinson Synan made the of the Charismatics who have avoided the doctrine of initial evidence, have also tended to speak in more often and enthusiastically than Pentecostals.32 Not all observation that many tongues Renewal,” 1981): 29Peter Hocken, “The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement as Revival and PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 3 (Spring 3° 42. ” Hocken, “The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement as Revival and Renewal,” 35. Gordon Anderson, “Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Initial n 1-10. Evidence, and a New Model,” Paraclete 27 (Fall 1993): Vinson Synan, “The Role of Tongues as Initial Evidence,” paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Guadalajara, Mexico: 8 41 Pentecostals world-wide have accepted the doctrine of initial evidence. The majority of Pentecostals have defended the doctrine of initial evidence but without much theological explanation concerning what “initial” or “evidence” mean. Ironically, some of the Charismatics who have rejected the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence have also offered rich theological suggestions concerning how tongues function as a fundamental sign of Christian experience and witness.33 Such insights beg the question as to whether the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence may not need to be taken more seriously by the Charismatics who reject it. Can Charismatics and Pentecostals influence each other toward a theologically insightful theology of tongues as a fundamental sign of Spirit baptism? The traditional Pentecostal argument for initial evidence has centered commonly on a “pattern” detected in the Book of Acts, in which tongues function in key places throughout the Acts narrative as the most striking evidence of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.’ Pentecostals are not the only ones who have taken note of the special place that Luke grants tongues as the sign of the Spirit’s work in the Acts narrative.35 Charismatics critical of Pentecostal theology have generally rejected the Pentecostal doctrine of initial evidence as a “law” that seeks to guarantee an experience of the Holy Spirit, or as a dogmatic rigidification of an experience that reveals a certain distance from the vibrancy of the experience itself.36 These criticisms need to be taken seriously among Pentecostals. But Charismatics should note that much Pentecostal literature reveals that the theological intent behind the formulation of the initial evidence doctrine was not to guarantee or rigidify the experience of the Holy Spirit. The motives instead were sometimes theological and diverse. . “Note, November 11-13, 1993). for example, Rene Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 78ff. Also see my discussion of a few Charismatic views in, “Sighs too Deep for Words: Towards a Theology of Glossolalia,” Journal ofPentecostal Theology 1 (Fall 1992): 47-73. B. Book 14 Gary McGee, of “Early Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Tongues as Evidence in the Acts,” in Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991 ), ch. 6. 33 According to H. Gunkel in Influence of the Holy Spirit, tongues were the “most striking characteristic activity” of the Spirit for Luke (25, 30). More Pesch notes that were for Luke the recently, R Die tongues “Anfangswunder” (initial miracle) of the Spirit’s work, Apostelgeschichte ( 1. Kommentar zum Teilband), Neuen Testament, hrsg. J. Blank et. Evangelisch-Katholischer al. (Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986), 101-102, 108. “Henry I. Lederle, “Initial Evidence and the Charismatic Movement: An Ecumenical Appraisal,” in Initial Evidence, ed. Hendrickson Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Publishers, 1991), ch. 8; Jean-Daniel Pliiss, “Azusa and Other The Long and Road from Myths: The Winding Journal the Experience to Stated Belief and Back PNEUMA: Society for Pentecostal Studies 15 Again,” of (Fall 1993):189-201. ‘ 9 42 For example, many of the earliest Pentecostals viewed tongues as the end-time missionary language that would aid the people of God in communicating the Gospel to diverse nations quickly before the soon return of Christ. This idea was drawn from an understanding of the tongues of Pentecost as the ability to communicate quickly the Gospel to all nations before languages could be learned, a view that is at least as ancient as the time of St. Augustine.3′ In tension with this utilitarian notion of tongues as a possible tool of evangelism, were the various theological connections assumed early on among Pentecostals between the nature of Spirit baptism and the tongues experience. As W. T. Gaston stated in 1918, “Tongues seem included and inherent in the larger experience of Spirit baptism. “38 Over the decades, Pentecostals have assumed that tongues symbolize fundamental characteristics of the baptism in the Spirit, and have granted tongues a certain primacy in relation to other signs and wonders.39 Tongues signaled the mystery and freedom involved in the divine-human encounter,40 the total yielding of believers to God (since the tongue is the body’s most “unruly” member),4’ the sign of the remaking of language and, hence, of the remaking of history by the eschatological Spirit of God,42 or the sign of a new ecumenical community that is struggling for the unity of the body of Christ yet to be revealed in the Kingdom to come.43 Because of the integral connections Pentecostals make between Spirit baptism and tongues, I have tried to direct attention from evidential to sacramental language. I have concluded that tongues actually function among Pentecostals as a fundamental sign of what the Spirit is doing in Spirit baptism to confront the people of God with the overwhelming mystery of the Kingdom to come and to move them toward the final gathering of the diverse people of God as part of the redemption of creation (Rom. “St. Augustine, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John,” Tractate 32, nos. 7-8. 38 Quoted by Lederle, “Initial Evidence,” 128. “Macchia, “Tongues as a Sign.” Note also, “Sighs too Deep for Words.” ‘° Macchia, “Sighs too Deep for Words.” ” J. L. Hall, “A Oneness Pentecostal Looks at Initial Evidence,” in Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 182. Murray W. Dempster, “The Church’s Moral Witness: A Study of Glossolalia in Luke’s 43 Theology of Acts,” Paraclete 23 (Winter 1989): 1-7. As Russell stated, tongues are “a broken speech for a broken body of Christ until Spittler Charismatic perfection comes,” in “Glossolalia,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Movements, eds. Stanley M, Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 441. The ecumenical event of Pentecost in Acts 2 only involved Diaspora Jews. The story of Acts depicts a people of God struggling for ecumenism through the power of the Spirit. Perfection will come when the whole people of God rejoice in every language before the throne of grace (Rev. 7:9). 14 Macchia, “Tongues as a Sign.” 10 43 As the utilitarian understanding of initial evidence was forsaken, the other understanding that theologically integrated tongues with Charismatic experience allowed tongues to play an enduring role as a distinctive of the Pentecostal movement.45 This distinctive, though not central to the Pentecostal witness,’ was, nevertheless, an important aspect of the apostolic character of Pentecostal experience.” Since tongues was the most striking sign for Luke of the newly formed prophetic witness of the apostolic community (Acts 2:4-13; 10:46), Pentecostals expected this sign to accompany their experience as well. The Charismatic criticisms of the initial evidence doctrine have provoked Pentecostals to make certain clarifications of their stance that are sure to inspire future debate and discussion. Vinson Synan responded to Charismatics by stating that tongues are the “initial” evidence of Spirit baptism, but that other signs are “no less” significant than tongues as evidences. 41 Similarly, Ray Hughes stated in response to Charismatics that tongues is by no means the “final” evidence.49 Such responses to the Charismatic movement from these two pillars of classical Pentecostalism imply that tongues alone do not serve to confirm the work of the Spirit in empowering the people of God for gifted service. Tongues serve as “evidence” only in continuity with other signs of the Spirit. There is a safeguard in such an idea against viewing tongues as an absolute guarantee or as an inflexible dogmatization of the experience of the prophetic Spirit among the people of God. Other Pentecostals have been seeking further clarification of the initial evidence doctrine in response, in part, to both Charismatics and Evangelicals. Cecil M. Robeck reminded us that Pentecostal founder, William J. Seymour, came to emphasize the necessity of the fruits of love and holiness as confirmations of the Spirit’s work among the °’ Jenny Everts, “Missionary Tongues?” paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (Gaudalajara, Mexico: November 11-13, 1993). 46 Vinson Synan, for example, complained, “many have dubbed the pentecostals the ‘tongues movement.’ Pentecostals have never accepted that appellation. It is no more logical than calling the Baptists the ‘water movement’ or the Presbyterians the ‘predestination movement. “‘ Charismatic Bridges, 33-34. Similarly, Wade Horton stated that Pentecostals “did, and still do not, place as much importance on glossolalia itself… as others claim.” “Introduction,” The Glossolalia. Phenomenon, ed. Wade Horton (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1966), 16. “Though tongues were never central to Pentecostal Pentecostals _ teachings, still did value them highly as a distinctive. P. C. Nelson expressed the sentiments of when he many wrote, “We esteem this gift so highly that we are willing to suffer and reproach loss for the sake of the wonderful privilege of receiving the Holy Spirit in the way the hundred and twenty did at Pentecost.” Bible Doctrines (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing 48 House, 1948), 90. Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 34. ‘9Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal,” 8. 11 44 Spirit’s empowerment credibility departure beyond imply that tongues can be as freely tongues do not function Fee to explain how his initial evidence, the fact Without prophetic witness of gifts among of believers.” first century Christians, but criterion for confirming the further clarification is needed by as initial evidence, biblical are people of God.50 This insight carries the issue of confirmation of the the signs of the Spirit in worship to the of worship found in the dedicated life. In a potential from the initial evidence doctrine, 5’ Gordon Fee has depicted tongues as “normal” but not “normative.” This distinction seems to and prolifically manifested today among believers as they were among as a necessary experience of Spirit baptism. Though view does not represent a mere rejection of that he holds ministerial credentials in a major Pentecostal denomination calls into question the assumed inflexibility of Pentecostals on the issue of initial evidence. denying the role of tongues scholars Roger Stronstad and Robert Menzies have focused on the the people of God as the Lukan confirmation of the Spirit’s gifting for service. 52 Stronstad understands the diversity of the people of God as producing a prophetic community, a “prophethood All gifts are to serve the prophetic witness of the Church in the world.” Such views imply that tongues evidence of Spirit baptism but only as an integral aspect of a broader prophetic witness. All of the above diverse formulations of initial evidence in part are responses to the influence of the Charismatic movement. But they also reflect within Pentecostal circles a much overlooked theological fluidity and complexity surrounding the initial evidence doctrine. Much more discussion is necessary, however, particularly with regard to the ecumenical implications of the doctrine, both negative and positive. which holds so much potential for symbolizing and inspiring an ecumenical vision for the people of God, have, in the view of many, been interpreted by Pentecostals in a way that threatens ecumenical dialogue. Charismatics and Pentecostals must talk to each other more about these matters. Ironically, speaking in tongues, 50 Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “William J. Seymour and the ‘Bible Evidence.”‘ in Initial Evidence, ed. Gary B. McGee (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 117-127. “Fee argues that historical precedent is never sufficient in itself to establish norms. See Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 94. See Roger Stronstad’s response, “The Biblical Precedent for Historical 5Z Precedent,” Paraclete 27 (Summer 1993): 5ff. Stronstad. Charismatic Theology of St. Luke; Menzies, Empowered for ¡Vitness. Stronstad, “Affirming Diversity: God’s People as a Community of 1994 Presidential Address, PNEI£E£4: The Journal of the Society Pentecostal Studies 17 for (Fall 1995): 145-157. 53 roger Prophets.” 12 45 Tensions Produced by the Influence on Holiness, Piety, and Worship The Charismatic movement has made its most deeply-felt challenge to Pentecostalism in the area of personal holiness, since, for Pentecostals, “purity precedes power.”54 Pentecostals have been repelled by the absence among many Charismatics of a holiness code of ethics. Influenced by the Holiness movement, some of the most obvious signs of worldliness for classical Pentecostals have been associated traditionally with such personal vices and social fads as smoking, drinking, the wearing of jewelry, dancing, and theater attendance. Some diversity, however, has existed among North American Pentecostals on such issues. For example, certain ethnic Pentecostal groups have had little difficulty with moderate drinking. Other Pentecostal groups have ceased criticizing church members for watching a movie at the cinema. Have Pentecostals given too much attention to such matters as personal dress, habits, and forms of entertainment? There is little doubt that criticizing styles of dress and various personal habits has functioned for some as a self-righteous justification for more serious crimes against humanity, such as racism and sexism. Holiness taboos, though sometimes trivial and hypocritical, were also part of the Pentecostal attempt to identify an ecclesiastical subculture that resisted and criticized the spirit of the age. The priorities involved were culturally influenced, but the respect for the body implied in a number of the taboos had relevance for a number of ethical issues. Synan, for example, felt compelled in response to the Charismatic movement to note that recent scientific research has supported the Pentecostal criticisms of smoking and drinking.55 On the other hand, “Mr. Pentecost,” David du Plessis, warned Charismatics not to feel obligated to inherit all of the “superficial matters” of classical Pentecostalism, including some of its holiness codes of behavior. 56 Many Charismatics have had no difficulty following this advice due to their view of the holiness ethics of Pentecostals as “cultural baggage” that is not essential to the work of the Spirit. 57 The “agonizing reappraisal” of what it means to be “Pentecostal” has been caused in part by the presence of Charismatics who smoke and drink. Most classical Pentecostals would not agree with the characterization of their ethics as mere cultural baggage. But the Charismatics have helped to raise the important issue of the cultural influence on the ethics popular among Pentecostals, as among all Christians, including the Charismatics. If Pentecostalism is to remain vibrant and contextual as a counter-cultural eschatological movement, it must continue to take this 55 “Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal,” 7. Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 33. Edward D. O’Conner, The Pentecostal klovement in the Catholic Church (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 19’71 ), 81. 56Quoted by S7 O’Conner. Pentecostal Movement, 243. 13 46 challenge from the Charismatic movement with utmost seriousness. But beyond the Charismatic challenge, minority Pentecostals in -the United States might offer ethical challenges to confront the lack of social concern among Charismatics and classical Pentecostals. Personal piety has also been a point of tension between Pentecostals and Charismatics. Catholic Charismatics in particular offend Pentecostals by remaining loyal to acts of piety that Pentecostals have traditionally condemned. For example, the vast majority of Pentecostals would be horrified at one testimony from a Catholic Charismatic concerning a prayer in tongues that consisted largely of “Hail Mary.”58 Marian piety and devotion to saints are frequently mentioned as points of offense by Pentecostals in response to Catholic Charismatics.59 Though Pentecostals have reason to be concerned about certain aspects of Catholic Charismatic piety, deeper reflection on the value inherent in Catholic piety might serve to increase awareness among Pentecostals of the possibility of the Spirit’s sanctifying and empowering presence at work in a diversity of spiritualities, even in those that seem foreign and strange. Some classical Pentecostals have struggled to learn this lesson. It is in the area of worship that the Charismatic movement has made its most visible influence on classical Pentecostalism. Worthy of note is the devotion to praise common among Charismatic groups.60 One Pentecostal commented on the “great spiritual freedom” and creativity involved in the creation of new choruses for worship among Charismatics.6’ He wrote: “sometimes everyone gains the same pitch or tone level, and it becomes a song. ,,62 The “anointed” singing of new choruses was mentioned by another author as the most outstanding characteristic of the movement; he further commented that he discovered in this something that was lost from “old-time Pentecost.”63 Indeed, at a time when well-worn hymnals and camp-meeting favorites were losing their appeal for many Pentecostals, the Charismatic flurry of new choruses came as a breath of fresh air. They brought Pentecostals a “simplicity that is rare and refreshing.”‘ However, some of us who have been overwhelmed by the flood of new choruses are hoping for greater usage of the hymnals. _ 58 O’Conner, Pentecostal Movement, 60. 5’Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 10; Ray Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal,” 10; Melvin Hodges, “The Charismatic Movement in World Evangelism,” Advance 11 (March 1975): 5. 60 J. Rodman Williams, “A Profile of the Charismatic Movement,” 28 Christianity Advance 11 Today, February 1975, 10; Elmer Bilton, “The Charismatics Are Coming,” 6′ (November 1975): 9. Dwight McLaughlin, “An Appraisal of the Charismatic Movement,” Pentecostal 26 Evangel, November 1972, 9. 6′ 6z McLaughlin, “An Appraisal of the Charismatic Movement,” 9. Bilton, “The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9. 64 O’Connor, Pentecostal Movement, 81. 14 47 Many Pentecostals were impressed by the intensity of worship possible among Charismatics without the energetic encouragements from loud musical instruments and enthusiastic song leaders that tended to be typical of Pentecostal song services.65 One Pentecostal minister learned from the Charismatic movement that it is possible to lose “sensitivity to the Spirit” by having the musical instruments all “wound up” to a fever pitch.’ Born in American revivalism, Pentecostalism became accustomed to very lively and loud musical accompaniment. Though this kind of music can still be a meaningful expression of joy and ecstasy, the presence of intense prayer without it has taught Pentecostals something very valuable about the necessary role of the Spirit at the base of all meaningful praise, regardless of its cultural form. After all, without the Spirit at the foundation of Pentecostal worship, all one would have is Maslow’s “peak experience” produced by certain external inducements. Many Charismatics coming from liturgical backgrounds have taken certain gifted expressions in worship favored among Pentecostals in rather novel directions. For example, glossolalic prayers, which have tended to be individual and spontaneous among Pentecostals, became harmonious group songs among the Charismatics. Synan enthusiastically remarked that the Catholic Charismatic Conference during Pentecost Sunday of 1975 at St. Peter’s Basilica was similar in some ways to a “backwoods Pentecostal camp meeting,” except for the “singing in the Spirit” which he described then as a “chanting in harmony in glossolalia.”6′ The transformation of tongues into a form of “liturgical” prayer has both fascinated and repelled Pentecostals. I have been present in more than one classical Pentecostal service that has benefited from this kind of relatively quiet and harmonious group singing in tongues. But criticism has come from Pentecostals who believed that this Charismatic trend merely seeks to tame and to manipulate what is meant to be an overwhelming and dramatic self-disclosure of the Spirit. Wade Horton complained about the Charismatics who accept “the mechanical, quiet, sophisticated tongues speaking, but reject the emotional, unspeakable joy, spiritually intoxicated, rushing mighty wind kind of Pentecostal experience. ,,68 The orchestration of falling in the Spirit and holy laughter as group experiences popular among certain Charismatic groups is also part of the transformation of spontaneous 65 McLaughlin, “An Appraisal of the Charismatic Movement,” 9. “David Rees-Thomas, “Charismatic Encounter,” Advance 9 (May 1973): 5. ” Vinson Synan, “Pentecost in St. Peter’s,” Christianity Today. 6 June Note 1975, 45; Rene Laurentin’s reference to congregational glossolalia as having “an aesthetic and specifically musical function” and as analogous to “performing rituals foreign to everyday life,” Catholic Pentecostalism, 79-80. Horton, “Introduction,” 15. 15 48 signs and wonders into innovative liturgical responses criticized in the above quote by Horton as “mechanical.” Of course, research on glossolalia over the past few decades has exposed the ritualistic dynamics at work in tongues speech, even among Pentecostal groups. Yet, there is still a difference in expression and symbolization between Pentecostal and Charismatic expressions of tongues.69 If the two sides can continue to overcome being offended by unfamiliar styles of worship, they will continue to learn from each other. For example, the loud, fervent, and less harmonious expressions of tongues and styles of prayer common among Pentecostals and potentially offensive to Charismatics. can be symbolic of the urgency of the moment and of the depth of the need as believers invoke the Holy Spirit to be present and active in a potentially desperate situation. But there is also rich symbolism involved in the more aesthetic expressions of harmonious group singing in tongues common among Charismatics as they stretch the limits of artistic expression. The mutual influence that has occurred in tongues worship between the two groups can serve to create a broader diversity of worship styles and symbolic gestures. Some Pentecostals, however, have felt uneasy with the desire expressed among some Charismatics to utilize tongues at will as a prayer method for spiritual edification. Hughes criticized Charismatics for wanting to “manipulate tongues according to the fancies of men,” which he defined as a desire for personal refreshing or a psychological release. For Hughes, tongues are given by God in order to be a vehicle of a divine message.” Though Pentecostals have always spoken of cultivating tongues as a source of personal enrichment, they have tended to view the initiation of the gift as solely a spontaneous move of the Spirit. Devotion to the Eucharist, interpersonal prayer for one another, intimate group encounters, and a concentration on teaching from the Bible are listed by one Pentecostal minister as practices he believes Pentecostals are adopting from the Charismatic movement.? He claims to have learned to prefer these avenues of the Spirit’s work to “church games, competitions, socials. ,,73 He has learned from the Charismatic movement to value the quality of ministry over charting “the number of people in Sunday School, the size of the church, the amount of offerings, or how many ‘souls’ were saved.”‘4 Pentecostalism has fostered its own types of interpersonal prayer and devotion to the 69 Note my treatment of this issue in “Tongues as a “Edward Sign.” O’Connor describes how offended Catholic Charismatics were the ” many by worship styles of classical Pentecostals in Pentecostal Movement, 80-81. Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal,” 10. n Rees-Tbomas, “Charismatic Encounter,” 5. ‘° 7’Rees-Thomas, “Charismatic Encounter,” 4. Rees-Thomas, “Charismatic Encounter,” 4. 16 49 Bible. Yet, the Charismatic movement may have served to help remind some Pentecostals who have lost touch with these priorities that church renewal is a much better concomitant to serving the Kingdom of God in the world than church-growth techniques. The aspects of Charismatic worship mentioned above have actually been quite appealing to the so-called “baby-boomer” generation. Ironically, some Pentecostals have tried to use the positive aspects of Charismatic worship as a kind of “church-growth” technique. For example, the theme of the 1973 Pentecost Crusade of the Assemblies of God was “Charismatic Encounter.” The official ministerial publication of the denomination explained the theme as an opportunity to “take advantage of the current surge of public interest in the Charismatic Movement.” The publication noted further, “any church that advertises a ‘charismatic encounter’ will attract visitors.” A seven-part sermon series on Charismatic Renewal was prepared and made available to Assemblies of God ministers to aid in the new “charismatic crusades A number of Assemblies of God churches actually had success in attracting Charismatics to their services. One minister reported that “about 50 percent of our congregation are people from the Charismatic Movement.”‘6 One particularly successful Assemblies minister boasted of having close to 90 percent of his Thursday evening “charismatic Bible study” consist of Charismatics.” The presence of Charismatics in Assemblies of God churches encouraged these congregations to adjust to Charismatic styles of worship and interpersonal interaction. One Assemblies minister asked, “would I, as a pastor, allow this spiritual renewal to pass without making proper alignment?’,71 Tensions Produced by the Influence Toward Ecumenism The most significant potential influence of the Charismatic movement, particularly of the Catholic segment of the movement, has been in the area of ecumenical vision. Synan stated in response to the Charismatics that he gained from them a sense of the “world-wide scope and power” of the Pentecostal movement in the twentieth century.’9 But Synan admits that this insight did not come without a struggle. He spoke for many Pentecostals when he stated that memories of persecution and resistance from mainline churches made Pentecostals skeptical about the possibility of the renewed empowerment of the Holy Spirit erupting from within these churches. How could these opponents of revival receive so easily an experience that the Pentecostals have historically suffered so much to maintain and . . 7S “Theme Announced for 1973 Pentecost Crusade: Charismatic Encounter,” Advance 9 (April 1973): 9. ‘6 Bilton, “The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9. “Bilton, “The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9. ‘8 Bilton, “The Charismatics Are Coming,” 9. 711 Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 17. 17 50 challenge to cherish?g° The ecumenical respecting self-righteousness. memories of suffering and sacrifice without among Pentecostals was for Pentecostals was in being led to A hindrance in the process of forgiveness and ecumenical openness the occasionally inadequate generalizations made about Pentecostalism by certain Charismatic theologians who showed little exposure to Pentecostal literature or fellowship and little sensitivity to the Pentecostal memories of rejection and persecution from mother churches. What little was said about Pentecostalism by went them as beyond viewing but not much theological or ethical of early Pentecostalism leaves to the Charismatic authors rarely fundamentalists with an experience insight to offer.81 This description unexplained fundamentalists. encourage Charismatics. Note, for example, Charismatics: why Pentecostals were historically so threatening The Charismatic descriptions of Pentecostalism did not Pentecostals toward an openness opposing Wade to the insights Horton’s response of to It is difficult to understand, however, why it is supposed that these newcomers to Pentecost, who have spent many years either avoiding or the experience, can become such authorities It seems a little inappropriate for them to almost immediately assume the overnight. position of authoritative teachers…. Would it not be more charitable for them to re-examine the total Pentecostal picture and seek to be taught rather than to teach … ?” Similarly, after Synan expressed gained from Charismatics, appreciation for the insights that he them that there is still much that of their In addition, movement to be reduced to he reminded they could learn from Pentecostals as well.83 Pentecostals did not want the significance a historical background for enlivened denominational traditions. As one Pentecostal preacher stated, background While God has not called us to play Mother Superior to all of the Charismatics, neither has He placed us like some drab curtain in the to form only a historical setting.8’ something Ranaghans argue theological ‘Synan Charismatic Bridges, 16. 8’ Edward O’Connor does allow Pentecostalism to teach classical about theology tongues and prophecy, Pentecostal Afovement, 214, but his discussion of the “dangers” of Pentecostalism is much larger, 221 ff, including Pentecostal teachings that allegedly alienate one from the Church, 239ff. The that Pentecostalism centers around the issues of and Spirit baptism Spiritual gifts because, originating in “fundamentalist churches,” it lacks a and liturgical context within which to interpret them, Catholic Pentecostals (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1969), 1 54-1 55 . 83 “Introduction,” 15. Synan, Charismatic Bridges, xii. g° J. B. Oaks, “The Call of the Spirit,” Pentecostal Evangel, 28 October 1973, 4. Horton, 18 51 Certainly the Spirit of the Kingdom of God plays a far more critical role vis-d-vis the Church than that of being a mere source for enlivening denominational structures, theologies, and worship. If the significance of the Pentecostal movement is in its witness to neglected dimensions of this eschatological Spirit’s work, then Pentecostalism must have enduring significance for the Charismatic movement in every aspect of church belief, worship, and life. Recognizing this significance does not mean that Charismatics should simply adopt Pentecostal theologies, worship styles, or codes of ethics. It is understandable that many Charismatics would seek to interpret Pentecostal experience in the context of mainline theological and ethical traditions. It is important, for example, to view the Catholic Charismatic tradition in relation to other Renewal movements in the Catholic Church that help to open one to the rich depth and diversity of Catholic belief, worship, and life.” After all, Pentecost does not just belong to the Pentecostals. But unless one is willing to maintain that there is nothing new under the sun, one should be open to the possibility that a movement such as Pentecostalism, that was bom as an eschatological and ecumenical movement on the margins of society and the Church, might serve as a source of theological and ethical insight for mainline churches. A “Pentecostal experience” is not “Pentecostal” at all if it is devoid of any theological or ethical implications and can be assimilated merely as a spark to ignite existing ecclesiastical structures, beliefs, and practices. There are radical theological implications in the beliefs and worship of early Pentecostalism that should not be ignored by Charismatics who wish to merely enliven their own theological heritages. Walter Hollenweger concluded, for example, “[i]f charismatic spirituality does not change our traditional denominationalism, what good is it?”86 In agreement with the thrust of Hollenweger’s question, Synan expressed the wish that the Charismatic movement would renew Catholicism “from top to bottom. ,,87 The radical implications of Azusa Street call for nothing less. In fact, both Catholics and Pentecostals can become agents of significant change in their respective denominations from a renewed look at Azusa Street. Actually, the most significant influence of the Charismatic movement on Pentecostals may be in directing them back to aspects of the ecumenical vision of Azusa Street. A number of Pentecostals found themselves pushed to an appreciation of other spiritualities and theologies due to the influence of the Charismatic movement. Synan testified that the Charismatic movement encouraged him to move from a reactionary position toward Catholics to a deep appreciation of the ‘ ” Hocken, “The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movement as Revival and 37-41. Renewal,” 86 87 Hollenweger, “After Twenty Years’ Research on Pentecostalism,” 408. Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 31. 19 52 orthodoxy preserved by Catholicism.” Synan’s response to the Charismatic movement implies an understanding of orthodoxy that transcends the narrow definition of “orthodox” espoused and presumably owned by Evangelicals. Synan also discovered that the Pentecostal appreciation for conversion experiences is not foreign to the Catholic tradition. He implies that the ex opere operato (grace given objectively through the sacrament “by the work performed”) does not preclude a place in the Catholic sacramental tradition for the conscious acceptance of God’s grace by the believer who partakes of the sacraments.89 Other Pentecostal leaders were encouraged by the Charismatic movement to a certain ecumenical openness. One Assemblies of God official responded to the offensive doctrines of the Charismatics with the insight that Pentecostalism itself has always had “diverse shades of theological thought” potentially offensive to various groups within the Pentecostal movement.9° More significantly, he noted that even the apostles were not in full agreement on every point of Christian belief 91 He located the urgency involved in transcending denominational barriers in the eschatological direction of the Holy Spirit’s work. 92 Similarly, one of the speakers at an Assemblies of God General Council exhorted those who wish to reject the Charismatic movement because of doctrinal disagreement to concentrate on the glory of the Lord in the movement.93 Even the Study Report on the Charismatic movement produced by the General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God accepted the Charismatic movement as a “greater” fulfillment of the Book of Joel in the twentieth century, revealing that “no organization fully represents the body of Christ.” According to this report, the essential unity of all Christians is potentially revealed in the Charismatic movement.” William Menzies noted that the Charismatic movement was not making significant inroads in Evangelicalism because of the Evangelical doctrinaire attitude of being “so sure of theological convictions.”95 Though strong theological convictions have always accompanied Pentecostal revivals, implied in Menzies’s statement is insight into the need to temper convictions with humility and openness. Such attitudes contradict the “prejudices and provincialism” that one Assemblies of 88 Synan, Charismatic Bridges, 26. Charismatic Bridges, 31; Synan referred to the ex the work ” Synam opere operantis of the (“by worker”) to support the need for conscious acceptance of vows in baptismal the Catholic tradition, though he does not discuss any further of the implications concept. 9′ ‘° Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 10. Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 11. ” “Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 11. Oaks, “The Call of the Spirit,” 4. 9, “Charismatic Study Report,” Advance 8 (November 1972): 3. 9’ Quoted by Kenneth Kantzer, “The Charismatics among Us,” 28-29. 20 53 God official reasoned lay behind the hesitancy of some classical Pentecostals to accept what the Spirit was doing among the Charismatics.96 The same official, however, contrasted unity through the Spirit inspired in the Charismatic movement with the “coerced” and “organizational” unity attempted by the Ecumenical movement. 97 Implied in a purely “spiritual” attempt at achieving unity among Christians is a docetic view of the Church. Surprisingly, one can find this contrast of the Charismatic and Ecumenical movements among both Pentecostals and Charismatics. 98 Of course, not all Pentecostals accepted the ecumenical challenges of the Charismatic movement. Hughes argued that Charismatics may use the same terminology as Pentecostals, but very different meanings are implied between them.99 Since Pentecostals proceed “from doctrine to experience,” no unity is possible with Charismatics while there exists such serious doctrinal differences. He concludes that “we cannot be unified by common experience.”‘°° T. F. Zimmerman, former General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, was willing to accept unity with Charismatics but only because he was convinced that the Holy Spirit will eventually make them “orthodox Evangelicals.” God is gracious by being willing to bless them before such a transformation occurs.’°’ The tensions and ambivalence exposed in the Pentecostal responses to the Charismatic movement are complex. As might be expected, the influences of the Charismatic movement on Pentecostalism have been equally complex. The Charismatics confront Pentecostals with the possibility of Pentecostal vibrancy in the contexts of foreign theologies, spiritualities, and styles of worship. The agonizing responses of Pentecostals to this Charismatic challenge has begun to make a number of them aware that the Spirit of the Kingdom to come is not limited to the Pentecostal movement. The Charismatic challenge, however, must be related to a deeper challenge facing many middle class Pentecostals because of their departure from the eschatological fervency and the solidarity with the poor and the outcast that so characterized early Pentecostalism. These commitments could result in both Pentecostals and Charismatics coming to terms with challenges and influences that lie beyond their most radical ideas about what the Spirit has in store for Hogan Pt. Pentecostal “Philip quoted by Joseph Flower, “The Charismatic Movement,” 1, Evangel, 22 October 1972, 23. “Ecumenical or Charismatic?” Pentecostal 17 Philip Hogan, Evangel, 25 March 1973, 17. 981. Rodman Williams, “Profile of the Charismatic Movement,” 11; Williams, however, does imply that there is some value in the Ecumenical movement. “Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal,” 9. 101 ‘°°Hughes, “A Traditional Pentecostal,” 7-10. Quoted in Kenneth Kantzer, “The Charismatics among Us,” 29. 21 54 the churches. The recent formation of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America on the basis of racial justice and reconciliation is symbolic of a trend in the direction of accepting such a challenge. But the fact that there was only one Charismatic, one Hispanic, and one female in attendance as participants at the formation of the Association, reveals that we still have a long way to go. Perhaps, in the end, Charismatics and Pentecostals can end up helping each other toward a renewal and revival of the Holy Spirit that are greater than any single movement could ever imagine. 22
