Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
178
incredible Pentecostal
growth,
the Roman Catholic Church is still almost twice the size of all other Christian churches
put together. Any
answer to Jesus’
prayer
for
unity
in John 17:21 must
necessarily
include this
huge and ancient church
which,
after
all,
preserved
the
Scriptures
and the faith in the West for the 1900
years
before the Pentecostals
appeared
on the scene.
Vinson
Synan,
Chair
North American Renewal Service Committee 5601 N.W. 72nd Street, Suite 242 Oklahoma
City,
OK 73132
Response
to
Perspectives
on Koinonia
This document
engenders
thankfulness and excitement. That such dia- logue
has been in process for almost 20
years
testifies to farsightedness and boldness
by
both
parties,
but
especially by
the Pentecostals. As acknowledged
in this
document,
Roman Catholics have recourse to cen- turies of theological tradition while Pentecostals have less than a century of tradition to draw on.
Yet, they
did not allow this
disadvantage
to deter them.
By contrast, Evangelicals
are
only
now
exploring
the
advisability of consultations with the Roman Catholic Church. The Pentecostals deserve credit for bold and
imaginative trailblazing
in this area. My
excitement is
generated by
the
topic
of this consultation: koinonia or communion. This notion is at the heart of present ecumenical discus- sion. Before
exploring
the treatment of this
concept,
I will make a few comments on the nature of this
dialogue.
,
1. The Nature and Limitations of the
Dialogue Early
in the document certain strictures are placed on the
dialogue.
The goal,
we are
told,
is not
“organic
or structural union,” but the
develop- ment of “a climate of mutual
understanding
in matters of faith and
prac- tice.” More
specifically,
the aim is “to find
points
of genuine
agreement as well as to indicate areas in which further
dialogue
is
required” (5). There are
undoubtedly good
reasons for this modest aim.
Moreover, this approach
has at least one
advantage.
It allows for an
open
and relaxed exploration
of uniting and
dividing
issues.
Two
disadvantages hamper
this
approach,
however. For one
thing,
it is
overly
amenable to a method of
dialogue
that is known as “com- parative ecclesiology.”
Put
crassly,
this method takes
inventory
of the understandings
of two traditions,
places
them next to one another and notes
agreement
and
divergences.
The Third World Conference on Faith and Order
(Lund, 1952),
advocated an alternative
method,
that of “Chris- tological
concentration.” This method
proceeds
from the basic con-
1
179
viction that in a significant
sense
we are one in Christ. This determines the
shape
and
path
of dialogue
among
the different traditions: “From the unity
of Christ we seek the
unity
of the church on
earth, and from the unity
of Christ and His
Body
we seek a means of realizing that
unity
in the actual state of our divisions on earth.”I
Unfortunately,
to
pose “mutual
understanding”
as the alternative to “organic or structural union” is to absolve oneself too
readily
of
engaging
in the
struggle
for mani- festations of unity other than such union.
Fortunately,
this document often
goes beyond “comparative
ecclesiol- ogy.” Yet,
without a clear focus on a
greater
manifestation of
unity, agreement
and differences are often identified without
any
indication of the ecumenical
significance
of either. When we read that Roman Cath- olics and Pentecostals differ, for
example,
on “the need for and value of ordination for the life of the Church”
(85),
the reader
may
well
ask,
“So what?” Is this difference sufficient to justify, for
example, proscribing cooperation
in
evangelism
or mutual
prayer
for Christian
unity? By paying
no heed to the need for a greater manifestation of the
unity
of the church,
the
significance
of the
agreements
or disagreements that are dis- covered
hangs
in the air.
.
.
2. Koinonia:
Promising
and Problematic
Key
to
Unity
The:. title of the document,
Perspectives
on Koinonia is somewhat misleading.
The first
major
section,
dealing
with “Koinonia and the Word of
God,”
touches
only obliquely
on koinonia. The
third section, “Koinonia and
Baptism,”
while more
directly
related to
koinonia,
does not
explore
the
potential
of this notion as fully as it might have. These two sections cover one-third of the
body
of the document as a whole. In the sections
dealing
more
directly
with
Koinonia, its significance
is not thematically
elaborated.
This document remains somewhat
vague regarding
the nature of the agreement
and differences between the dialogue partners on the
meaning of the term koinonia.
They
both believe that “koinonia between Chris- tians is rooted in the life of Father, Son and
Holy Spirit”
and that the Holy Spirit
is the source of communion (29, 30). The difference
appears to be one of
emphasis:
Roman Catholics stress the
“God-givenness
of the koinonia and its trinitarian character,” as well as the sacramental means of
initiating
and
sustaining
such
koinonia;
Pentecostals “stress the.fact that the Holy Spirit
convicts
people
of sin,
bringing
them to repentance
and
personal
faith into
fellowship
with Christ and one another…”
(31, 32).
The next
paragraph
characterizes this as a contrast of
emphasis between, respectively,
the communitarian and the personal
dimension “of the same koinonia with God which comes from the
Holy Spirit …” (33).
.
.
lHans-Georg Link, ed., Apostolic
Faith
Today (Geneva:
World Council of
76.
‘
Churches, 1985),
2
180
In as far as it goes, this characterization of the difference is accurate. It stops short, however,
of
examining
the core
meaning
ascribed to koinonia in the Catholic
tradition,
and thus
deprives
us of a Pentecostal assessment and
perhaps
an alternative
understanding
of koinonia. Much later,
the document does note that the
emphasis
on “the
indwelling
of the Trinity
in believers is more
explicitly
articulated in the Roman Catholic faith than in that of Pentecostals”
(71).
In a document aimed at mutual understanding,
one would
expect
to be informed of that articulation and of its
significance
for the
present dialogue. Instead,
this crucial issue is left for future
exploration (71 ).
Rather than
entering
into
many
detailed
points,
the limited
space
allot- ted for this
response
can be put to better use
by zeroing
in on the com- munitarian-personal
contrast that is
rightly
identified as a significant difference in emphasis. The differences and
agreement
between the dia- logue partners regarding
this issue need to be
explored
further. This could be most fruitful if the communitarian dimension in the Catholic tradition were more
clearly
related to and
distinguished
from the sacra- mental
element, while
the
“personal”
dimension in the Pentecostal tradi- tion were more
clearly distinguished
and dissociated from an “indi- vidualist”
approach.
It is precisely the notion of koinonia that could
open promising perspectives
at this
point.
However its core
meaning
is defined, koinonia indicates that the bond among Christians,
the
unity
of the church, is at bottom, not a product of human
striving
but
given
with the
grace
of God in Jesus Christ
through the
Holy Spirit.
In other
words,
a believer is one with others
by sharing in,
participating in, something bigger
than the sum-total of
believing hearts and sentiments. This
“something”
is
Someone, namely Christ. The Catholic
tradition, very quickly
moves from there to the sacraments as the
way
of
initiating
and
nurturing
this
“incorporation.”
In reaction, Pentecostals
(and
Protestants of other traditions, for that
matter)
fear an automatism and nominalism.
They strongly emphasize
the
importance
of personal
faith.
They
do so
rightly,
but
go astray
in equating “personal” with
“individual,”
understood in an individualistic and
subjectivistic manner.
By
“individualistic” I mean the
momentary
isolation of
“per- sonal” from
koinonia, and by “subjectivistic”
the
momentary
isolation of “personal
faith” from the
dynamic primacy
of koinonia.
Many
facets of the document illustrates the
point
at issue. I shall focus on two. In a Pentecostal
critique
of infant
baptism,
the document stresses
that, although
faith is a gift of God, it is
“essentially
a personal
response
of an
individual,” and
that “an infant cannot receive the
impartation
of faith unto salvation
(Eph. 2:8),
or the
Holy Spirit” (45).
At the same
time,
the document
acknowledges
in the next
paragraph
that from a Pentecostal perspective too,
“the
grace
of God is operative in the life of an infant.” This
grace
is not a nondescript aid or blessing. Rather, it is God’s initia- tive for salvation
(46). Obviously,
this
operation
can be none other than that of the
Spirit
of Christ. This means, it
appears,
that the infant in
3
181
question
is in some sense
already
“included” in the koinonia of the
Spirit,
and thus in the koinonia that is the
body
of Christ. This
points
out that the “communitarian”
emphasis
cannot be posited as one
pole
in
opposition
to the
“personal”
as another. Person as “isolated individual”
does not exist. In
fact,
in the
genesis
of
faith, koinonia,
and thus the
community
has a significant primacy vis-d-vis
“personal” faith, which,
as the document
acknowledges,
is a response. Such
primacy
minimizes
the crucial
importance
of the faith and commitment of the believer
only
if
one sees-in
polar
tension-koinonia as an
impersonal
collective and
person
as a monadic individual. The biblical notion of koinonia is the
coinherence of community and
person
in the presence of the
Spirit.
Another
point
at which a biblical view of koinonia could have broken
through
what
appears
to be a false dilemma is found in the discussion of
the basis of
unity.
Pentecostals are said to reject the idea that the
unity
between Christians is based in water
baptism. Instead,
the foundation of
unity
is said to be a “common faith in and
experience
of Jesus as Lord.”
Quite apart
from the fact that Roman Catholics would
speak
of baptism
as the “basis” of
unity only
in a
highly
refined
way,
the Pentecostal
alternative,
as posed, does not do justice to the notion of koinonia elabo- . rated elsewhere. Just as it is not established or created
by
a sacrament,
Koinonia is not established or created
by
the
recognized similarity
of
subjective
faith
experiences.
It is
something
that comes from “the other
side,”
from the
Spirit.
Thus the
unity
that exists between Pentecostals
and Roman Catholics cannot be as shaky as the “insofar as”
description
suggests:
“to the extent that Pentecostals
recognize
that Roman Catholics
have this common faith in and
experience
of Jesus as Lord,
they
share a –
real
though imperfect
koinonia with them”
(55).
It is
biblically impossi-
ble at one and
the
same time to affirm this “real communion” and
subject
it to the measure in which a common faith and
experience
are
recog-
nized. “Real communion” is the koinonia of the
Holy Spirit,
which
consists of the “new creation” that is
given
in Christ and that is to
become
transparent
in and
through
faith.
In sum, this document
lays
essential
groundwork
for the
greater
mani- festation of the
unity
entailed in our koinonia in Christ and his
Spirit. The would lose a great deal of its present momentum if it were .
dialogue
simply
to proceed to yet another
topic.
Far more fruitful would be a con- certed effort
(a)
to elaborate more
thematically
the full riches of koinonia, (b) to clarify potential
differences in its Roman Catholic and Pentecostal articulation, and, most
importantly, (c)
to act on the fact of shared koinonia -a
pleonasm
of momentous ecumenical
significance.
George
Vandervelde Institute for Christian Studies 229
College
Street Toronto,
Ontario M5T 1R4 Canada
4
