Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
175
Five
Defining
The International Pentecostal/Roman
Issues:
Classical Catholic
Dialogue
Kilian McDonnell
In the
previous
article on the international Classical Pentecostal/Roman Catholic
dialogue
I looked at a
range
of issues affecting
the
conversations, reserving
to this article a more focused look at five
theological
areas. The
range
of
topics
over the first three quinquennia
is extensive and merits attention. The fourth is not complete
and is at issue here
only
in an incidental
way.1
In a
preliminary way
the two sides
agree
of the basic content of the Christian faith:
trinity,2
the
divinity
of
Christ, virgin birth, centrality
of the death and resurrection of
Jesus,
Pentecost as constitutive of the church, forgiveness
of
sins, promise
of eternal life. We
may
look at these areas
differently,
but there is a measure of agreement on them.
Beyond
these
theological
areas of basic Christian
faith,
a number of issues
emerged
in the first three
quinquennia
which define the
dialogue and
give
it an unmistakable
profile.
In this
essay,
I treat five of these defining
issues: the hermeneutical moment, infant and believers’ baptism, baptism
in the
Holy Spirit,
the church as koinonia, and
Mary.
The Hermeneutical Moment
Part of the move from
pre-literary
to
literary
cultural
patterns
is the painful departure
from
pre-critical
hermeneutics. Within Pentecostalism there are
emerging
New Testament
exegetes competent
in critical exegesis,
such as Russell
Spittler
and Gordon Fee. The attachment of these biblical scholars to
aspects
of the
pre-literary
culture and their fidelity
to the Pentecostal vision have not saved them from
suspicion. They embody, however,
the tensions of a culture in transition.3 3
The Pentecostals in the
dialogue reject
the
philosophical principles which
gave
birth to form and redaction criticism.
They
also
reject
form criticism itself.
They
are
surprised
that Catholics who also
reject
the
‘ Exclusive of the topics covered in this article it includes Pentecostal spirituality, tongues,
the
prayer
of
praise,
faith and
experience, discernment of spirits,
the sacramental understanding of the church, the church as a
and
worshipping community,
liturgical
reform. In the fourth quinquennium, now in progress but not yet complete,
we are
evangelization, common witness, and proselytism. 2 The Oneness Pentecostals discussing were not a substantive part of the conversations. ‘ Richard D. Israel, Daniel E. Albrecht, Randal G. McNally, “Pentecostals and Hermeneutics: Texts, Rituals and
15
Community,” PNEUMA: The Journal of
the Society for
Pentecostal Studies (Fall 1993): 137-161: Timothy B.
Cargal, “Beyond
the Fundamentalist-Modernist
Controversy:
Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age,” PNEUAL4: The Journal
of the Pentecostal
Studies 15 (Fall 1993): 163-187.
Society for
1
176
same
principles
still use the historical-critical method, and are not convinced
by
the distinction between a tool and the
philosophical principles
of those who
produced
the tool. The Pentecostals hold that the
Scriptures
are clear in all essential
points.
Walter
Hollenweger, however,
then asks the
question: why
the
great
confusion in Pentecostalism??
Assemblies of God
exegete
Gordon Fee
says
Pentecostals are noted “for their bad hermeneutics.”‘ Even
sympathetic
observers of Pentecostalism have been critical of Pentecostal
exegesis
and called attention to their need of a more scientific
approach
to the
Scriptures.’ Pentecostal scholars do not
opt
for a sterile
Evangelical
rationalism in hermeneutics.
They
do want to
apply
the scientific tools of biblical research but in
conjunction
with what
they
call “a
pneumatic hermeneutic,”
“a
pneumatic epistemology,”
or “a
temple theology.”‘ They
favor “a
pneumatic
literal
interpretation.,,8
The move from a pre-literary
to a
literary
culture within Pentecostalism surfaced in the dialogue
in the reluctance of some Pentecostals who
represented
the more
pre-literary
tradition to
accept
the observations of a trained
Pentecostal
exegete.
Catholics had their own
problems. Though Scripture
has
priority over
tradition,
the
Scriptures
did not
always
have
practical hegemony over a
theology developed
more in
philosophical
and canonical categories.
The want of biblical
preaching
in Catholic
parishes
was noted and credited as one of the reasons for the flow of Catholics to Pentecostal churches. Catholics were
deeply impressed
with the Pentecostal Bible school movement which
produced
so
many lay
and clerical leaders as well as missionaries. Even with these areas of appreciation
identified and a
growing
mutual
understanding
4 Walter J. Hollenweger, “The Koinonia of the Establishment,” P,VEUAL4: The Journal
of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 12 (Fall 1990): iso, 155.
‘ Gordon D. Fee, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent-A
Major Problem in Pentecostal
Hermeneutics,” in Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, ed. Russell P. Spittler (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), 119. See also William W. Menzies, “Synoptic Theology: An Essay on Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” Paraclete 13 (Winter 1979): 16.
6 James D. G. Dunn, Frederick Dale Bruner, Walter J.
Hollenweger, Clark H. Pinnock.
Fee,
“Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent-A
Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 119.
Major
Problem in
L. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal
New
1 Jerry
Peter
Dialogue [/977-1982J (2 vols.;
York, NY: Lang, 1987), 1:209; Paul D. Lee,
Ecclesiology
in The Roman Catholic-Pentecostal
Pneumatological
Dialogue: A Catholic Reading of the Third Quinquennium (1985-1989) (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1994), 52, 68.
8 Final Report
(1977-1982),
article 25.
Reprinted
as “Final
Report
of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982),” in PNEUA-fA: `The
Journal Pentecostal Studies 12 (Fall
1990): 97-115. The
is on
of the Society for
quote page
101.
Sandidge,
Roman Catholic/Pentecostal
Dialogue ?1977-1982J, 2:444.
,
2
177
acknowledged,
hermeneutics remained one of the main difficulties throughout
the three
quinquennia
and into the fourth.
Infant
and Believers’
Baptism
No
topic
was discussed with such
passion
as this one. Pentecostal John McTeman was of the
opinion
that it is the
key
issue. Roman Catholics
recognize
the
baptism performed by
Pentecostals in the name of the
Father,
Son and
Holy Spirit.
Catholics believe that
by
virtue of baptism
Pentecostals and Roman Catholics
already enjoy
a
certain, though imperfect,
koinonia. The Catholics drew
ecclesiological consequences:
“The
unity
of
baptism
constitutes and
requires
the
unity of the
baptized.”9
The Pentecostals also believed that
they
have a certain, though imperfect,
koinonia with
Catholics,
but not on the basis of a common water
baptism.
Rather the basis is a common faith and experience
of Jesus and his
Spirit.
This
experiential
faith is what makes Catholics authentic
Christians,
not
baptism.
Most Pentecostals view baptism
as an ordinance, not a sacrament.
Pentecostals
reject
infant
baptism
because babies cannot have a conscious
response
to faith.10 Catholics wondered at the Pentecostal insistence on believer’s
baptism when,
as Catholics understand Pentecostal
teaching, nothing
much seems to
happen. However,
most Pentecostals would not see
baptism
as “an
empty
church ritual.”” Though
Pentecostals did not
explicitly deny
the
authenticity
of Roman Catholic
baptism, they
did
point
to
abuses,
such as
baptized pagans. The Catholics
point
out that
pastors
are bound to
delay
or refuse baptism
in cases where Christian nurture of the infant is not
likely
to occur. Most Pentecostals hold that immersion is the
only
biblical
way to
baptize. Though
both believe that faith
precedes
and is a pre-condition
of
baptism
and that faith is
necessary
for
baptism
to be authentic, they disagree
in some areas as to how this faith
operates. ‘”
9 Final Report
(1985-1989),
article 54;
Information
Service 75
(1990):
184; Reprinted
as
“Perspectives on Koinonia: Final Report of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal
Studies Dialogue ‘° 12
(1985-1989),” PNEUiI.fA: The Journal of the Society for
Pentecostal (Fall 1990): 117-142. The quote is on page 128.
Walter
not
Hollenweger thinks that the difference between infant and adult baptism may
be that great. “Of course I do not oppose the practice of adult baptism, but if ‘conscious conversion’ is a pre-condition for baptism, the term ‘conversion’ must either be so watered down as to make it virtually meaningless or else-and that would be the way forward-adult is not administered on the basis of a person’s turning away
from sin but on the basis of his/her confession and in
baptism
hope and faith that Christ begins a new work in him or her-which no longer makes adult baptism substantially different from infant baptism.” “rhe Koinonia of the Establishment,” 156.
“Final
Report (1985-1989),
article
50; Information
Service 75
(1990): 184; “Perspectives
on Koinonia,” P;iiEUVL4, 127; Lee, Pneumatic in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 304.
Ecclesiology final
Report (1985-1989),
article
43; Information
Service 75
(1990): 183; “Perspectives
on Koinonia,” P:VEUV£4, 126; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the
3
178
Both
agree
that a
deep personal relationship
with Christ is an essential to the Christian life. For both the
believing community
has an important function in preparing for the celebration of baptism.
Jakob
Zopfi’s
reflections on Catholic
baptism
in the Final
Report
of the third
quinquennium
would
certainly represent
the older Pentecostalism when he
says
“a dead
baptism
leads to a dead organization.”‘3
Still
today
some Pentecostals would hold similar views.
The Catholics were heartened
by
the
ecclesiological preoccupations shown in the Pentecostal
paper
on
baptism
and koinonia for the third quinquennium by
Cecil Robeck and
Jerry Sandidge.” However,
the same
paper
elicited a
vigorous
reaction from some Pentecostals who took issue with the
alleged
doctrinal
diversity
within
Pentecostalism,” this reaction
being
a manifestation, I believe, of the
pre-literary/literary dynamic
at work. This
protest against alleged
doctrinal
diversity
within Pentecostalism surfaced
again
in Pentecostal reactions to the third quinquennium.’6
The Pentecostals
suggest
that the Catholics continue to
study
their practice
of infant
baptism.”
But
they
were heartened to know that the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults is the
primary theological
model for
speaking
of baptism, a view enshrined in the Code of Canon Law.”
Baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
The Catholic
team,
most
having
little
experience
of
Pentecostalism, needed to be clear as to its essential characteristics. At a
preliminary meeting
in 1970 the “Essence of Pentecostalism” was
agreed
on. In part
it reads: “it is the
personal
and direct awareness and
experiencing of the
indwelling
of the
Holy Spirit by
which the risen and
glorified Christ is revealed and the believer is
empowered
to witness and worship
with the abundance of life as described in Acts and the Epistles.”‘9
In the first
quinquennium
the focus was on “the
experiential
Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 302, 303.
13 jacob Zopfi, “Candid on
Perspectives,” PNEUAfA: The Journal of the Society for
Pentecostal Theology 12 Thoughts
(Fall 1990): 183.
” Subsequently published
as Cecil M. Robeck and
Jerry
L.
Sandidge,
“The Ecclesiology
of Koinonia and
Baptism:
A Pentecostal Perspective,” Journal
of Ecumenical Studies 27
(Summer 1990): 504-534.
Robeck, and Sandidge, “The Ecclesiology of Koinonia and Baptism,” 504-534. 16″… I believe that Pentecostals, generally speaking, are much more united than Roman Catholics…. Roman Catholicism is very diverse, but Pentecostals are more uniform.” Zopfi, “Candid Thoughts on Perspectives,” 182.
“M.
Searle, “Infant Baptism Reconsidered,” Alternative Futures for W’orship, ed. M. Searle (7 vols.; Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1987), 2:15-54. 18 seen in the sequence of canons 864-871. See explanation in The Code of Canon Law: A Text and
Commentary, eds. J. A. Corden, et. al. (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1985), 624.
‘9The full text is in Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-19821. 1:141.
4
179
and
theological
dimensions” of life in the
Spirit.20 To understand this dimension is to understand the
vitality
of classical Pentecostalism. Undoubtedly
the
intensity
of the
experience
of God and the
ability
to speak
of it in a popular
language
is one of the
key
factors in the
growth of Pentecostalism.2′
For Pentecostals,
experience
is not limited to the
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit,
but that is its
primary
locus. When David du Plessis
spoke
to an international
meeting
of Pentecostal leaders in 1952 he said that the distinctive feature of Pentecostalism is neither
Evangelical zeal,
nor healing,
but the
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
with the manifestation of the spiritual gifts.
Du Plessis noted at this
early
date that the
baptism
in the Holy Spirit
could fit into various
ecclesiological polities.22
At the second
preliminary meeting
in June 1971 the link between water baptism
and
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
was
raised,
the Catholics
posing the
question
“Could the two not be the same
thing?,,23
At the first meeting
of the
dialogue
in 1972 a
long paper
on the
baptism
was presented
and in the
ensuing
discussion the
participants agreed
that baptism
in the
Spirit
should not be understood in such a
way
as to exclude traditional
understandings
of Christian initiation. 14 At this
stage there were still differences. Pentecostals saw it and the exercise of the gifts
more as a
sovereign supernatural experience,
while the Catholics understood the
supernatural
dimensions as
operating
out of a sacramental
context, though
not limited to it. In 1988 the
question resurfaced in a
paper presented by myself
on a text from T ertullian. 25
“Final
Report (1972-1976),
article
5; Reprinted
as “Final
Report
of the International Roman Catholic Pentecostal Dialogue (1972-1976),” PNEUAL4: The Journal
of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 12 (Fall 1990): 85-95. The quote is on
21 page 86. Juan Sepulveda, “Pentecostalism as Popular Religiosity,” International Review lvfission 78
of
(January 1989): 86, 87. Another factor is the access to God without mediation.
23 zz Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J.
1:41.
Sandidge, Roman CatholiclPentecostal Dialogue f 1 9 7 7- 1 98? J, 1:68. 14 Report
from meeting at Zurich-Horgen, June 20-24, 1972; Kilian McDonnell, ed., Presence, Power, Praise:
Documents on the Charismatic Renewal (3 vols.;
MN: The
Liturgical Press, 1980), 3:377;
Roman CatholiclPentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:80
Collegeville, Sandidge, 2′ My
section of the
paper
was reworked and
published
as “Communion Ecclesiology
and
Baptism
in the
Spirit:
Tertullian and the
Early Church,” Theological
Studies 49 (1988): 671-693. The text from Tertullian reads: “Therefore, you
blessed ones, for whom the grace of God is waiting, when come up from the most sacred bath of the new birth, when
you spread
out
your
hands for the you first time in your mother’s house with your brethren, ask your Father, ask your Lord, for the special gift of his inheritance,
the distribution of the
charisms, which form an additional underlying feature [of baptism]. ‘Ask,’ he says, ‘and you shall receive.’ In fact, you have sought and it has been added to you.” On Baptism, 20; Sources Chretiennes 35:96.
5
180
Two Catholic
participants,
Helen Rolfson and John Redford, called for a scholarly
study
of the nature of baptism in the
Holy Spirit.`6
To
respond
to this
request
I asked
George Montague,
a New Testament
exegete,
to collaborate with me. We
produced
Christian Initiation and
Baptism
in the
Holy Spirit:
Evidence
from
the First Eight
Centuries,
a
scholarly,
non-technical book .2′ The
dialogue
has never discussed the research in this book. The discussion in the dialogue
was
only
on one text from Tertullian, whereas the book contains texts from twelve other
post-biblical
authors .2′
Though only discussed in the
dialogue
in an initial
way
in relation to the Tertullian text,
it is
presented
here because it confirms the
suspicion
in the preliminary
session in 1971 and
again
in 1972 and 1988 that water baptism
and
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit might belong
to the same rite of initiation,
because the research
grew
out of a
request
made in the dialogue,
and because it shows the
possibilities
for future ecumenical accord between Catholics and Pentecostals.
Up
to this
point baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
had been based on New Testament
texts,
whose
interpretation
was
disputed.
Now thirteen post-biblical
texts demonstrate that
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
with the imparting
of the
gifts
was an
integral part
of the rite of initiation (baptism, confirmation,
Eucharist celebrated as one
liturgy)
in the
early church.`9 This
integrative approach
means that
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
does not
belong
to
private piety,
but to
public liturgy.
Because it is associated with Christian
initiation, baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
is normative. Witnesses include five doctors of the church
(Hilary, Cyril, John
Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus),
in addition to
Tertullian, Origen
and
Philoxenus,
and embraces
Latin, Greek,
and
Syriac cultures, almost the whole of the Mediterranean seaboard. The research
supports the classical Pentecostal
teaching
that
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
is not peripheral
but central. The
gifts
of the
Spirit
were
expected
and received
during
the rite of initiation because
they belong
to the Christian
equipment,
to
building up
of the
community.
The Pentecostals were also
right
that the
gifts
of the
Spirit
do not belong
to the
extraordinary
life of the Christian
community,
but to the ordinary
life of the normal Christian
community.3° Further, they
were
26 This suggestion was
picked up
in the Final
Report (1985-1989),
article
69; Information
Service 75 ( 1990): 185; “Perspectives on Koinonia,” PNEL,”‘viA, 131; Lee, 27
Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal
Kilian McDonnell and
Dialogue, 308.
George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the
Holy Spirit: Evidence from
the First
Eight Centuries (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991). The second edition appeared in 1994.
210rigen, Hilary
of
Poitiers, Cyril
of
Jerusalem, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom. Philoxenus of Mabbug, John of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Joseph Hazzaya, Severus of Antioch and Pseudo-Macarius. Apamea, 29 The celebration of initiation was preceded by a
lengthy
conversion process accompanied by instruction and formation, sometimes as long as two or three 30 while McDonnell and
years.
Montague, like Pentecostals such as David du Plessis, do
6
181
correct in
suggesting
that
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
could be accompanied
with a
profound spiritual experience. Hilary
of Poitiers (4th c)
describes his own
baptism
as a adult: “We who have been reborn
through
the sacrament of
baptism experience
intense
joy
when we feel within us the first
stirrings
of the
Holy Spirit.
We
begin
to have insight
into the
mysteries
of faith, we are able to
prophesy
and to
speak with wisdom. We become steadfast
in
hope
and receive the
gifts
of healing.””
Still there are differences. Catholics would not
accept
the doctrine of tongues
as the initial evidence
(though
the research referred to indicates that
tongues
has a
privileged place
in relation to the
baptism). Pentecostals relate
baptism
in the
Holy Spirit
and the
gifts
more
directly to the
individual,
while the
point
of
departure
for Catholics is community.3`
While differences between Catholics and Pentecostals remain,
the
agreement
in this essential area
appears
to be substantial.
The conclusions drawn from these texts are in
keeping
with the earlier
suspicion
about the relation of
baptism
in the
Spirit
to Christian initiation. But
they
are not
yet
the conclusions of the whole
dialogue.
The Church as Koirtonia
‘
If Pentecostalism is more a renewal of
Christianity
than of the church,”
then it will not have a
highly developed ecclesiology. Concomitantly,
if
ecclesiology
is not a
strength
of
Pentecostalism, neither will ecumenism be.34 Nonetheless Pentecostalism in its first beginnings
was
profoundly
ecumenical. As Walter
Hollenweger noted, “the Pentecostal movement started as an ecumenical revival movement within the traditional churches.”35 In 1906 the mission statement of the Azusa Street Mission in Los
Angeles
read: “THE APOSTOLIC FAITH
not think that tongues as initial evidence is a biblical teaching, they do see as
tongues
having
a
privileged-not
exclusive-relation to in the
Christian Initiation and in the
Holy Spirit.
Baptism Holy Spirit,
2nd baptism
ed., 369. Within classical Pentecostalism the doctrine of initial evidence is both
being questioned
and reaffirmed. See Gary B. McGee, ed., Initial Evidence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991).
” Hilary
of Poitiers, Tract on the Psalms 64: 15;
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22:246.
Corpus Scriptorum 32 Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of “Spirit Baptism ” in the Charismatic Renewal Movement (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988) reviewed the various views on baptism in the
Baptism
in the
Holy Spirit before the publication of Christian Initiation and
Holy Spirit,
and his views have been modified in view of the research there
“Donald W.
Dayton,
“Yet Another presented. of the Ecumenical
Layer
the Onion: Or
Door to Let the Riffraff
Opening
In,”
The Ecumenical Review 40
(January 1988): 109, 110.
34Thomas P. Rausch,
Journal
“Perspectives
on Koinonia: A
Response,”
PNEUAIL-4: The
of the Society Jor Pentecostal Theology 12 (Fall 1990): 173. ” water J.
Hollenweger, “The Pentecostal Movement and the World Council of The
Churches,”
Ecumenical Review 18 (July 1966): 313.
7
182
MOVEMENT stands for… Christian Unity everywhere.”
The
early leaders often
spoke
of the desire for
unity.36 Cecil
Robeck contends that contemporary
Pentecostals are ecumenical, they just do
not realize
they are.37 Pentecostalism’s interest in ecumenism is, in fact,
a retrieval of its original charism,
a return to its
deepest
roots.
The
ecclesiological
issue has been raised in relation to Pentecostalism’s
growth.
Peter Hocken asks the
question
whether the great dynamism
of Pentecostalism is related to its
relatively underdeveloped ecclesiology, or,
in other
words,
is the better distinctive witness of the
Spirit
in the
movement,
rather than in the denominations,
a mirror of its lack of a strong ecclesial context?38
From the first
days
there was a
strong
restorationist conviction that Pentecostalism was a return to the
apostolic church,
a conviction reflected in the
frequency
with which the word
“apostolic” appears
in the titles of
early
Pentecostal churches. Even
today
Pentecostal churches want to
stay
in
“‘pneumatic’ continuity”
with the
apostolic church,
while at the same time
maintaining
a discontinuity with much of the historical church.39 Pentecostals believe this
continuity/discontinuity claim arises out of their
fidelity
to the
Gospel
once delivered.
But if the focus of the
ecclesiological
discussion is on koinonia one can ask if this is not an
import,
even an
imposition,
of a
category foreign
to Pentecostalism.
However,
as Cecil Robeck
pointed out, “fellowship language”
has
long
been associated with
Pentecostalism “fellowship” being
a
synonym
for “communionlkoinonia.” In fact the personal response
in faith, so
strong
a part of the Pentecostal
ethos,
is implied
in the
mutuality
inherent in koinonia. For both Pentecostals and Catholics koinonia is a “dialogical structure of both
God-givenness
and human
response.”4′
Koinonia demands full
participation
of all members of the church at all levels of its life.
36 Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Name and Glory: The Ecumenical Challenge,” Pastoral Issues in the Pentecostal-Charismatic
Movement, ed. Harold D. Hunter TN:
(Cleveland,
Society for Pentecostal Theology, 1983).
“‘Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Taking Stock of Pentecostalism : The Personal Reflections of a Retiring Editor,” PNEUA1A: The Journal
15 39.
of the Society jor Pentecostal Theology
(Spring 1993):
38 Peter Hocken, “Ecumenical
Dialogue:
The
Importance
of
Dialogue
with Evangelicals and Pentecostals,” One in Christ 30 (1994): 114, 117.
39Howard M.
Ervin, “Hermeneutics:
A Pentecostal
Option,”
PNEUMA: The Journal
of the Society for
Pentecostal Studies 3
Roman
(Fall 1981): 11-25;
Catholic/Pentecostal
Sandidge,
Dialogue [1977-1982J,
2:116. Final
Report (1985-1989), article 108; Information Service 75 (1990): 189; “Perspectives on Koinonia,” PNEUMA, 139; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology
in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 316.
40 Cecil M.
Robeck, Jr.,
“The
Holy Spirit
and the New Testament Vision of Koinonia,” unpublished paper, 24.
” Final
Report (1985-1989),
article 72;
Information
Service 75
(1990), 186; “Perspectives on Koinonia,” PNEUMA, 132; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 309.
8
183
The ultimate source of koinonia is
trinitarian, christological, pneumatological,
and in the Eucharist or Lord’s
Supper (
1 Cor. 10: 16).42 Moreover,
the trinitarian life shared
by Father,
Son and
Spirit, is the
highest expression
of the
unity
Catholics and Pentecostals seek Pentecostals affirm the church is both a
sign
and an instrument of
salvation,
in the sense that each member is.44 Though they would
reject relics,
icons and the mediation of saints-including
Mary-they
want to affirm that when
they gather
for
worship
“the
earthly
saints
join…
with saints in heaven and with them
comprise
the one
holy
catholic and apostolic
church.”45 With the Catholics
they
hold that church order is the will of the Lord for his
church,
the
Spirit operating
not
only through
charismatic individuals but
through permanent
ministries in the church.
In common with other
Evangelicals they
do not have a high doctrine of ordination. Ordination is more a
recognition
of the
presence
of the Spirit
than a conferal. Their
understanding
would
vary considerably, but both affirm that the Church is both a visible and invisible
reality.” Both Pentecostals and Catholics
agree
that the church is “a
holy penitent,” always needing
renewal in both
persons
and structures. 47 Both
agree
that
“continuity
in
history by
itself is no
guarantee
of spiritual maturity
or of doctrinal soundness When the Church’s offices and structures become
“dry
bones” both
agree
that the
Spirit can breathe in new life .41 On-going renewal in the church in its essential dynamism
is a movement toward
unity. 50
“Perspectives
“Final
Report (1985-1989),
article
70; Information
Service 75
(1990), 186;
on Koinonia,” PNEUAL4, 131; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 308.
“Final
Report (1985-1989),
article
29; Information
Service 75
(1990), 182;
on Koinonia,” PNEUMA, 123; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 299.
“Perspectives
44Final Report
(1985-1989),
article 94;
on Koinonia,” PNEUAL4, 136; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiologv in the
Information
Service 75
(1990), 188; Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 313.
“Perspectives
“Final
Report (1985-1989),
article
101; Information
Service 75
(1990), 189; Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 315.
“Perspectives
on Koinonia,” PNEUX£4, 137; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the “Final
Report (1985-1989),
article 35;
Information
Service 75
(1990), 182; Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 301.
“Perspectives
on Koinonia,” PNEUAfA. 124; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the “Final
Report (1985-1989),
article 103; Information Service 75
(1990), 189;
on Koinonia,” PNEUX£4, 138; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 315.
“Perspectives
48Final Report
(1985-1989),
article
107; Information
Service 75
(1990), 189; “Perspectives
on Koinonia,” PNEUAL4, 139; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 316.
‘9 Final Report
(1985-1989),
article 106; Information Service 75
(1990), 189;
on Koinonia,” PNEUAL4. 139; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 316.
“Perspectives
50 Final Report
(1985-1989),
article
106; Information
Service 75
(1990), 189;
9
184
Pentecostals
recognize
that the
ecclesiological
difficulties
they experience
with
fragmentation
and lack of submission to
authority
stem in
part
from “the
frequent emphasis
on their direct relation to the Spir-it.””
Still
they
view the
multiplicity
of denominations “as more or less
legitimate
manifestations of the
one,
universal
church,”
their
legitimacy depending
on their faithfulness to the
Gospel.’2
Nonetheless the scandal of
disunity
is a contradiction to the
unity
to which Christ calls his church. Granted that the
Spirit
is the source of
diversity
in the body, yet
the
Spirit
is not the
Spirit
of division. Rather “the
Holy Spirit is the
Spirit
of unity in diversity.”53
Throughout
the sessions the Pentecostals were reminded of the communitarian
aspects
of
salvation,
while the Catholics were asked to call to mind the
personal
moment in koinonia. 54 When the
dialogue partners agreed
that some kind of “visible
unity”
was a demand of koinonia,55
lest the
credibility
of the
gospel
be
compromised, they
were not
violating
their
original
intention of not
treating
matters of structural unity.
Rather
they
were
reflecting
on the biblical doctrine of the church as the one
body
of
Christ,
but which seems to demand visible
unity
of some
kind,
which the
dialogue
did not
specify.
Mary
The Catholics were reluctant to treat of
Mary
in a substantive
way until there was a broader and
deeper
ecumenical
relationship
with Pentecostalism as a whole, but acceded to the wishes of the Pentecostals. The Catholics saw that Pentecostals viewed the Catholic doctrine of
Mary mostly
in terms of
salvation,
while Catholics wanted to
present Mary
in the relation to the
church,
as Vatican II had done.56 This
emphasis
is a key to
greater understanding.
on Koinonia,” PNEU?.?=1. 139; Lee, Pneumatic Ecciesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal “Perspectives
Dialogue, 316.
” Final
Report (1985-1989),
article 76;
Information
Service 75
(1990), 186; the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal
“Perspectives
on Koinonia,” PNEUAL4, 132-133; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in ‘2 Final
Dialogue,
309.
Report (1985-1989),
article 34;
Information
Service 75
(1990), 182;
on Koinonia,” PNEUlvlA. 124; Lee, Pneumatic Ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 300.
“Perspectives
“Final
Report (1985-1989),
article 34; Service 75
(1990), 182; “Perspectives
on Koinonia,” PNEUVL4, 124; Lee, Pneumatic
Information
in the Roman
Ecclesiology
Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 300.
14 Final Report (1985-1989), article 33;
Information
Service 75
(1990), 182; the Roman
“Perspectives
on Koinonia,” PNEUVL4, 123-124; Lee, Pneumatic
Ecclesiology in
Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 300.
final
Report (1985-1989), article 37; Information Service 75 ( 1990), 182, 183; on
Koinonia,” PNEUAL4, 125; Lee, Pneumatic Ecciesiology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue, 301.
“Perspectives
56 These same accents appeared in the dialogue with the Evangelicals. See Basil Meeking
and John
Stott, eds.,
The Evangelical/Roman Catholic
Dialogue
on ivfission (1977-1984): A Report (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
10
185
Both sides
recognize
that
they
had
mythological conceptions
of what the other believed in this area.5′ Both need to do some
dying.
The claim to the biblical text “there is one mediator”
(
Tim.
2:5)
was made
by both.
Together they
affirm “that
Mary
is the Mother of Jesus Christ who is Son of God and as such she
occupies
a
unique place.”58
The Pentecostals assured the Catholics that
they
take Luke’s text that
Mary is
“highly
favored” and “blessed
among
women”
(1 :28, 42) seriously and that Pentecostal
preaching
includes these texts. But
they
insist that they
cannot
go beyond
the clear
meaning
of the biblical
text,
which is normative for all subsequent doctrinal
development.
In regard to
Mary, Pentecostals do not admit of any doctrinal
development.
Pentecostals see a
parallel-although
not an
identity-between
the Catholic
teaching
on the
assumption
of
Mary,
and the Pentecostal understanding
of “the
rapture
of the church”
(1
Thess.
4:13-18),
but differ as to when this will take
place
as
regards Mary.59
Classical Pentecostals
acknowledge
that the biblical texts
concerning
the
virgin birth are
important
affirmations of the divine
sonship
of Christ.
Pentecostals were reassured when the Catholics
recognized
that there are excesses in Marian
piety, exaggerations
addressed
by
Paul VI in Marialis Cultus
( 1974).
Catholics were
encouraged
when Pentecostals admitted that
they
have to deal with charismatic excesses in the
popular expressions
of Pentecostalism. Both sides need to deal with exaggerations
within their own constituencies.
While there is some common
ground,
Pentecostals said that their people
were
generally
scandalized
by
Catholic veneration of
Mary.
All the traditional
Evangelical objections
to Marian
piety
were
expressed
in the
dialogue,
and
expressed
with some force. A
general
theme of these objections
was “How can Roman Catholic
doctrine,
which
goes beyond the text of
Scripture,
become a matter of faith for Catholics.” In the Final
Report
there reoccurs
phrases
like “they do not consider it a valid biblical
practice,” (intercession
of
Mary),*
“Pentecostals
reject
these beliefs,”
(perpetual virginity
and
assumption),6′
“Pentecostals cannot
Co., 1986), 48, 49.
“Final
Report (1977-1982), article 61; Information Service, 55 ( 1984): 77; “Final of the International
Report
Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982),” PNEUA4A, 109.
58 Final
(1977-1982), article 62; Information Service, 55 ( 1984): 77; “Final Report
of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Report
Dialogue (1977-1982),” PNEUA,L4, 108.
‘9 Final Report (1977-1982), article 76; Information Service, 55 ( 1984): 79; “Final Report
of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982),” PNEUAL4 , 110, 111.
60 final Report (1977-1982), article 66; Information Service, 55 (1984): 78; “Final Report
of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982),” P,NEUMA, 109.
6’final
Report (1977-1982), article 67; Information Service, 55 (1984): 78; “Final of the International
Report
Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982),” PNEUMA, 109.
‘
11
186
find
any
basis… in
scripture” (immaculate conception),6z
“the absence of biblical evidence”
(assumption).63
Because some
mythologies died,
because of the frank
expressions
of objections
to Marian doctrine
by
the
Pentecostals,
because some common
ground
was
found,
Pentecostals David du Plessis and John Meares
thought
it the best session to date.64 To the
great surprise
of the dialogue
the results of the session
gained
international
attention, attention which was detrimental to the
dialogue.
The
press
release had not
given
sufficient attention to the clear
disagreements,
which were substantial. Sometimes the
press
release was
quoted only
in part.
In
Tokyo,
the
Japan
Times ran a
story
with the bold headline “Catholics,
Pentacostals
[sic]
Find
Agreement
on
Mary.”
A Dutch newspaper
Trouw
printed
a similar headline. In
Austria,
an extreme fundamentalist
magazine Midnight
Call announced “Pentecostals Embrace
Mary.”
In
Scotland,
the Scottish Catholic Observer declared “Pentecostals Honor
Mary. ,,65
The Pentecostal world was in an uproar. Letters of
protest
from Classical Pentecostals inundated David du Plessis from all over the world. In Wales, the Pentecostal Times
printed an editorial
objecting
to the
dialogue.’
In the United
States,
the Assemblies of God took issue with the
press
release from the
dialogue with a 665 word
declaration,
now available as a tract with the title “Mary,
the Mother of Jesus.” Both the British Elim
Evangel
and the Assemblies of God
Redemption Tidings
ran articles
opposing
Catholic Marian
teaching.
In
April
of 1982 the Assemblies of God in the USA notified the Catholics that the local Catholic/Pentecostal
dialogue,
then in its tenth
year,
was terminated. 61
The
responsibility
for this
misunderstanding
has to be assumed
by the international
dialogue
itself. Each
year
the
press
release is discussed
by the
plenary.
The defect was not in the
theological exchange during
the week of
discussion,
but in the
press
release.
Except
for the matter of Mary
and the One
Mediator,
which was
poorly phrased,
the
press release for this
year
was not defective in what it
said,
but in what it omitted
by
inadvertence .6′ The
missing elements,
without which an
6`Final Report (1977-1982), article 73; Information Service, 55 (1984): 78; “Final Report
of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue ( 1977-1982),” PNEUAIA. 110.
5′ Final Report (1977-1982), article 76; Information Service, 55 ( 1984): 79; “Final Report
of the International Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue ( 1977-1982),” PNEUfA, 64 110, 111.
6′ Sandidge, Roman CatholiclPentecostal Dialogue ?977-/952/,
1:249.
Sandidge, Roman CathoJidPentecostal Dialogue f19 77- 1 982 J, 1:336. ” P. J.
6′
Brook, “Editorial, The
Pentecostal Times (March 1982).
Sandidge, Roman
Catholic/Pentecostal Virgin Mary,”
Dialogue [1977-1982}, 1:335-341. 61.1 in part the
areas of agreement and difference. Both sides sought to focus on the of Mary relationship of
press release reads: “The discussions of the doctrine
elucidate
to the Church in a Christological context. The topic which was anticipated to be
Mary
extremely
controversial ended with
deeper
consensus than
anticipated.
The
12
187
untrue
picture
is
given,
are the
specific
areas of
disagreement, given
in my analysis
above.
Also,
the
press
release was unclear in a matter which was clear in the discussions. Some
might interpret
the
press
release as
Pentecostals the Roman Catholic
saying
that
accept teaching
on
Mary
and the one Mediator. In the discussions
during
the week this affirmation
was clearly
not the case. The Pentecostals had
explicitly
said
they
do not accept relics, icons, saints,
or Marian mediation. What the
press
release said
badly
was that the Pentecostals now have a true
picture
of
why Catholics
say
that
Mary’s intercessory
role does not undermine the one mediatorship taught by
the Bible. This statement in the
press
release is about
understanding
what Catholics are
really teaching,
not about Pentecostal
acceptance
of that
teaching.
In a word, it is about the death of a
mythology
which does not
necessarily
lead to
agreement.
The misunderstanding stemming
from this
press
release on the Marian discussions is still present in world Pentecostalism.
What can one
say
in a summary
way
about the
dialogue?
Some areas of
agreement
and
disagreement
have been isolated. Neither
agreements nor
disagreements
have been stressed to the
disadvantage
of the other.
Many
Catholics are unaware of the existence of the
dialogue,
but their awareness is at least as
great
as that of other international dialogues
with
Baptists, Methodists,
and the
Disciples
of Christ. In classical Pentecostal and Charismatic circles the
reports
are read with great interest, especially
in seminaries and
graduate
schools.
Many articles and three doctoral theses have been written on the
dialogue.69
It would be difficult to measure the
impact
of the
dialogue
as an instrument of
dispelling
mutual
ignorance,
of
knowing
what the other partner really teaches,
in a
word,
in
promoting
the death of mythologies.
The
purpose
of the
dialogue
is not structural
union,
but growth
in
knowledge
of the riches each tradition
contains,
without compromise
of either’s witness.
Spirituality
has been a special concern.
The two
largest
Christian
traditions,
the oldest church and the newest churches,
which in the
past eyed
each other with
suspicion
and
distrust, have come
together
in
prayer, study,
and mutual
respect,
without
drafted expression of consensus reflected that: ‘Roman Catholics discovered that Mary
enters into Pentecostal preaching and devotion. The Pentecostals see that the presentation
of
Mary’s
intercession in official Roman Catholic
teaching
does not undermine the one
mediatorship of Jesus taught by the Bible. “‘ Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal
Dialogue [1977-1982}. 2:362. 69 Arnold
Bittlinger, “Papst
und Pfingstler: Der romisch katholische/pfingstliche Dialog
und seine okumenische Relevanz”
(Ph.D. Dissertation; Birmingham, England: University
of
Birmingham, 1977); Jerry
L.
Sandidge,
“Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [ 1977-1982]” (2 vols.; Ph.D. Dissertation; Leuven, Belgium:
Catholic University of Leuven, 1987); and Paul D. Lee,
in
“Pneumatological Ecclesiology
the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: A Catholic Reading of the Third
Quinquennium (1985-1989)” (Ph.D. Dissertation; Rome: University of Saint Thomas, 1994).
13
188
theological compromise,
each in
fidelity
to its tradition.
They
have grown together.
Real human
relationships
of trust have been formed. No one can
say
this
coming together
is a small matter. Nor that it is unimportant
for the
progress
of the
gospel.
14
