Improbable Conversations The International Classical Pentecostal Roman Catholic Dialogue

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

163 Improbable Conversations: The International Classical Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue Kilian McDonnell Word is out among ecumenists that the future of ecumenism is to be found with the Evangelical wing, the new frontier, the unexplored terrain. When the international dialogue between Pentecostals and Catholics began in 1972, after preliminary talks had started in 1970, there was a sense of doing a new thing. The Pentecostals were in formal dialogue with no other world church, a situation which also obtains today. I would like to explore this important dialogue in two articles. In the first, I will look at the meeting of two different theological cultures, the call to repentance, the mechanics of the beginnings, and what the death of mythologies means for this encounter between classical Pentecostals and Roman Catholics. In the second, I will examine five issues which define the character of the dialogue over the first three quinquennia. The fourth quinquennium is not yet finished and is only peripherally included. These issues are the hermeneutical moment, infant and believers baptism, I baptism in the Holy Spirit, the church as ?o//M/7/a, and Mary.’ In addressing these and similar issues both partners in the dialogue faced daunting obstacles. Catholicism and Pentecostalism stand at the two extremes of the ecclesiological spectrum. The Catholics identify themselves as the oldest church, with a highly developed ecclesiology, a pronounced sacramental system, a structured liturgical worship, and a centralized international body with a self-conscious magisterium. Community is the primary category. The Pentecostals are among the newest groups, with an ecclesiology which is not highly developed, and a non-sacramental polity, where spontaneity in worship is prized. The movement is de-centralized in structure, having no international embodiment which can speak with authority. The individual and personal experience is the religious point of departure. Pre-Literary Culture Meets Literary Culture Classical Pentecostals internationally represent a pre-literary culture (as Walter Hollenweger pointed out some years ago), while Catholics are characterized by a literary culture.` The mode of communication for ‘ At the request of the author, these two articles were PNEU&L4.- The Journal published simultaneously by of the Societv for Pentecostal Theology and One in Christ in The England. first article appeared in 31 ( 1995): 20-31; the second article in 31 1 ( 1995): 110-121. 2 Harvey Cox would speak of premodern and postmodern. 1 164 a pre-literary culture is the witness, the conversion story, the personal narrative, memories, the song. The pre-literary style in Pentecostalism was influenced by the black religious psyche. Orality is the first mode of communication. Religious experience is honored. In a literary culture the dominant instruments of communication are texts, reports, documents, letters. The printed page is primary. Religious experience is suspect. Though Pentecostals in first world countries, in contrast to third world countries, have been moving away from pre-literary modes toward a literary culture, they do so with evident reluctance and pain, knowing that all is not gain. Daughters and sons of Pentecostals go to Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, sometimes to the dismay of their parents. This entrance into the best universities is true not only of the United States but of Pentecostals in Croatia, Chile, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, South Africa and other countries, which has resulted in a new openness to others’ experience of God. To a large extent Pentecostals are not free to resist the move to a literary culture, which is driven by sociocultural forces not immediately under their control. Quite apart from the dialogue, this move has been traumatic for Pentecostals, which is reflected in the dialogue. Nonetheless, in many places in the Pentecostal world the pre-literary culture still reigns, something Pentecostals struggle with, but want to honor. The greatest areas of growth come precisely from these pre-literary holdouts. In spite of the opposition of theological cultures we drink from some of the same wells. Without the doctrine of subsequence (after conversion there is an experience of sanctification) there is no Pentecostalism. However, this doctrine has some Catholic roots. Walter Hollenweger has pointed out that Pentecostalism arose out of the meeting of a specific Catholic spirituality and the black spirituality of former slaves in the United States.’ Hollenweger and Albert Outler call attention to the influence on John Wesely of Ephrem (4th c), Pseudo-Macarius (5th c) (and through Macarius of Gregory of Nyssa), Thomas a Kempis (c1380-1471), the Italian Theatine Lorenzo Scupoli (1530-1610), the Spanish Benedictine Juan de Castaniza (d.1598), as well as the Anglican divines Jeremy Taylor (1613-1617) and William Law ( 1 686-1 76 1 ). Wesley was, of course, also influenced by Puritan and Pietist sources. The Catholic influence is specifically related to Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification, of subsequence, which is Wesley’s chief legacy to Protestantism. Through Methodism Wesley mediated this doctrine to the Holiness Movement from which Pentecostalism emerged. ‘ Walter J. Hollenweger, “After Twenty Years’ Research on Pentecostalism,” International Review ofmission 75 (January 1986): 4. 4 Albert C. Outler, ed., John Wesley (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1964), 9, 10, 251, 252. 2 165 Old Church Meets New Movement If Roman Catholics are the largest Christian group, then classical Pentecostals are now the second largest, and gaining fast. In the 1980s the Pentecostals (193 million) exceeded the Orthodox Christians (179 million). Catholics now number about 944,578,000. As of 1990 Roman Catholics constitute 58% of all affiliated Christian church members, while Pentecostals make up 21%. In 1988 there were 176 million denominational Pentecostals, by the 1990 the number had grown to 193 million.’ They are multiplying geometrically. However, according to Assemblies of God scholar, Edith L. Blumhofer, the growth in the United States of the world largest Pentecostal denomination, the Assemblies of God, has been “stagnant” in the last decade of the 1980s, showing that Pentecostal churches are “not immune to the numerical and spiritual stagnation more typically associated with mainstream Protestantism. “6 A related, but distinct, movement is the independent non-denominational PentecostaUCharismatic churches, sometimes called “The Third Wave.,,7 In origin the pastors associated with the Third Wave are better trained theologically, are less hostile and defensive, have a better over-all track record on orthodoxy, are more at ease in the patterns of contemporary life. If the growth of the classical Pentecostals is impressive, the independent non-denominational groups are growing even faster. Not concerned with renewing old church structures, they are planting new churches.8 In 1990 they numbered about 33 million. The Charismatic movements in the main line churches, The Second Wave, numbered about 4 million in 1970, the year the preliminary talks on the dialogue started. By 1990 this number had grown to 140 million. The total of the three waves comes to 372 million. The three waves share the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and, to a greater or lesser degree, have a stake in the international dialogue, even ‘David B. Barrett, “Signs, Wonders, and Statistics in the World of Pentecost, lvfission and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Today,” in Honor of Professor Walter J. Hollenweger, ed. Jan A. B. Theology, Festschrift NY: 189-196. These what Jongeneel (New York, Peter Lang, 1992), figures of is called “First Wave Pentecostalism” are notoriously difficult to read because of the great variety of Pentecostals internationally and the fluidity of the categories. See David B. Barrett, “Statistics, Global,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 822-824. 6Edith L. Blumhofer, Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American Culture (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1993), 265. ‘ Classical Pentecostals represent the First Wave; Charismatics in the mainline churches represent the Second Wave. ‘Peter Hocken, The Glory and the Shame: Reflections on the 20th Centurv Outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Guildford, England: Eagle, 1994), 77, 82. 3 166 Their growth cannot be ignored. Pentecostals and Catholics, though not all are represented. should not be number-driven. However, the scandal of the largest Christians, the same Christ and the good news of love, but living in each other, often in enmity, calls into Ecumenism two bodies of proclaiming ignorance and suspicion of question the credibility of the gospel. Blame for the traditional the World Conference London, authored Pentecostal Pentecostals countries where Catholicism (church burning, Repentance and Churches in of the fact that classical churches,’ a view du sometimes grave by the The Call for Ecumenical bad blood between Catholics .Pentecostals is sufficient for all to have a share. In a 1952 statement to of International Pentecostal by David du Plessis and adopted by some leaders, there was recognition “have not been entirely without blame” for the tensions between Pentecostals and mainline Protestant Plessis would later extend to include Catholics. But especially in is the dominant church Catholics have much of which to repent. Undoubtedly injustices, arrests, exile, beatings), were endured Pentecostals. The guilt for the bad relations between Catholics and Pentecostals is a two-way street, but it is an unequal street. In this matter Catholics have more to repent of than the Pentecostals. We need to recognize this fact, admit our guilt, and take the initiative for reconciliation. In spite of the injuries Pentecostals suffered at the hands of Pentecostal Catholics Protestants and Catholics, voices, besides that of the deceased David du Plessis, are asking for better understanding between the churches. John McTernan, an American pastoring in Rome, called Italian Pentecostals to forget past injuries and be reconciled with the Catholics. Two British leaders, Donald Gee (editor of Pentecost, an international publication) and David Allen (lecturer in an Assemblies of God Bible College in Doncaster) tried to foster better attitudes toward other churches “especially the once dreaded ‘Rome.””‘ Sandidge, Bittlinger, Papst Gee saw the 9 “A Statement by Pentecostal Leaders” presented by David du Plessis to the conference. In no was the statement a document of the World Conference. L. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal way Jerry Sandidge, Dialogue [1977-1982J (2 vols.; New York, NY: Peter Lang, 1987), 1:41, 42. ‘°Kilian McDonnell, “The Ideology of Pentecostal Conversion,” Journal Ecumenical Studies 5 of (Winter 1968): 105-126; Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals Roman Catholic/Pentecostal (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), 251, 252; und Der romisch Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:171; Arnold okumenische Relevanz Pfingstler: katholischlpfingstliche Dialog und seine (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978), 1-16; 295-315. “David Allen to Justus T. du Plessis, Mattersey, Doncaster, England, 26 September 1984. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal 1:376. Dialogue [1977-1982J. 4 167 ecumenical isolation of the older Pentecostals as hiding the Pentecostal witness under a bushel.” Though he died before the emergence of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal he prepared the way for a new openness to magisterial Protestant churches and Roman Catholicism, influenced in part by his friendship with the Benedictine priest, Benedict Heron, OSB. Gee pleaded “Pentecost is more than a denomination; it is a REVIVAL.”‘3 Another British Pentecostal leader and former General Secretary of the Assemblies of God in England, Alfred Missen, publicly asked forgiveness of the Catholics in 1982.’4 Pentecostals entered the formal ecumenical world in the 1960s with the entrance of a Brazilian and Chilean church into the World Council of Churches. Indeed, South American classical Pentecostals have taken the lead in bringing their churches into the structured ecumenical movement, though generally this is an ecumenism in which Catholics have little part.’S Pentecostal participation in ecumenism should not be isolated from their being a catalyst for social change. In South American, for instance, scholars recognize them as a force for cultural, social, and political transformation.’6 Pentecostalism is not a religion of pure inwardness.” In some places in Latin America “a pentecostal liberation theology” is developing.’? In South and Central America Pentecostalism has a quite different character, as the poverty and social unrest demands. The Mechanics of the Beginnings The initiative for the dialogue came from the Pentecostals, but was warmly received by Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and 11 Donald Gee, “To Our New Pentecostal Friends,” Pentecost 58 (December 1961-February 1962): 17. “Donald Gee, “‘Tongues’ and Truth,” Pentecost 26 (September 1953): 25; Peter Hocken, Streams of Renewal (Washington, DC: Word Among Us, 1986), 62-65. “He was a member of the dialogue in 1985. “Roger Cabezas, “The Experience of the Latin American Encuentro,” PNEUMA: 13 (Fall 1991): 175-188. The Jaurnal of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 13 (Fall 1991): 175-188. 16David Martin, Tongues of Fire : The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America ?4/nenca (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990); David Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990). ‘7 Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecost Between Black and White: Five Case Studies on Pentecost and Politics (Belfast: Christian Journals, 1974); Lidia Susana Vaccaro de Petrella, “The Tension Between Evangelism and Social Action in the Pentecostal Movement,” International Review of Mission 75 (January 1986): 34-38; Harvey Cox, “Healers and Ecologists: Pentecostalism in Africa,” Christian Century 111 l (November 1994): 1042-1046; Harvey Cox, “Lifting the Curse of Babel,” New York Times, 6 November 1994, 15. Harvey Cox, Fire From Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the in the Reshaping of Religion Twenty-First Century (New York, NY: Addison-Wesley, 1994), 173; Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evangelical Growth, 114-117; 314-321. 5 168 preliminary meetings took place in 1970 with the actual dialogue beginning in 1972. From the classical Pentecostal side, the rise of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal made such initiative possible. Had the Charismatic Renewal not existed, no dialogue would have been conceivable for the Pentecostals. The Charismatic Renewal opened the eyes of the Pentecostals to a depth of Catholic life they had not suspected. Catholics shared the same experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, exercised the same gifts, were drawn to the same depth of prayer. Their experience of the Catholic celebration of the Eucharist at Charismatic conferences told them they could no longer speak about dead liturgies. Here was an Evangelical commonality without which Pentecostals would not be able to proceed to the dialogue.” The Catholic Charismatic Renewal was the single most significant factor in creating an atmosphere in which Pentecostals would judge that dialogue was thinkable. 211 This meeting of a structured church with an unstructured movement had some built-in disadvantages. Most international dialogues build on ecumenical conversations at the local and national level. In this case these intermediate stages did not exist, and the ecumenical entrance was immediately at the international level. Because of this want of ecumenical experience some were unsure of the task.2’ In the beginning the classical Pentecostal side wanted the help of Protestant Charismatics (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Orthodox), a fact reflected in the title of the dialogue.22 Quite understandably, this expanded participation led some to think that the dialogue was between the Catholics and the broad Pentecostal/Charismatic movement which later developed into a dialogue with the classical Pentecostals.’3 This development was never so. The Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox Charismatics were present only as an aid to the classical Pentecostals. 21 ‘9The Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic church was a source of new proselytizing membership for the Pentecostal churches, by no means all of them the result of on the part of the Pentecostals. Catholics who received the baptism in the Holy Spirit and came alive spiritually, decided, for or bad in reasons, that they could not be fed spiritually their own good church, and so went where they felt they could find food. Among these were some of the most active and devoted members of their Catholic Roman Catholic/Pentecostal parishes. Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:325. Peter Hocken thinks that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal has forced the Pentecostals to 20 Sandidge, think in a way not true of the Charismatic Renewal in the Protestant churches. The international ecumenically dialogue is a concretization of that conviction. “Dialogue Extraordinary,” 21 One in Christ 24 (1988): 209. Bittlinger, Papst und Pfingstler, 110. Dialogue Between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of the Roman Catholic Church and leaders of some Pentecostal Churches and in the Charismatic Movement within Protestant and 23 Peter Anglican Churches. Participants Hocken, “Ecumenical Dialogue: The Importance of Dialogue with Evangelicals 24 and Pentecostals,” One in Christ 30 (1994): 118. In the beginning David du Plessis felt somewhat insecure in engaging in 6 169 When tensions arose between the Pentecostals and some of their Protestant advisers over infant baptism at the 1974 meeting both realized that in the next quinquennium the Pentecostals needed to go it alone. The purpose of the dialogue is carefully limited. If visible unity were the goal the Pentecostals would not be interested. Repeatedly over the years it was said that such visible organic unity is not the goal. Rather a preliminary meeting in October 1971 said the purpose is to dispel mutual ignorance, to share “prayer, spirituality, and theological reflection,” and “to grow together,” in a non-structural way.2’ The final reports of each quinquennium in no way commits either the Pentecostals or the Catholic church to any doctrinal position. Rather they are the results of responsible persons from both sides, which they commend to the consideration of their respective churches. Obviously, the churches are free to reject the reports. Participants In the early stages of the dialogue the determination of Pentecostal representatives was the sole responsibility of David du Plessis. Even after the Pentecostal steering committee began to take a larger part in the selection, du Plessis often acted on his own, partly due to problems of communication. Though the participation of Protestant Charismatics in the first quinquennium was recognized as “an important and necessary step,” their presence constituted “a certain ambiguity.”‘6 The joint steering committee decided on 29 May 1976 that in the future only classical Pentecostals would be part of the Pentecostal delegation, a decision not completely honored. 21 Justus du Plessis saw the decision to have only classical Pentecostals as taking the dialogue “out of the Protestant camp,,,28 evidence that Pentecostals do not want to be simply identified with Protestantism since they are not a Reformation body. 21 A number of Pentecostal churches did designate either delegates or official observers.3° Leaders, some with international ministries, took theological discussions with Catholic scholars, and therefore called on Protestant Charismatics. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:79. But soon they found they did have the resources within Pentecostal denominations. Catholic/Pentecostal 26 2′ “Steering Committee Report,” 28 October 1971. Sandidge, Roman Dialogue [ 19 77-1982 J, 1:74. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:103, 21, 22. Howard M. Ervin, a Baptist and one of the earliest academically trained in the participants Charismatic movement, became a 28 Justus T. du Plessis to Jerry L. Sandidge, I June regular participant. 1982; Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue 11977-1982J, 1:343. 291n the second preliminary meeting in Rome on June 22-23, 1971, the Pentecostal said that they did not want the Pentecostal movement to be with Protestantism. “It is Protestant participants equated by an accident of origin.” Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:70. )0 The sources are not always clear as to whom was officially delegated by their 7 170 part in various sessions.3’ In order to make the dialogue known the Pentecostals invited a number of observers at each session. One can only be impressed with the zeal and tenacity with which David du Plessis, and later Justus du Plessis and Cecil Robeck, tried to get official representation from Pentecostal denominations. The Pentecostal delegation made repeated requests that the Catholics included members of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. 32 This suggestion Catholics resisted, principally because in the beginning of the dialogue it was thought that the conversations would have more credibility with the general Catholic population if the Charismatics were not present. Further, it was said that the Catholics are not in dialogue with themselves.33 In the third quinquennium (1985-1989) Catholic Charismatics were invited as delegates, and have been members ever since. 34 The Death of Mythologies Ecumenism represents the death of mythologies. Both sides have lived with myths about the other partner, not surprising in groups which have lived in ignorance of each other and in hostility. Catholics have some dying to do. They need to disavow the mistaken notion that all Pentecostals are sectarians and fundamentalists. Nonetheless, when churches. In the first quinquennium (1972-1976) there were official from the representatives Apostolic Faith Mission, the Elim Fellowship, and the International Evangelical Church. In the 1986 session there were official delegates or observers from the International Communion of Charismatic Churches, International Church of the Four Square Gospel (2 representatives), Apostolic Faith Mission (2), Apostolic Church of Mexico, Church of God of Prophecy, Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue 1:130, 410. “H. Edwards (USA), V. Synan (USA), D. Tarr (USA), C. Kuzmic Spencer (USA), P. (Yugoslavia), A. Missen (England), F. P. Moller (South Africa), J. du Plessis (South Africa), T. Roberts (France), J. E. Worsfold (New Zealand). C. Krust (West Germany) 3T and L. Steiner (Switzerland) took part in In the second the Secretariat for Promoting Christian preliminary meetings. said that Catholic Charismatics would preliminary meeting not be invited as Unity as if the that participants, but invited might be consultants, Catholics thought helpful. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:70. In the meeting of the Pentecostal committee in steering Rome May 4-5, 1984, the Pentecostals recommended that “strongly” Catholic Charismatics be part of the Catholic Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:380. delegation. criticizes the second quinquennium for its lack of Catholic Charismatic Sandidge representation. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal 1:268. Dialogue [1977-1982J. ‘ “Interview of Arnold Bittlinger with Basil Meeking recorded in und Bittlinger, Papst Pfingstler. 24. H. Mühlen became involved in the Charismatic Renewal after he had been a participant in the dialogue. Kilian McDonnell was a sympathetic critical observer of the renewal, but never a member of a prayer group or covenant communitv. ‘° J. Haughey, R. Cantalamessa, and H. Mihlen. 8 171 Catholics find that many of the Pentecostals in the dialogue are exegetically sophisticated, this does not necessarily mean Catholics will agree with the Pentecostal interpretation of Scripture. When Pentecostals learn that Catholics do not put tradition on the same level with Scripture, Pentecostals do not thereby agree with the Catholic position on the relation of Scripture to tradition. The death of mythologies is not invariably the birth of agreement. It is the removal of a roadblock. The ecumenical task is to identify both areas of agreement and disagreement. To mask disagreements is to insure failure of the ecumenical relationship. 35 Tilted to the Disadvantage of the Classical Pentecostals? Jerry Sandidge has suggested that the discussions in the first two quinquennia were tilted to favor the Catholics, putting the Pentecostals at a disadvantage. “Tilting” in this case refers to “discursive, scientific, and intellectual approaches,” which are typically Catholic, to the detriment of “oral or narrative theology, testimony, spiritual experience validating truth, and the exercise of spiritual gifts as a context for theological exchange,” more typically Pentecosta1.36 The pre-literary style needs to be part of the dialogue, suggested Sandidge.37 Further, Peter Hocken has suggested that “the prevailing Catholic model of dialogue can create a pressure to conceive other traditions in the image and likeness of Catholicism. “38 Undoubtedly more could be done in the dialogue to redress the balance. If one looks at the Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) of Vatican II, one sees revelation not in propositional, discursive terms, but more in narrative form: a personal God sends the Son to initiate a dialogue with us; God inviting us to listen to the divine Word of revelation and to respond in personal faith.39 Event is primary. This narrative view could provide a Pentecostal/Catholic theological model. The current broader interest in narrative theology presents a common meeting ground. Personal testimony and narratives could have a larger role, especially in the prayer sessions. But perhaps more place was given to the spiritual gifts than suggested. Before Sandidge was a member of the dialogue there were some sessions of Pentecostal prayer in which the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecies, and healing were exercised by the Pentecostals, giving the Catholics an insight into the more experiential dimension of Pentecostalism. As to the exercise of the spiritual gifts in “It is not true that Catholics in the dialogue have stressed agreements in a one-sided ‘6 manner, as Peter Hocken suggests in “Dialogue Extraordinary,” 203, 211. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue ?1977-I98.2J, 1:123. “Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue [1977-1982}, 1:351. “Hocken, “Ecumenical Dialogue: The Importance of Dialogue with and Evangelicals Pentecostals,” 119. “See especially articles 1-6. 9 172 deliberative sessions operative discussing theological one can ask the question: How denominations the plenary are they in executive sessions of Pentecostal issues? One should work from real, not ideal models. Some years ago Christian Lalive d’Epinay pointed out that half classical Pentecostals do not speak in of the pastors tongues of the Chilean early years advanced degrees are now imposing a Catholic model, ecumenical model, not ecumenically dominated, but Pentecostals with model adopted is an It was worked out Baptists, Lutherans, and The Catholics were at an advantage in that they came to the dialogue with ecumenical experience which the Pentecostals did not have. In the Catholic scholarship more in evidence. As to the Catholics the dialogue a Catholic model. in experience with Methodists, Evangelicals, to mention a few. In the first quinquennium the topics of special interest to classical while in the second quinquennium there was a and in the third the topics were more Catholic, and in the fourth again a balance. If the Catholic agenda had dominated there would certainly have been major papers on trinity, ‘ and ordination, which are absent from the Pentecostal dominated,” balance, throughout, christology, dialogue. Eucharist, leadership’s (canon ecumenical hesitations. Conference. good Leaders of the classical Pentecostal Animos ( 1928) Limited Acceptance by Pentecostal Catholics need to be understanding The 1917 Code of Canon Law 1325 paragraph 3) warned Catholics about taking part in interconfessional meetings without Rome’s permission. In 1927 Catholics were forbidden to attend the Lausanne Faith and Order Pius XI issued the encyclical Mortalium rejecting ecumenism because it was a new form of modernism. Pius IX said it promoted the erroneous view that “all religions are more or less and praiseworthy,” thus those “pan-Christians” engaged in the ecumenical endeavor “distort the true idea of religion…. It is an easy to the neglect of religion or indifferentism. ,,42 Catholics were also forbidden to attend the founding meeting of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam (1948), though some came as members of the For Catholics today these texts have only historical interest. step press. “ecclesiological Activity ‘° Christian Lalive d’Epinay, Haven of the Masses: A Studv of the Pentecostal Afovement in ” Chile (London: Luttcrworth Press, 1969), 197. Cardinal Willebrands remarked that after eight years of conversations issues are being discussed for the first time.” “Some of the Secretariat for Aspects of the Promoting Christian Unity,” Information Service 44 (1980): 119. This observation would indicate that, as regards the topics, the first sessions were tilted in favor of the Pentecostals. 42 Mortalium Animos 2, 9; The Papal Encyclicals 1903-1939, ed. C. Carlen McGrath, 1981), 313. 314, 316, 317. (Wilmington: 10 173 The Evangelical distrust of ecumenism comes from a series of fears: the pre-literary distrust of theological finesse (of those without university degrees being managed by those with; however, the opposition comes not only from the uneducated); dislike of “the world-church” which they see in terms of heavy corporate mergers; the suspicion they will have to adjust their testimony and engage in theological compromise; unease in consorting with those who have abandoned what they consider central biblical tenets; concern about the futility of contact with a church without real life (“a dead baptism into a dead organization”); and, doubt concerning those who have no transforming spiritual experience. They look at the decline in growth of ecumenically committed churches and wonder “What is in it for US?”.13 Sometimes it comes from dangerous memories of real injuries of a minority in a Catholic country, feeding resentment and prompting them to quote Paul: “come out from among them and be ye separate” (2 Cor 6:17; Isa. 52:11 ), popularly known as “come-outism.” Sometimes national churches, which have positive attitudes toward the dialogue and would like to participate, have branches in Catholic countries which would cut ties with the mother church if they sent delegates to the dialogue.” Relics of “the whore of Babylon” syndrome are still with us. In varying degrees these are all present in some sectors of world Pentecostalism, which in part accounts for the reluctance of the international body, the Pentecostal World Conference (PWC), and the continental Pentecostal Fellowship of North America (PFNA), to lend their support. The issuing of a brief press release after the Marian discussions in Vienna in 1981, which will be discussed in the next article, was the occasion of a misunderstanding, eliciting an international protest in the classical Pentecostal world. Because of this misunderstanding concerning the Marian discussions, and because the Catholics withdrew from a conference on the Holy Spirit sponsored by the Assemblies of God, the local dialogue in Springfield, Missouri between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics was terminated by the Assemblies. In 1983 the Assemblies of God wrote into its bylaw a resolution against participation in the ecumenical movement.`5 Now Assemblies of God “Dean M. Kellcy, Why Conservative Churches are Growing (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972); R. G. Hutcheson, Jr., Mainline Churches and the Evangelicals: A Crisis? (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981). “Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Challenging Dialogue [1977-1982]. 1:175, 216, 348. “The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of ministers or churches participating in any of the modem ecumenical organizations on a local, national or international level in such a manner as to promote the Ecumenical Movement, because: a) We believe the basis of doctrinal of said movement to be so broad that it includes people who fellowship reject the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the universality of sin, the substitutionary Atonement, and other cardinal teachings which we understand to be essential to Biblical Christianity. b) We believe the emphases of the Ecumenical Movement to be at 11 174 Christians are faced with structural opposition to ecumenism similar to what Catholics faced earlier. In spite of daunting difficulties successive Pentecostal co-chairs, David du Plessis, Justus du Plessis, and Cecil Robeck, have been able to obtain official representation from a number of churches, sometimes as delegates, sometimes as observers. Heads of churches have given their support. Some leaders wholeheartedly support the dialogue, but cannot participate because of their constituencies. The Society for Pentecostal Studies, a scholarly association, has encouraged the dialogue from the beginning. The participants receive much unofficial affirmation of the importance of the undertaking, also from churches which for various reasons cannot participate. Privately there is a large measure of interest, even enthusiasm. Some who come to the dialogue with the knowledge of their denomination, but not as official delegates, pay their own travel, board and room expenses year after year. These are persons with families to support. Ecumenical commitment of this magnitude would be hard to duplicate. The dialogue has been criticized as too white, too American, and too limited in representation. The Third World representatives have been almost non-existent, the area where the growth of both Pentecostalism and Catholicism is the greatest. Nonetheless the dialogue has had an international impact. It has spawned dialogues, sometimes national in character, and other ecumenical contacts, in South Africa, Brazil, New Zealand, and Belgium The meeting between a pre-literary and a literary culture is still groping in finding its way. We still have much to learn from each other. But the basis of an on-going relationship of mutual trust based on mutual knowledge and fiiendship has been established. We have left the offerings before the altar, have started the process of reconciliation, so we can come with clean hands and hearts to offer our gift (Mt. 5:23,24). As the two largest Christian bodies, formerly hostile, enter the twenty-first century, this growing mutual respect is a sign of great hope. variance with what we hold to be Biblical priorities, frequently displacing the urgency of individual salvation with social concerns. c) We believe that the combination of into a world will culminate in the religious Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18.” Minutes of the 40th many religious organizations superchurch Session of the General Council 1983 of the Assemblies of God: Anaheim, CA, 11-16 August (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1983), 124. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Sandidge, Dialogue [/977-1982J. 1:171, note 259 interprets the bylaws as not banning participation in interdenominational activities on the local level. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal 355-359. “Sandidge, Dialogue [1977-1982J. 1:273, 275, 12