Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 2 of 5) by Amos Yong
Pentecostals are especially prone to such developments given the restoration of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers during the Reformation. Empowered by a dynamic and liberating experience of the Holy Spirit, Pentecostals have understood their lives and ministries as commissioned by the Spirit. This includes an emphasis on spiritual freedom that makes for an even greater tendency toward individualism, independence, and self-aggrandizement. The fragmentation of Pentecostalism into hundreds of thousands of house churches, independent churches, parachurch groups, apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and teaching ministries operating in isolation, not to mention denominations as well as sects and (even!) cults, is evidence of this infection with the individualist strain.
This accent on individualism, however, does not tell the entire story about why Pentecostals claim to understand the unity of the Church in spiritual rather than visible terms. Now, I cannot speak for the 500 million plus Pentecostals estimated today that represent the breadth of global Pentecostalism; rather, my Pentecostal affiliation is more specifically North American, and of the classical type that traces its roots back to denominations emerging out of the Azusa Street revival. Yet I sometimes wonder if Pentecostals reject as valid outward forms of structural unity because they are motivated by fear—fear that they would be compromising their former decisions to come-out-from-among-those visible denominations; fear that pursuing such relationships would jeopardize their identity as Pentecostals; fear that visible unity would camouflage the lack of spiritual fervor; fear that outward signs would eliminate reliance on the inner witness of the Spirit. These are, along with other issues yet to be discussed, legitimate areas of concern. But to recoil from engagement simply because there are issues of concern is inappropriate, and this especially for Pentecostals who claim to be led by the Spirit.
Finally, however, I find it odd that Pentecostals object to the notion that there have to be visible signs of unity for the Church given their own insistence on the import of outward signs. Most classical North American Pentecostals continue to hold to some version of tongues speaking as evidence of receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Glossolalic tongues in these cases are outward signs and manifestations—“initial physical evidence,” as some denominations put it—of the Spirit’s infilling. Why would the true unity of the Church not be accompanied by such outward signs and evidence as well? Christians are coming to increasing agreement that the gospel truthfully proclaimed and faithfully lived out is not only spiritual. Rather, it is most truly spiritual when practically embodied, whether in concrete acts, tangible encounters, palpable manifestations, physical healings, and, I would suggest, visible signs. Perhaps it might be objected that visible signs do not translate to structural or organizational unity, or that the evidence of Spirit baptism is biblically derived in contrast to the goals of the ecumenical movement. I have addressed the biblical issues above, and will focus on the ecumenical movement itself below. Part of my motivation for accepting the invitation of the editor of The Pneuma Review to write this piece is to present evidence for a biblical and “pentecostally” informed ecumenism to the readers of this journal. I ask you to render judgment at the conclusion of this article.
Category: Ministry, Pneuma Review, Spring 2001
Followers
Fans
