Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 2 of 5) by Amos Yong
Objection 2: The erosion of the gospel, especially doctrinally
A second reason Pentecostals have given for their anti-ecumenical stance is their belief that the ecumenical movement is built on an insecure doctrinal foundation. Specifically, the doctrinal basis of the ecumenical movement is watered-down at best and supportive of heresy at worst. At best, Pentecostals feel that the Basis of the World Council of Churches (WCC), for example, is either too hollow or admits of too much latitude in what it does not say:
The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Thus, many Pentecostals feel that this platform is minimalist in allowing agreement across a wide spectrum of churches. At worst, some denominations that adhere to doctrines clearly rejected by the historical church—such as universalism or annihilationism, or the advocacy of homosexuality as a viable lifestyle—would also be able to sign on.
Let me respond in this instance with three counter-questions. First, on a more rhetorical note, since when have Pentecostals elevated doctrinal or creedal purity above their experience of the Spirit? It seems to me that such happens among Pentecostals only as an act of self-righteous indignation against those on whom they look down. Pentecostals have always been much more interested in the demonstration of Spirit’s power than in wise and persuasive words (1 Cor. 2:4). I certainly do not want to minimize the importance of doctrine; as a theologian, doctrines are what concern me supremely. My point here is twofold: to highlight what appears to be the case—that Pentecostals seem to have resorted to the ‘doctrinal argument’ as a convenient excuse for not engaging in ecumenical activity—and to suggest that such seems to be an ironic reverse application of fundamental Pentecostal intuitions and priorities.
Yet the doctrinal issue should not be ignored. To begin addressing that concern, let me pose the second counter-question. What is or should be the norm by which doctrinal creeds in general and statements in particular are to be measured? This is not an idle question since it is arguable that most classical Pentecostal denominations—Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, etc.—appear to have adopted the basic framework and even wording of doctrinal statements from fundamentalism during the first quarter of the twentieth century. This occurred in part because of the polemics between fundamentalists and modernist or liberals during that period of time. The emerging Pentecostal churches were confronted with few theological alternatives: either fundamentalism or liberalism. Thankfully, Pentecostal leaders during that time opted for the former rather than the latter.
Category: Ministry, Pneuma Review, Spring 2001
Followers
Fans
