Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 2 of 5) by Amos Yong
This decision, however, came with a price. Whereas the liberals followed the modernist emphasis on religious experience and subjectivist feeling to the neglect of the authority of the written Word of God, fundamentalists insisted on the priority of Scripture to the neglect of sensitivity to the Spirit’s illuminative inspiration. The one subsumed Scripture to contemporary experience while the other denied the validity of pneumatic experiences as false enthusiasms in favor of a wooden reading of Scripture. The result is that Pentecostal doctrinal statements have not reflected the richness of our experiences of the Spirit. Rather, they have tended to be not much more than a reproduction of fundamentalist doctrines, almost verbatim, with the addition of one or two paragraphs regarding the person and work of the Spirit, and tongues as initial evidence. Is this, however, what a genuinely Pentecostal doctrinal and theological framework should be like? Is it not the case that Pentecostals should be the first to continue the struggle for an authentic balance of the Word and Spirit? Do we not need to continuously rethink about the relevance and applicability of our doctrines and theologies for each generation? Why then did we allow the primary rules and assumptions underlying doctrinal thinking and formulation to be set by fundamentalists whose worldview is articulated according to various axioms that are at odds with what we as Pentecostals believe and experience? It goes without saying that Pentecostal doctrinal construction should not bow to the pressures exerted by liberals either.
My proposal is not that that we as Pentecostals should discard doctrinal reflection, but that we should go about that task according to the rules of the game that Pentecostals play, rather than abide by rules that Pentecostals can never win with. We should, in other words, set out our own terms for reflecting and articulating doctrine. To remain within a fundamentalist framework will force us to use their categories, restrict our theological and doctrinal methodology, and require us to continue answering their questions and concerns rather than figure out and resolve our own. That this is no figment of my imagination is demonstrated in the extensive debate over the continuance of the charismata featured in almost every issue of this journal. Even after publication of Jon Ruthven’s groundbreaking book which effectively demolished the cessationist argument, we are still having to defend the validity of the charismata. I am not trying to disparage these arguments. They are important and need to be made. My point is to call attention to the fact that our doctrinal and theological agenda is driven by fundamentalist concerns. What about our obligation to engage the arguments of liberals, and to battle for the truth with those on the left instead of those on the right? Or, to return to the focus of this essay, what about our obligation to witness in the context of the wider Christian (read: ecumenical) community? What about our calling to theological and doctrinal debate with those having ecumenical concerns? More to the point, is it not time for Pentecostals to take the Pentecostal message to the farthest reaches of the Christian community? And if that question is answered affirmatively, does that not require a distinctively Pentecostal kind of ecumenism?
Category: Ministry, Pneuma Review, Spring 2001
Followers
Fans
