Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 2 of 5) by Amos Yong
By way of response, I would like to make three observations. First, I think it is important to note that Pentecostals have, until very recently, uncritically appropriated the eschatological framework of a foreign theological system (again) through which they’ve understood the “last days.” This system is called dispensationalism. What is ironic is that most turn-of-the-twentieth century dispensationalists were also cessationists regarding the charismata precisely because of their dispensationalism framework of interpreting Scripture. Pentecostals, fundamentalists, and most Bible-believing Christians, however, were attracted to this very literal way of reading of Scripture, and therefore swallowed dispensationalism almost without question.
The fact of the matter, however, is that Pentecostal intuitions about the “end times” derive more so from their experience of the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days than from any previously laid-out theological grid or hermeneutical framework. It is precisely because of the empowering experience of the Holy Spirit that Pentecostal have much more of an already-not yet eschatological orientation. For Pentecostals, the present dynamism of the Spirit’s reality means that the Spirit-filled believer values the embodied character of Christian life, is committed to holistic forms of missionary work, and is empowered to make a difference in this world. This explains why Pentecostals believe in the physical healing power of God. It also undergirds Pentecostal convictions about the miraculous, and about the power of prayer. Certainly, Pentecostals maintain an expectancy about the coming of the Lord—the not-yet aspect of their eschatological faith. However, such is far less an other-worldly attitude that seeks to escape gloomy historical future than it is an expression of vibrant love for their Lord.
My point is not to undermine Pentecostal belief in the imminent return of Christ. Such is the proper stance the Bible indicates we should have regarding the parousia: Maranatha—“Come, O Lord!” (1 Cor. 16:24). Instead, I want to raise the question again of why Pentecostals have uncritically bought into a dispensationalist system of thinking that is, at various points, wholly antithetical to their experience. I am certainly convinced that the “last days” commenced with the founding of the Church at the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17), so I am not even suggesting that the entire dispensationalist scheme be discarded. I am only querying into the Pentecostal appropriation of the full range and details of dispensationalist eschatology. It may be the case that Jesus will return tomorrow. I don’t think, however, that the dispensationalist time lines will therefore be vindicated. Too many variants have been proposed, too many adjustments have had to be made, too many confusing speculations have been proffered, and too many mistakes have impaired the credibility of dispensationalist eschatology. If that is the case, then the uncritical correlation between the ecumenical movement and the great harlot of Rev. 17-18 is at least called into question. I say this not to baptize the ecumenical movement as an unblemished work of God. Surely this also is not the case as my exposition in the next section hopes to show. I am only asking that Pentecostals come to a fresh reading of Scripture on eschatology and other matters by beginning with Pentecostal—rather than dispensationalist, fundamentalist, or any other—premises, sensibilities, and experiences.
Category: Ministry, Pneuma Review, Spring 2001
Followers
Fans
