Church and Unity: Wolfgang Vondey on Ecclesiology and Ecumenism
From the Conversations with Readers department appearing in the Spring 2011 issue.
A Reader writes about a review that appeared in the Winter 2011 issue:
In his review of Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Brazos, 2009), Wolfgang Vondey writes, “At least in their understanding of the church, Pentecostals in North America cannot consider themselves to be evangelicals.” I do not disagree with what he is saying in this instance about how the Pentecostal/charismatic working definition of ecclesiology does not fit the book’s description of what “Evangelical” ecclesiology is. However, I have always considered myself a Protestant (identifying with the Great Reformation and Radical Reformation) that is an Evangelical (with a capital “E” to identify with what I understand of Evangelicals historically) that is a charismatic (or choose a similar label: non-classical Pentecostal, postcharismatic, etc.). Maybe I would approach this differently if I had not grown up in a Baptist tradition and “came into the fullness of the Spirit” as an adult. But am I wrong in wanting to retain my connections to these “older” yet living expressions of Christianity even though I have significant theological and practical differences with them? Are we not defeating the idea of the unity we share in Jesus and the real purpose behind developing an robust ecclesiology when we seek to exclude ourselves from other traditions?
—TS
Response from Wolfgang Vondey:
I am thankful for the response to my small review and for the engagement of wider ecclesiological issues as they are discussed in the book. The comment on my review is particular valuable because it connects questions of ecclesiology with concerns about ecumenism, that is, our understanding of the church with our desire for Christian unity. Even more important is the fact that such issues are now raised in the context of Pentecostalism. Today an increasing number of scholars and pastors are engaging in both ecumenical and ecclesiological conversations.1 At the same time, an ecumenical Pentecostal ecclesiology has not yet been proposed. My conclusion at the end of the review suggests that when such a proposal will be submitted, it will unlikely be the evangelical ecclesiology we see in the book under review. My conclusion therefore relates exclusively to the issue of ecclesiology and in the limited context of Pentecostalism. While I do not deny that Pentecostals in North America have been widely influenced by Evangelicalism, I suggest that a classical Pentecostal ecclesiology, if it were fully formulated, would not be synonymous with a contemporary evangelical ecclesiology.2 I have similar doubts about the potential range of global Pentecostal views on the nature and purpose of the church.
The reasons for this rejection I noted in my review were exclusively ecclesiological: the relegation of the missional character of the church to the end of the discussion, the absence of a doctrine of the Holy Spirit for an understanding of the church, and as a result, the lack of consideration for spiritual gifts in church life and Christian practices that characterize the essence of the church. In contrast, Pentecostals, who themselves are struggling to formulate an ecclesiology, have generally equated the church with the mission of God instead of making mission one aspect of church practice among others. A Spirit-driven orientation is the hallmark of this Pentecostal endeavor and central to an understanding of Pentecostal practices.3 The neglect of these dimensions in the portrayal of Evangelical ecclesiology suggests strongly that Pentecostals are not Evangelicals in their understanding of the church, even if they are so otherwise.
I have laid out the contours of a Pentecostal ecclesiology elsewhere more fully.4 From a historical perspective, Pentecostalism in North America initially rejected the ecclesiological structures of Christendom altogether but then adopted them as a result of administrative and organizational as well as ecumenical pressures. A particularly close affinity with Evangelicals after World War II has resulted in what many have called an “evangelicalization” of classical Pentecostalism.5 The adoption of the evangelical mind-set has been described as exerting a negative impact on classical Pentecostalism, particularly on the role of sanctification, Spirit baptism, and speaking in tongues, as well as on the larger perspective of christological and pneumatological themes.6 While none of this critique is meant to exclude Pentecostals from fellowship with Evangelicals, it does suggest that classical Pentecostals also find the foundation of their understanding of what it means to be church in a different realm than that of Evangelicals.
The consequence of the adoption of evangelical ecclesiology by Pentecostals has been a shift away from a sectarian identity to recognizable ecclesiastical entity. However, as such, classical Pentecostalism is now identified as simply another add-on to the North American church landscape, another addition at the end of an ecclesiastical line, another example of the Evangelical or Free Church traditions, or, more broadly, another expression of Protestantism and the Reformation movements. While any of these characteristics may be found in the worldwide diversity of Pentecostal movements, I suggest that it does not form the center of a genuine Pentecostal ecclesiology. Granted such broad ecclesiological status, Pentecostalism has become simply one entity among others, a movement swallowed up by the competitiveness of the overall ecclesiological scheme and destined to be overcome by subsequent additions that continue to add to the diversity of ecclesial existence in the late modern world. In this sense, to identify Pentecostal ecclesiology with Evangelical ecclesiology is not an ecumenical alternative that contributes to the understanding of being-church among Pentecostals.
A recent collection on Pentecostalism and Christian Unity suggests that Pentecostals are historically and theologically defined as an ecumenical movement.7 In this process it has become clear that the pursuit of Christian unity goes hand in hand with one’s self-understanding as a church: ecumenism and ecclesiology are two sides of the same coin. Nevertheless, the broader ecumenical movement has shown that finding our communal identity often requires that we also define the kind of unity we seek.8 Of course, we retain the connections with other churches and movements from which we emerged. In fact, we foster these connections so that the pursuit of a robust ecclesiology becomes unattainable without a robust ecumenical commitment. Pentecostalism, in particular, embraces in its many voices potentially all Christian traditions. Ecumenically speaking, this should result in a relentless pursuit of unity—not a “pentecostalization” of Christianity but a “Christianization” of Pentecostalism. However, ecclesiologically speaking, this commitment does not mean we inevitably end up with a single understanding of the church. The more appropriate expectation, for Pentecostals as for Evangelicals, is a variety of ecclesiologies. This plurality is not the nemesis of ecumenical unity; it is its theological presupposition.
If my assessment is correct, then Pentecostals will have to adjust their practices in order to preserve a genuinely Pentecostal way of being church. The influence goes both ways, of course: Pentecostals have become more evangelical in their worship just as Evangelicals have become more Pentecostal in their practices. The result is an Evangelical Pentecostalism that now possesses its own ecclesiology. The comments at the end of my response to the book, Exploring Ecclesiology, was not made from that perspective. Rather, they are a reflection from the history and worldview of classical Pentecostalism that is fading from the North American landscape as it makes room for global forms of Pentecostal faith and praxis. The result will undoubtedly be a proliferation of Pentecostal ecclesiologies of which some will be more Evangelical than others while all will need to be ecumenical in essence. A chief outcome of this development may be that we find more clarity on what exactly accounts for a genuine Pentecostal ecclesiology that is applicable to the variety of voices emerging from global Pentecostalism.
Notes
1 Cf. Wolfgang Vondey (ed.), Pentecostalism and Christian Unity: Ecumenical Documents and Critical Assessments (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2010).
2 For a distinction of classical Pentecostalism see Vinson Synan, “Classical Pentecostalism,” in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 553-55.
3 See Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and Global Perspectives (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2002), 68-78.
4 See Wolfgang Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda, Pentecostal Manifestos 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 141-70; “Pentecostal Ecclesiology and Eucharistic Hospitality: Toward a Systematic and Ecumenical Account of the Church.” Pneuma: Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 32, no. 1 (2010): 41-55; “Pentecostal Perspectives on The Nature and Mission of the Church: Challenges and Opportunities for Ecumenical Transformation,” in “The Nature and Mission of the Church”: Ecclesial Reality and Ecumenical Horizons for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Paul M. Collins and Michael A. Fahey (Ecclesiological Investigations 1; New York: Continuum, 2008), 55-68; “A Pentecostal Perspective on The Nature and Mission of the Church.” Ecumenical Trends 35.8 (2006): 1-5.
5 Cf. Gary B. McGee, “‘More Than Evangelical’: The Challenge of the Evolving Theological Identity of the Assemblies of God,” Pneuma 25, no. 2 (2003): 289-300.
6 See Steven M. Studebaker, “Beyond Tongues: A Pentecostal Theology of Grace,” in Defining Issues in Pentecostalism: Classical and Emergent, McMaster Theological Studies 1 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2008), pp. 46-68; idem, “Pentecostal Soteriology and Pneumatology,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11, no. 2 (2003): 248-70; John B. Carpenter, “Genuine Pentecostal Traditioning: Rooting Pentecostalism in Its Evangelical Soil; A Reply to Simon Chan,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 6, no. 2 (2003): 303-26; Terry L. Cross, “A Proposal to Break the Ice: What Can Pentecostals Offer Evangelical Theology?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 2 (2002): 44-73; James K. A. Smith, “The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and the Sacred Writings,” Journal of Pentecostal Studies 11 (1997): 49-71.
7 See Vondey, Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, .3-98.
8 See the texts in Michael Kinnamon and Brian E. Cope (eds.), The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 79-127.
