The Pneuma Review » classical

Ministering to the Needs of the World: 2018 International Dialogue between the World Communion of Reformed Churches and Classical Pentecostals

Mel Robeck — Fri, 07 Dec 2018 22:15:55 +0000

Mel Robeck has shared with Pneuma Review the press release from the International Dialogue between the World Communion of Reformed Churches and Classical Pentecostals, which concluded on December 4, 2018.

Representatives of various classical Pentecostal churches and a delegation from the World Communion of Reformed Churches met in Legon, Accra, Ghana, November 29 – December 4, 2018. This meeting was the fifth session of the third round, which is focused on “Ministering to the Needs of the World.”

The participants were photographed on the campus of Trinity Theological Seminary, where the Methodist scholar on Pentecostal and Charismatics, Dr. Kwabena has recently become President. Pictured left to right, row one: Bas Plaisiar, Teresa (Tess) Chai, Jacqui Grey, and Van Johnson. Row two: Karla Koll, Jean-Daniel Plüess, Gabrielle Rácsok, and Setri Nyomi. Row three: David Daniels, Mel Robeck, Hanns Lessing.

At the beginning and end of each day, participants gather to pray, sing, read and reflect upon the Bible together. This time of sharing in spirituality and worship helps to contextualize the discussions that take place, and builds greater community between participants.

This year, the dialogue focused on the significance of eschatology (those things having to do with the end of time and the return of Jesus, which is our blessed hope) to Mission. To open the discussion, the Rev. Dr. Karla Ann Koll (Reformed) and Rev. Dr. Van Johnson (Pentecostal) prepared and presented papers reflective of the teachings of their faith communities on this topic. Participants then raised questions and responded in a free-ranging discussion intended to tease out common interests and common concerns, while noting differences in understanding.

In her presentation, Dr. Koll demonstrated that Reformed Christians, like Pentecostals, anticipate the return of Jesus Christ to bring the Reign of God in its fullness. Their primary focus has been on sharing the Gospel and caring for the lives and well-being of others in ways they believe are in keeping with that Reign. Following the teachings of John Calvin regarding the sovereignty of God, and their belief that God’s redemptive intention encompasses all of creation, they have been less focused upon events surrounding the Second Coming, and more on the call for the Church to minister until Christ’s return. They maintain that the Holy Spirit empowers them both to promote the Gospel, and work to transform culture and society in keeping with Christ’s will.

Dr. Johnson made the case that both time and space have challenged the way Pentecostals think about and act upon their understanding of eschatology. Pentecostals believe that God has been restoring the purity, passion, and power of the church through the Holy Spirit, in anticipation of the imminent return of Christ and the inauguration of His kingdom. Like the early church, their expectation that time was short before Christ’s return, has motivated much of their mission activity, in which they have emphasized the proclamation of the Gospel to the “lost.” Yet, after a century of existence, Pentecostal views of time are changing, leading to shifts in how they view mission. If they have more time to live and act, their view of the world around them, their space, must be taken more seriously than in the past. While continuing to affirm the soon return of the Lord, their notion of mission has broadened beyond proclamation or evangelization alone, to include other missional activities. Now, mission includes a range of activities extending from evangelism to creation care as signs of the future kingdom.

Jelle Creemers: Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals

Amos Yong — Sat, 06 May 2017 21:23:58 +0000

Jelle Creemers, Theological Dialogue with Classical Pentecostals: Challenges and Opportunities, Ecclesiological Investigations 23 (New York and London: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2015), x + 320 pages.

The Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue has completed five rounds since it was launched in 1971. Each round has consisted of weeklong or so meetings for five or more years, followed in the last three rounds by multiple years of drafting and rewriting of the final reports. The first two rounds (1971-1976 and 1977-1982, with 1978 being a bye year due to the unexpected death of Pope John Paul I) engaged assorted topics of mutual interest, while the last three rounds have been more thematically focused: on the nature of the church (1985-1989), on evangelization and proselytism (1990-1997), and on becoming a Christian (1998-2006).

Dialogue that works toward understanding – not any watered down synthesis.

Creemers teaches at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit in Leuven, Belgium, where he also completed his PhD degree that is the basis for this book. Whereas a number of other volumes have been published on one or more rounds of the Dialogue, this is the first one that covers the five completed rounds of discussion, and it is also the only to focus on the question of theological method. At one level, followers of the Pneuma Review might consider this a rather dispensable exercise. Pentecostal ministers especially are doers rather than theoreticians and considerations of method seem quite speculative and abstract. Even if readers might be interested in the topics taken up in the Dialogues, Creemers’ reflections might seem beside the point (of evangelism, for example!). Yet I encourage potential readers, especially Pentecostal clergy, to withhold judgment for three reasons. First, there have been many who have argued that Pentecostals are ecumenical even if they might deny or not even realize this, and if that is the case, engaging this volume will provide one fascinating point of entry into the what (is ecumenism) and why (Pentecostals are such) of this important set of issues related to unity that Jesus prayed for. Second, the writing opens up to a narrative of the Dialogues, and in that sense there is an unfolding of a plot full of twists and turns involving primary agents (who were present in many if not most of the rounds) and other secondary characters (those participants in two rounds or only one) that might be unanticipated for theological books. Last but not least, to think about the methodological underpinnings of these exercises provides another window into the nature of Pentecostal spirituality and realities that the movement’s practitioners and ministers will find informative, especially vis-à-vis their own efforts to comprehend themselves theologically.

There have been many who have argued that Pentecostals are ecumenical, even if they might deny or not even realize it.

So what does Creemers find? Or, first, how does he go about looking for Pentecostal theological method when such is rarely or never made explicit? There are four main chapters in the body of the book through which the quest is undertaken. First, Creemers profiles how members of the Pentecostal Dialogue teams have attempted to understand themselves as a conversionist, revivalist, and restorationist movement, and how such starting points already chart certain methodological trajectories. Second, efforts – contested, as the book portrays – to adequately represent a quite diverse worldwide Pentecostal movement in the dialogue teams are indicative of how an egalitarian set of ecclesiological sensibilities generates a fragmented movement and this also has methodological implications, not least for how the Dialogues have unfolded. Third, then, Creemers analyzes one weeklong session within each of the five rounds – the second year, because that is when the main topics are presented for that round of dialogues – and unveils how reading and exposition of papers have been followed by “hard questions” raised by both sides to the other for discussion (first intra-murally and then inter-murally) in order to clarify perspectives, identify differences, and anticipate possible convergences or ways forward. Finally, the aims, sources, and approaches of each of rounds of Dialogue are assessed, in chronological order, and then also vis-à-vis their Final Reports.

Bill Oliverio: Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition

Monte Rice — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:49:58 +0000

L. William Oliverio, Jr., Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account (Netherlands: Brill, 2012), ISBN 9789004280175.

I just finished reading L. William Oliverio, Jr., monograph, Theological Hermeneutics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition: A Typological Account. In the first six chapters, Oliverio maps the historical development of Pentecostal theology through a taxonomy of five types of historical Pentecostal hermeneutics. Along with their illustrative exemplars, these are: 1. the “original classical pentecostal hermeneutic” (Charles F. Parham, William J. Seymour, Charles H. Mason, Garfield T. Haywood); 2. the “early evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Daniel W. Kerr, P.C. Nelson, Myer Pearlman); 3. the “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Gordon Fee, Roger Stronstad, Robert Menzies); 4. the “contextual-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Amos Yong, James Smith, John Christopher Thomas, Kenneth Archer); and 5. the “ecumenical-pentecostal hermeneutic” (Cecil M. Robeck Jr., Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Macchia, Simon Chan and Koo Dong Yun).

Oliverio concludes by proposing a theological hermeneutic he finds most congruent towards ongoing 21st century challenges to both the worldwide Pentecostal tradition and the broader Christian tradition. One weakness to his taxonomy is that he admittedly works largely from North American Classical Pentecostal historiography. However, the interdependence between globalisation and globally diverse local Pentecostalisms, would suggest that his taxonomy comprises sufficient broadness for assessing emerging and local Pentecostal hermeneutical models worldwide.

Oliverio argues that the “original classical pentecostal hermeneutic” marked the “beginning of a new Christian tradition.” He also contends that even as the early Pentecostal movement understood its apostolic calling as that of calling the whole Church back to the root of New Testament “Pentecostal” experience, it was thereby highly ecumenical in orientation and moreover— comprising a broad range of theological diversity.

The “early evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic” later emerged through the influences of fundamentalism and modern evangelicalism, which led to a new stress on the inerrancy doctrine and creation of a “pentecostal scholasticism.” The “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic,” emerged in the 1970’s, largely via the Lukan scholarship debates. It signified a new Pentecostal reliance on Evangelical hermeneutical methodologies, for arguing Classical Pentecostal doctrines of Spirit baptism along with the evidential tongues doctrine. Hence, this era marked a newfound appreciation for historical-grammatical methods of exegetical methods, focusing on identifying authorial meanings of scriptural texts.

I find it important to note Oliverio’s observation that the “contemporary evangelical-pentecostal hermeneutic’s stress on authorial meaning was itself philosophically rooted to the Hirschian (E.D. Hirsch) author-centered hermeneutic theory. Meanwhile, the “contextual-pentecostal hermeneutic,” which emerged in the latter part of the 1990’s, followed the Gadamerian school of thought (Hans-George Gadamer; fusion of the reader’s linguistic and conceptual horizon with the horizon of the text). Hence, this Pentecostal hermeneutic has stressed the reader’s contextual situation (especially the cultural-linguistic context) towards readings of Scripture, and the formative role this context plays towards theologizing. Oliverio identifies this phase as demarking the beginning of a truly authentic Pentecostal manner of theologizing. Yet Oliverio laments the historical wedge that has developed between these two hermeneutics, which he seeks to address through themes emerging from the “ecumenical-pentecostal hermeneutic” and his proposed “hermeneutical realism.