Attendees for the CLF came from all over North America and many parts of the world. This year there was a heavy presence of Polish charismatics as well as the usual Brazilians and Italians. It is always a joy to fellowship with these beloved “foreigners” who are brothers and sisters in Christ. I would not be telling readers anything new if I said it is easier talking and enjoying fellowship with a Polish charismatic with a heavy accent, than an unsaved American neighbor.

In a sense “receptive ecumenism” has been going on for quite some time without having a name. I can think of the loving atmosphere of the Full Gospel Businessmen Fellowship International, begun way back in the 1950s be Demos Shakarian. This group was a pre-cursor to the Charismatic Renewal, i.e., mainline Protestants accepting Pentecostal practices.[2] The bond of love and service of this group was not in the least disturbed by its multidenominational membership. Similarly, a half century of ecumenical cooperation to overturn Roe Vs. Wade in various pro-life groups, local and national, led to Protestants of all denomination mingling, cooperating, and loving Catholics – and visa versa. “Receptive ecumenism” was not the primary intention of these groups, but the (providential) result of their meeting together with common goals.

This is not to say that the CLF meeting was redundant. Good theology identifies and solidifies biblical truths, attitudes, and practices. For instance, bad or absent theology on the gifts of the Holy Spirit prevented Pentecostalism and Spirit-filled churches from forming for centuries even though many Christians spoke in tongues and individually practiced the gifts of the Spirit all through Church history.[3] The flourishing of the gifts of the Spirit in whole congregations had to wait for theologies that explained the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit. All of which is to say, formulating a theology of receptive ecumenism is important for it to further flourish.

The first speaker (session 1) the Rev. Pat Sparrow, made a starting affirmation that receptive ecumenism was the way to fulfill Jesus’ prayer in John 17 that we should all be one. The stumbling point is that most churches interested in ecumenism believe they are the model to show the way forward.

Session 2 was a joint presentation by Dr. David Cole and Mr. Nathan Smith, both heavily involved in Rome with Catholic-Pentecostal reconciliation and dialogue. They reflected that half a century of dialogue produced some progress in raising the respect level for one another. But a new attitude of humility and listening is permeating the situation, and this has resulted in Catholics and Pentecostals praying together, something unheard of decades ago.

Fr. Jim Puglisi brought an interesting historical perspective to the conference in the next session. His talk centered on the Syriac church (important in the Early Church). He pointed out that the Syriac Church valued greatly the Apostle James, brother of Jesus, and the tradition of community as the basis of unity. This is different from the Western church which early on valued Greek philosophy and “right theology” as the basis of unity. This of course led to the bitter division between the Western churches and the Oriental Orthodox churches.[4]

The next two presenters brought further historical perspective to ecumenicism. Fr. Timothy Cremeens talked about the lack of ecumenicism in the early church, as any deviation from established orthodoxy was considered as heresy – no dialogue possible. (Fr. Cremeens is one of the best loved regulars of the CLF. He is rector of an American Orthodox Church and is very charismatic. But his denomination does not look favorably on the gifts of the Spirit today. He soldiers onward.) Anthony Martin then gave us a brief history of the Reformation, and what went wrong to result in wars instead of dialogue between Protestants and Catholics.

Fr. Karol Sobczyk was the speaker for the next session (session 8). He presented a history of the Charismatic movement in Poland where the population is over 90% Catholic. In spite of this, he credited the mission of John Wimber decades ago in Poland for being a major impetus of the charismatic renewal, which is growing day by day.

Scott Kelso, who is the coordinator of the CLF, and very active in the ecumenical movement worldwide, gave an interesting take on how important prophecy is for the ecumenical movement. It moves persons out of their comfort zones and into obedience with God’s will, which is ultimately the unity of the Church. In the next session Dr. John Gresham gave us information about the origins of the term “receptive ecumenism.” It was coined by Dr. Paul Murray of the university of Durham. He organized the first meeting on the topic, and later published a book on it.[5] Gresham suggested several other seminal sources of receptive ecumenism.[6]

The next presentation was by two persons, a layman, Isias Carniero and Bishop Rodolfo Valenzuela, described the ongoing successes of ecumenism in Latin America. Brazil is an especially great example, and this year celebrates 50 years of dialogue and ecumenism between Evangelical and Catholics. For those of us like myself, who were born into pre-Vatican II Catholicism, this is a miraculous change. Well into the 1960s, Protestant missionaries in various parts of Latin America were harassed and even murdered by Catholic vigilantes who believed they were protecting the true faith.

At noon the attendees were bussed to Ascension Lutheran Church for an Ash Wednesday service. After lunch there were presentations by leaders of two covenant communities, Word of Christ and Alleluia, both describing how they managed and lived out their receptive ecumenism. Both communities were predominantly Catholic but Catholics in these communities cherished what they had learned from their Protestant brothers and sisters. Especially in the early days of the 1970s, the classic works of the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewal such as the Cross and the Switchblade by David Wilkerson, and the cassettes of Derek Prince were seminal.

After dinner on Tuesday, there was a reception at an outdoor fire pit with several other Christian groups who were also present at the Alleluia community – alas, without marshmallows. The next morning opened with a powerful prayer and praise session which became a healing service. Many healings occurred and I personally received a healing for my hearing. This was followed by the last session, and my favorite.

The Catholic Bishop of Portland, Oregon, Peter Smith, spoke. He is noted for his orthodox theology and charismatic beliefs, and he jokingly introduced himself as the bishop of the “People’s Republic of Portland.” He noted that he created a rumpus in Oregon when he mandated that children in Catholic schools under his jurisdiction must be addressed by their birth names. What surprised me especially was his comment that when he hears confessions, he often says prayers of deliverance over the supplicant. This is a situation where deliverance prayer can be very effective, especially in sins of addiction.

The 2023 CLF was a great conference, and if you have a leadership position in any church or para-church organization, please join us next year.

PR

Notes

[1] For a better description of the CLF and the Alleluia community, see posting of the 2020 CLF in The Pneuma Review (March 30, 2020). /charismatic-leaders-fellowship-2020/

[2] William De Arteaga, Marvels and Signs: Quintessential Essays From an Anglican Pentecostal (Lee’s Summit: Christos, 2022) chapter 10, “Did the Charismatic Renewal Begin in 1950?”

[3] See Judith Tydings, Gathering a People (Plainfield; Logos International, 1977).

[4] On this tragic division see the work of Philip Jenkins, Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years (New York; HarperCollins, 2010).

[5] Paul Murray, Receptive Ecumenism as Transformative Ecclesial Learning (Oxford: Oxford University, 2022).

[6] See Andrew Wilson, Spirit and a Sacrament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018). [Editor’s Note: See the review by Rick Wadholm Jr.]

Amos Yong, presenting “Receiving a Pentecostal Witness: Toward an Ecumenism of the Spirit for the Third Millennium”

When: February 16-17, 2018

Where: The Avon Theater in Birmingham, Alabama

The Day of Pentecost signaled the emergence of a new people of God drawn from all tongues, tribes, and nations, yoked onto the history of Israel.

What are the challenges and possibilities for such a Pentecost catholicity for the 21st century world Christian movement?

In the fifth annual Nevin Lectures, Prof. Amos Yong will explore these questions in dialogue with Spirit-movements – pentecostal, charismatic, and other renewalist groups.

His lectures will sketch a fresh Pentecostal ecumenism that will be relevant to and engaging of our dawning third millennium global context.

More Information and Registration

More from Amos Yong on his author page: http://pneumareview.com/author/amosyong/

Don’t miss: Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future, by Amos Yong

For more information, please use my contact information or email me.

I sure hope you can come!

All of us at APTS wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy, Prosperous New Year,

Dr. Dave Johnson
Director, APTS Press

From Pneuma Review Fall 2013.

Wolfgang Vondey, ed., Pentecostalism and Christian Unity, Volume 2 (Pickwick Publications, 2013), 301 pages, ISBN 9781620327180.

It can be a terrible thing when we believe that we ourselves are right and all others are wrong. Terrible, because it can reinforce an arrogance caused by insecurity, causing us to be unwilling or resistant towards the legitimate Biblical perspectives and insights of others. Sadly, ignorance of the basis of faith shared with others, whose experience of church culture is sometimes so foreign and different from ourselves, can lead to caricature and even misrepresentation, often on the basis of anecdotal reflections or bad personal experiences.

This book is for those who are prepared to view things a different way. It is the second volume in a series looking at Pentecostal involvement in cross-denominational discussions regarding the basis of Christian unity. It is intended as a source book and reference work, divided into two parts. Firstly, a selection of narratives that represent ecumenical dialogues in which Pentecostals have recently been involved. Secondly, a selection of official reports on conversations between Pentecostals and two major denomination groupings, as well as the fruit of a conversation between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals.

But this book is useful for more than that. It illustrated one important function of Pentecostalism, which is moving the agenda from abstract and obtuse theological concepts and categories into ‘what is real is what is experienced’. It invites an engagement in an ecumenism that focuses on missional matters, and the exploration of experiential realities: what it means to enter faith, to grow in faith, or to receive the Holy Spirit.

The narratives in part 1 are valuable in showing how people, coming from diverse backgrounds, can find a ‘cross check’ in confirming the propriety of their Christian practices. For whether we readily recognise it or not, there is—at the theoretical, dogmatic level—not always a lot to choose between in the differing systematic theologies offered by competing traditions because of shared roots in historic Christianity, they are sometimes simply amended copies or slight variations of one another. It is at the level of practices that we see the difference. The value of these conversations is in how they lead us to reflect on what we do; and on why we do what we do.

This collection of records and documents is also a book providing a good resource for those looking for a way of finding a positive interface between Pentecostals and both Lutheran and Reformed, as well as Roman Catholics.

Reviewed by James Purves

Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 1 of 5)

Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 2 of 5)

Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 3 of 5)

Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 4 of 5)

Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future (Part 5 of 5)

November 2016 update: This series has been translated by Ana-Marie Begič, “Pentekostalizem in ekumenizem: preteklost, sedanjost in prihodnost,” in Corneliu Constantineanu & Christopher J. Scobie, urednika (eds.), Binkoštniki v 21. stoletju: Identiteta, verovanje, praksa [Pentecostals in the 21st Century: Identity, Beliefs, and Praxis] (Ljubljana, Slovenija: Podvig, 2016), 307-55.

The Spirit and the Prophetic Church

Building Ministry Coalitions for Urban Ministry

Part 2 of 2

Editor’s Note: Read Part 1 in the Spring 2013 issue of The Pneuma Review

The Situation of Post-Katrina New Orleans

The situation of Cradock in Portsmouth is not an anomaly. This is important to note. The city of New Orleans has various relevant examples. During Katrina in 2005, churches in New Orleans were ruined, communities were destroyed, some people were severely hurt and others even lost their lives. Even today—seven years later, churches in distressed communities of New Orleans continue to struggle to rebuild and many of the communities remain discombobulated. Considering the history of the Black Church,³⁵ the Rev. C.T. Vivian, who is a veteran civil-rights activist in Atlanta and former ministry colleague with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., developed a plan. He wanted to bypass the government and organize an ecumenical consortium of churches to work together towards rebuilding the churches and revitalizing the ramshackle urban communities. Rev. Vivian thought that he would be able to pull other predominant African American churches together in the ecumenical spirit of the Black Church to play a key role in revitalizing New Orleans.³⁶

There are thousands of well-to-do churches in America with ministers who are millionaires. Yet, the Church Supporting Churches organization in the hurricane-torn New Orleans has essentially failed in its efforts to revitalize several communities and churches. There is a national disparity of unified support in communities from churches. This problem has become a Christian travesty. The broken communities of New Orleans, like Cradock in Portsmouth, are sad examples of churches missing opportunities for collaborative and prophetic urban ministry.

The Bible, God, and the City

Many seminary and bible school graduates wrestle to connect the theological training they receive in the traditional seminary with doing ministry in the city. Much of today’s theological education system has been irresponsible in providing a necessary bridge between biblical, intellectual, and practical life in the city. This is partly due to stubborn methods for theological discourse. In Urban Ministry: An Introduction, Ronald E. Peters rightly comments that only theology that maintains a bottom-up perspective will continue to be relevant for ministry on the margins.³⁸ Thinkers such as Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, Juan Luis Segundo, James Cone, Gayroud Willmore, Cornell West, Roswith Gerloff, Jeremiah Wright and others have championed other approaches from bottom-up perspectives. In general, their work has sought to address the painful realities of social, political, and racial disenfranchisement associated with theology that produces inept ministry in distressed, urban-type communities.

Evangelical theology, moreover, struggles to appropriate its focus. One the one hand, it is community-focused in that it places a premium on evangelism. On the other hand, it fails to engage people in their everyday situations. Its top-down approach to theology emphasizes the church’s own agenda in the community to “save souls” but seems oblivious to the biblical call to liberate the oppressed and care for the degraded. God, as perceived by such theology, seems to care mostly about people who read scripture and obey. But how might a distressed and impoverished urban dweller perceive this evangelical understanding of obedience? If getting someone to escape to heaven is all that matters, ⁴⁰ then their everyday cares and chronic desperation means nothing.

As appearing in the Pneuma Review Spring 2013.

Thesis and Introduction

Scholars from disciplines other than the theological guild have observed the value that congregations play in their members’ everyday lives. When churches engage in the affairs of the community within which they are located, their presence and participation as community leaders result in profound community transformation, impact felt far beyond the walls of the church.¹

State officials and community leaders confirm scholars’ research findings that there is a need for churches to play a leadership role in transforming communities that are victims of urban blight.² Brian Gullins, Program Administrator for the Strengthen Families Initiative at Virginia Department of Social Services, comments that “State governments are beginning to recognize that encouraging the faith community to strengthen families is actually a poverty reduction strategy beneficial to all.”³ Gullins concludes that of the social service and civic organizations within urban communities, the most promising institutions to effectuate community transformation are the churches. He says, “If we could get the churches to partner with us, we could address the issue of absent fathers in a profound way.”⁴ Scott C. Alleman, Associate Commonwealth’s Attorney of the Special Prosecutions Trial Team (Narcotics/Vice) in Virginia Beach adds that when the legal team goes onsite to do a criminal investigation, most of the time there are several churches within a stone’s throw from the crime scene. Alleman comments, “It would be great if we could get the churches to get involved. I think there is huge potential for partnerships and cooperation between the church and law enforcement.”⁵

A lack of church involvement in their own neighborhoods, which baffles state officials and community leaders, appears to be the result of a flawed theological framework undergirding the churches’ ecclesiology.⁶ The most salient questions, moreover, are whether or not churches recognize that God has appointed them as viable mechanisms to lead in holistic transformation. Does their practice of theology allow them to be open and involved in community transformation? Also, given the wide-range of needs and need for a variety of gifts, do churches have an ecumenical⁷ theology that gives them reason to partner with churches of different denominational traditions?

In this essay, I will argue that a prophetic⁸ church is not a single congregation working to make right the wrong in communities and in the world but rather the unified ecumenical coalition of churches that together are a witness to Christ in voice and action. Ecumenical ministries are necessary mechanisms for advancing God’s kingdom on earth. This much-needed conversation on ecumenical coalition building has particular implications towards urban transformation.

A Pentecostal Perspective for An Ecumenical Theology

Twentieth Century American Pentecostalism was born as an ecumenical ministry—people from several different denominational, theological, and doctrinal traditions and different ethnic groups came together based on the common denominator that God was moving by the Holy Spirit.⁹ Walter Hollenweger argues that “the Pentecostal Movement started as an ecumenical revival movement within the traditional churches.”¹⁰ Dale T. Irvin points out that William Seymour, founder of twentieth century American Pentecostalism, understood that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit overcomes hate, bigotry, racism and prejudice, as well as doctrinal and theological differences that caused divisions in the churches.¹¹ In the essay “Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Past, Present, and Future” Amos Yong laments how historically Pentecostals, as an ecumenical movement in many ways have “squandered a golden opportunity to continue as a prophetic voice not only on racial and ethnic issues, but also on socio-economic ones as well.”¹² Since then, Paul Alexander and others have taken up portions of this torch and championed theologies from a Pentecostal perspective that advocate for social activism in regards to acts of war ethnic equality and racial reconciliation. Yet, there remains a need to plant the seeds of Pentecostal ecumenism in a theology for urban ministry.

This essay is a step towards a theology for urban ministry from a Pentecostal perspective. It contributes to the necessary rationale for all churches to minister as a unified Body of Christ for more viable prophetic ministry—addressing, engaging, and transforming urban communities by the power of the Holy Spirit.¹³ Ministry must be both ecumenical and prophetic to be effective in our cities.

Walter Brueggemann describes the impact that results from the lack of a prophetic outlook in ministry. The absence of a prophetic theology in ministry results in churches that are disconnected from the community into which they are called. From a mainline denominational perspective, Brueggemann explains that “ministry most often exists in congregations that are bourgeois, if not downright obdurate, and in which there is no special openness to or support of prophetic ministry.”¹⁴ He seems to ignore the heavy emphasis on the prophetic within Pentecostal Churches.

Calvin L. Smith, ed., Pentecostal Power: Expressions, Impact and Faith of Latin American Pentecostalism (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 284 pages, ISBN 9789004192492.

I had the good fortune to be the Ecumenical Studies Interest Group Leader for the Society for Pentecostal Studies (2012) when Calvin Smith’s Pentecostal Power was part of a panel discussion. Jeff Gros, Carmelo Alvarez, and Smith himself as well as an interactive audience were involved in this process. Some of my review inevitably draws on that discussion. This set of essays is an important contribution to understanding Pentecostalism in Latin America. Its multi-pronged approach of addressing historical, theoretical and political, and theological aspects makes it especially helpful for a wide variety of readers with diverse interests. Pentecostal Power is fairly thorough but usually brief and to the point, accessible and readable but also scholarly. It skillfully utilizes the work of scholars with solid credentials and expertise in their respective disciplines. It is certainly “Pentecostal” in subject and in authorship but also ecumenical and interdisciplinary—a quite good combination, I think, for such a work.

The volume is presented in three sections, first on the history and expressions of the movement, second on the political impact, and third on theological analyses. In an introduction Smith outlines the development of scholarly interest in Pentecostalism and Pentecostals’ own academic advance. He describes specific interest in Latin American Pentecostalism because of its phenomenal growth over recent decades. Then the chapters in the first section study Pentecostal origins in Latin America, ecumenism in Chile, and the matter of US Hispanics. The second section looks at the ideological background of Latin American Pentecostalism, its diverse interpretations, issues of social inequality and conflict, and politics. The final section surveys the theology of Latin American Pentecostalism regarding the role of the family, the devil, and Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue. William Kay closes out the book with some general observations about its implications.

According to Smith, “the purpose of this book … is to offer a survey and explore various religious aspects of the movement from across various disciples.” That purpose certainly seems well achieved. The variety of disciplines and locales considered help assure it. However, doubtless many readers will read the book with special interests in those themes which most directly connect with their own contexts. As a North American, I am particularly interested in Carmelo Alvarez’s chapter in the first section on US Hispanics. He argues that “Latin American Pentecostalism can no longer be limited to the southern continent”. Indeed, it is fascinating to read that Hispanic Americans have been heavily involved in Pentecostalism ever since the Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles. Alvarez reminds that “Azusa flourished as the cry of many races and cultures search for liberation and justice.” Furthermore, “a vigorous and rich cross-fertilization between Latin American and Hispanic Pentecostalism” continues to occur. I am left with questions. Consider the current controversy in the US over illegal immigration, primarily from Latin America, and also the increasing number of legal and documented Hispanic Americans, a controversy discussed almost entirely in contexts of economics, politics, and of course security. How does the realization that many Hispanics in the US, illegal and legal alike, are Pentecostal Christians affect our attitudes toward related policies and practices? Is there a religious component that Pentecostal Christians in the US need to be more aware of when thinking about immigration? If so, how ought that impact our policies and their implications? Although not its focus, Alvarez’s work can help us to wrestle with these kinds of questions and work toward answers in a more fully informed way than otherwise.

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.

A conversation with Professor and Pentecostal Statesman Cecil M. Robeck, Jr.

PneumaReview.com: As a Pentecostal, how do you define ecumenism?

Mel Robeck: The term “ecumenism” is derived from the Greek word oikoumene, which comes from the noun, oikos. The basic meaning of oikos is “house,” and by extension, oikoumene refers to those things, which have to do with the household. I understand the ecumenical household to be the “Household of God,” the Church, the whole “People of God,” the Christian community. From my perspective, then, ecumenism is a term reserved primarily for the issues of relationship that exist between Christians. My understanding of what constitutes a Christian is fairly simple. A Christian is one who confesses that Jesus Christ is his or her Lord and Savior.

In my ecumenical work, I begin with the biblical premise that there is only one Church and that all who confess Jesus Christ are part of that Church, regardless of their denominational label. But if we drive down the street in any of our cities, we can see that there is something wrong. How is it that we have so many denominations—over 30,000 around the world today—while there is only one Church? Why is it that many of these denominations have nothing to do with one another, yet there is only one Church? Why do we speak against one another, and yet we say that we belong to the same Church?

Many people who are not Christians ask these same questions. Unfortunately, these questions compromise the message of reconciliation that we preach, the message that God has offered through Jesus Christ, a means of breaking down all barriers between God and humankind, and between all individuals. The result is that those outside the Church are either confused about the effectiveness of the Gospel, or they are completely scandalized by what they view as our “hypocritical” claims.

The so-called “Ecumenical Movement” first came into being as a direct result of these evangelistic and missionary concerns. The World Council of Churches, which was founded, in part, as a result of these concerns, seeks to overcome the historic divisions between its member denominations. Along the way, it has also addressed other human, inter-religious, and environmental issues that represent the concerns of the churches that are members of the Council. The World Council of Churches has invited all Churches who can confess that “Jesus Christ is both God and Savior according to the Scriptures” to join together in a common quest for visible Christian unity. Very few Pentecostals have taken them up on their offer.