This past Friday morning (September 28, 2018), Pope Francis met with the bishops who oversee the work of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU). Cardinal Kurt Koch is President of the PCPCU and Bishop Brian Farrell is its Secretary. The bishops responsible for ecumenism who relate to the PCPCU gather at once each year to review a specific project and see how things have progressed. I have not yet obtained the opening remarks of Cardinal Koch, but Pope Francis made a speech to the members of the PCPCU regarding their work with Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Evangelicals.

Pope Francis is most interested in the work with Classical Pentecostals as well as Charismatics. The PCPCU has been in dialogue with Classical Pentecostals since 1972. More recently, the PCPCU has met with Charismatics under that rubric, including a number of independent Pentecostal preachers like Kenneth Copeland, as well as a number of non-denominational Charismatic and megachurch pastors.

The dialogue with Classical Pentecostals began under the leadership of David du Plessis (at that time defrocked by the Assemblies of God – he was later reinstated). In 1985 David was succeeded by his younger brother, Justus du Plessis (Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa), who served as co-chair until 1992. At that time, I was elected to serve as the Pentecostal Co-chair.

The Dialogue is now in its seventh round, each of which has run from 5 to 8 years, with a couple of breaks. All previous rounds were completed with full, written reports that have been circulated widely and have been cited in a number of academic papers. They have all been well received. I have listed the places where they have been published below.

Saint Peter’s Basilica at sunset.
Image: Wikimedia Commons

For over 35 years, I have watched closely what the past three popes have had to say about Pentecostals. I believe that this is the first and fullest formal address given on the topic of Pentecostals by any pope to date. It is clear that Pope Francis recognizes some of the issues between Catholics and Pentecostals, but it is equally clear that he believes that this dialogue is particularly important. He highlights the work of the Spirit in ways that Pentecostals would likely highlight it, and I believe that it could be of help to other Pentecostals and Charismatics with ecumenical interests to see how strongly he supports the International Catholic – Pentecostal Dialogue which is overseen by the PCPCU.

I hope that you enjoy reading this short piece, and will take the time to look up some of the past reports made by members of the Dialogue. Please note the bibliographical information below.

“Audience of the Holy Father with participants in the Plenary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 28.09.2018”

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/09/28/180928a.html

An Ethical Approach

More of a practical guide than a theological statement, “Recommendations for Conduct” outlines “A Basis for Christian Witness”. This is the most consistently biblical section, and primarily upholds mission as a participation in the mission of God and obedience to the example of Jesus and the early church with a strong emphasis on ethical behavior and responsibility.³ The document also details “Principles” of Christian conduct in bearing witness to the gospel: “Acting in God’s love,” “Imitating Jesus Christ,” “Christian virtues,” “Acts of service and justice,” “Discernment in ministries of healing,” “Rejection of violence,” “Freedom of religion and belief,” “Mutual respect and solidarity,” “Respect for all people,” “Renouncing false witness,” “Ensuring personal discernment,” and “Building interreligious relationships.” True to its subtitle, it also suggests “Recommendations” for guiding relationships between Christians and others as Christians respond to God’s call to do mission: “study” the critical issues involved, “build” relationships of respect and trust, “encourage” Christians to strengthen their own religious identity and faith, “cooperate” with other religious communities for justice and the common good, “call” on governments to respect religious freedom, and “pray” for all neighbors.

“Recommendations for Conduct” ends with an “Appendix” describing the background and process of its origin and development over the last five years. As a participant from beginning to end in that process, I understand that this background is essential for appreciating many of the nuances of the statements of this document. Also, it would be a mistake to divorce the content and tone of “Recommendations for Conduct” from the clear purpose statement in the “Preamble”.

The purpose of this document is to encourage churches, church councils and mission agencies to reflect on their current practices and to use the recommendations in this document to prepare, where appropriate, their own guidelines for their witness and mission among those of different religions and among those who do not profess any particular religion. It is hoped that Christians across the world will study this document in the light of their own practices in witnessing to their faith in Christ, both by word and deed.

Early Response

Translation choices continue to be a major issue for the church. While preparing this review, news showed that the choices made in a further update to the NIV has led to a prominent denomination expressing disappointment with two large Christian publishers. As a professional translator, I obviously care about the choices translators make. However, as a believer, I care much more for my brothers and sisters in Christ.

There is no doubt that the translation issue covered in the article covered by this review is an important one: what should Bible translators do with concepts and phrases that might cause offence? What if a cultural or linguistic understanding of a Biblical phrase could prevent a barrier to someone receiving Christ? How far should translators go in their work to present the Word of God in a language people understand?

The specific example in this article is by no means an easy one. For many Muslims, the phrase “Son of God” paints the picture of God having physical sexual relations with Mary, an idea which is an anathema both to them and, I would imagine, to the vast majority of Evangelical Christians. We all understand that the Biblical writers are here intending to paint a picture of Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit and His intimacy with the Father.

The phrase “Son of God” therefore, is clearly a critical Biblical concept. It means far more than a purely linguistic analysis of the words would suggest and plays an important role in Biblical theology. Few could deny that knowledge of Christ and His purpose is not complete without a deep understanding of what is going on whenever this phrase is mentioned. It remains to be seen whether the proposed replacement “the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God” could ever fully stand in its place.

On the other hand, the results of making this change have been astounding. In a single network of house churches that have used a translation that has adopted this phrase, hundreds of Muslims have accepted Christ as their saviour. If Jesus is right that you recognise Christians by their love for each other (John 13: 35), do particular phrases in Bible translations really matter? Surely, perfect love and not perfect theology is the mark of the true Church.

The arguments could easily rage in either direction and as a reviewer, I find myself pulled both ways. This is not a topic that offers an easy route to neutrality. Whatever stance one takes, important and Biblically sound arguments exist in contradiction.

Perhaps this is actually the issue: we take sides more easily than we give love. This kind of behaviour is not new, Paul had to rebuke the Corinthian church for taking sides behind one preacher or another (1 Cor 1: 12-21). There may well have been real and perhaps even important theological differences between Paul, Apollos and Peter but Paul is keen to remind the church that our common faith in Christ is greater than our differences.

We might make a similar point about the tendency to back one Bible translation strategy over another. As I have written elsewhere (The Pneuma Review, vol. 12 no. 3., Summer 2009, pp. 24-43), there are real problems and issues with every strategy. Something goes wrong no matter how we translate the Word: this why almost all pastors and theologians warn against only using a single translation for study. We need the wisdom of multiple counsel.