Jeff Oliver has taken on the ambitious task of chronicling the charismatic work of the Holy Spirit throughout church history. He has done this by writing a three volume book, Pentecost to the Present. He begins in volume one by writing about the activities of the Holy Spirit in the days of the apostolic church of the first century AD. By volume three his focus is the work of the Holy Spirit in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. Because I am interested in the more recent history of the work of the Holy Spirit I began by reading volume three.

Volume three is divided into six sections: “Pentecost … Again (c. 1901-1910),” “The Pentecostal Movement (c. 1906-1945),” “The Healing Revival (c. 1946-1960),” “The Charismatic Renewal (c. 1951-1980),” “The Charismatic Explosion (c. 1971-2000),” and “Into the Twenty-First Century (2001 and Beyond).”

The majority of the first section “Pentecost … Again (c. 1901-1910)” focuses primarily on two people, Charles Parham and William Seymour, and one mission, the Azusa Street Mission. The text contains information about the events leading up to beginning of the Azusa Street Mission and some of the things that took place there. Two of the things mentioned about the mission were the flames of fire that appeared over the building and the healings that took place inside.

The second section “The Pentecostal Movement (c. 1906-1945)” deals with the spread of Pentecostalism after the Spirit fell at the Azusa Street Mission. Some of the countries that it spread to were Argentina, South Africa, and Russia. Prominent Pentecostal figures from this time period are also discussed: Smith Wigglesworth, F. F. Bosworth, and Aimee Semple McPherson.

The third section “The Healing Revival (c. 1945-1960)” focuses on the ministries of some of the key individuals who were used by God to bringing healing to many. William Branham, Oral Roberts Jack Coe, and A. A. Allen are mentioned in this section.

Section four “The Charismatic Renewal (c. 1951-1980)” deals with outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. Some of the people God touched and used in a mighty way to spread the work of the Spirit in these churches are mentioned in this section: David Du Plessis, Harald Bredesen, Dennis Bennett, Oral Roberts, and Katherine Kuhlman. The parachurch ministry Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International, which was founded by Demos Shakarian, is also mentioned for its impact in spreading the Pentecostal message.

Section five “The Charismatic Explosion (c. 1971-2000)” includes information about a number of significant individuals and ministries that were active during this time period. In this section the author writes about the controversial Shepherding Movement, The Trinity Broadcasting Network, CBN, The 700 Club, the PTL Club, Pat Roberston, Jimmy Swaggart, the Word of Faith Movement, and the Prosperity Teaching among others.

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.

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

V. Pentecostalism and Ecumenism: Future Prospects and Tasks

My conclusion is that Pentecostals need the larger Church even as the larger Church needs Pentecostalism. Thus, the quest for a biblically based and Spirit inspired Christian unity must include both movements. In this last section of my five-part article, I want to briefly discuss the various levels of ecumenical activity and make some practical suggestions with regard to how Pentecostals can become more ecumenically conscious and involved.

Levels of ecumenism

There is no one correct way to either be ecumenical or to do ecumenism. In fact, although I present four levels of ecumenical activity here, it is difficult to say where one stops and the other starts. I would surmise that wherever genuine ecumenism occurs, it will include theological and doctrinal discussion (academic ecumenism), the development of interpersonal relationships between clergy across denominational lines (church leadership ecumenism) and between the laity at large (neighborhood ecumenism), and social action of some type (institutional-denominational ecumenism).²² If we keep in mind the artificial boundaries between each level, the following is designed to provide an overview of what ecumenism-in-action looks like.

Academic ecumenism usually involves teachers, professors, and those with advanced training in biblical and theological studies. At this level, the goals of ecumenical discussion include the clearing away of stereotypes, the development of mutual understanding, and, the clarification of actual problems confronting Christian unity (as opposed to problems that are simply the result of misunderstanding or stereotype). Pentecostal academics who have been involved in these dialogues generally are not denominationally funded since most Pentecostal churches and groups do not place such activity high on their priority list. Thus, along two fronts—financially and with regard to one’s personal reputation—Pentecostals who participate at this level of ecumenism do so at some personal risk. It is therefore not unusual to hear many of them attest that their ecumenical involvement proceeds from a sense of divine calling.

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

IV. Pentecostal Ecumenism: A Survey

If it is true to say that Pentecostalism has always been ecumenical, it is also true to say that in certain respects, the ecumenical movement has always been “pentecostal.” In what follows, I want to tease out three elements of what I call “pentecostal ecumenism” wherein central features of Pentecostalism are highlighted. These include the missionary thrust of the modern ecumenical movement, its concern for charismatic unity, and its emphasis on what I call the “diversities of the Spirit.” Let me comment on each in order.

Missionary Pentecostal ecumenism

Few Pentecostals today realize that the ecumenical movement was initially launched as a missionary movement, and in many respects retains that focus today. As missiologists and historians have noted, while the twentieth was the century of Pentecostal missions, the nineteenth was that of the Protestant missionary enterprise. It was during the nineteenth century that what we now call the mainline churches established themselves on every continent. It was also during this same time that problems were identified, many of which were far too large for the mission agencies of these individual churches and denominations to resolve on their own. The heart of the modern ecumenical movement was thus birthed at a global mission conference which convened at Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1910, and from which the International Missionary Fellowship (IMF) was established in 1921. Meanwhile, it was realized that missionary work could not proceed apart from confronting both the social and political injustices prevalent during the inter-war years and the doctrinal differences that separated the churches. Thus emerged the Life and Work world conference (1925) and the Faith and Order world conference (1927). These combined to form the WCC in 1948.¹⁶ In 1961, the IMF officially joined forces with the WCC, thus re-affirming the WCC’s commitment to the missionary witness of the churches.

I am getting ahead of the story without having made my point which is this: the early twentieth century was a time during which churches in the West awoke to the power of ecumenical unity for carrying out the task of the Great Commission. As the various churches began to assess the daunting project of world evangelization, they realized that such could be accomplished much more efficiently if they worked together rather than separately. In short, it was the missionary endeavor that brought hitherto self-sufficient groups, movements, and denominations together. I should not need to point out that the central impetus toward Pentecostal organization was also the collaborative power of common mission. Fulfilling the missionary mandate has done more to bring the Church together since the Reformation than anything else.

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

III. Ecumenical Pentecostalism: A Historical Overview

I hope to have shown that Pentecostal anti-ecumenism stems in part from theological convictions imported into rather than derived from the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit. Such importations have inhibited Pentecostals from a genuine understanding of what the biblical ecumenism stands for. On the other hand, it has also certainly been the case historically that there has been a lack of spiritual fervor within the mainline churches, especially in terms of how Pentecostals gauge these expressions. Going back to the biblical material in section I, however, this should come as no surprise. Different communities of faith bring different gifts to the one body of Christ. It goes without saying that these various communities also bring different liabilities and have diverse struggles.

My goals in this and the next section are threefold. First, I would like to demonstrate that Pentecostalism and ecumenism have not been inherently antithetical historically. This historically oriented presentation supplements the biblical and theological arguments presented in the first two sections. Secondly, I want to make a similar case on behalf of the ecumenical movement. I wish to show that historically, ecumenists have shared many of the convictions and goals of Pentecostals. Third, however, I also want to demonstrate that the devil is at work not only on “their” side but on both sides of the fence. The history of God’s work among the people of God always features both triumphs and failures, and this applies to both ecumenists and Pentecostals alike.¹¹

Let me begin with what I call “ecumenical Pentecostalism.” I want to focus in what follows on the ecumenical character of Pentecostalism in three stages. There is, first, the ecumenism of the Azusa Street revival. Second, there is the ecumenism of the charismatic renewal. Finally, there is the ecumenism now inherent within a Pentecostalism that has grown to be a global phenomenon. Let me overview each in order.

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

II. Classical Pentecostal Objections to Ecumenism

Given this biblically defined ecumenism [Editor’s note: please see part 1 in the Winter 2001 issue], then, why is it that most Pentecostals remain staunchly anti-ecumenical? While many reasons have been given, three stand out as representing a fair consensus. First, Pentecostals believe that the unity of the Church should be understood spiritually rather than visibly. Second, many Pentecostals believe that the ecumenical movement represents churches that have betrayed the essence of the gospel, especially doctrinally. Finally, correlative with the previous objection, Pentecostals are generally concerned that non-Pentecostal churches are devoid of the life that is found only in the Spirit of God as ‘pentecostally’ experienced and defined, thus fulfilling the biblical prophecy of widespread apostasy in the last days. Let me respond to each in order.

Objection 1: Spiritual rather than visible unity

Pentecostals have always valued the spiritual unity that they have found in the experience of the charismata, especially speaking in tongues. Manifestations of tongues and other spiritual gifts are, for them, a more incontrovertible sign of the Spirit’s presence and activity in their lives and congregations. The institutional, organizational, and architectural forms of non-Pentecostal churches do not impress Pentecostals. These are considered to be merely outward signs of pomp and circumstance that all human constructions can display, but which do not guarantee inward and spiritual vitality. Rather, these outward paraphernalia are symptomatic of the hierarchicalism, patriarchalism, and traditionalism endemic to the history of the church, all of which has been conveniently covered up or obscured by stain glass windows, Gothic architecture, and iconography that is distracting at best and bewitching at worst. The point is that the unity of the church is found, not in outward forms of organization and agreement, but in the spiritual togetherness that genuine Christians experience through the Spirit in the name of Jesus.

A brief response proceeds along three lines. First, Pentecostals should recognize that this argument actually has its roots in the Reformation and post-Reformation era and is driven by an ideology of individualism. The basic assumption is that God works first and foremost through individuals and not institutions or organizations. Just as sola Christus neglected the Holy Spirit, sola fide neglected sanctifying works, and sola Scriptura neglected the role of tradition in reading and interpreting the Word of God, so did the unspoken emphasis on the individual neglect the centrality and importance of the community of faith. Since the Reformation, the Church has been struggling to counteract the influential but exaggerated importance of Luther’s “here I stand!” A myriad of individuals after the German reformer have come to similar conclusions regarding their parent Protestant churches and movements resulting in the emergence of innumerable denominations.

Amos Yong challenges classical Pentecostals to re-examine what ecumenism really is.

I am pleased to present this important series by Professor Amos Yong. The subject of what ecumenism truly is and what it means to the Pentecostal/charismatic is an important one today.

This article has been specifically written to classical Pentecostals, those whose traditions come from the Azusa Street Outpouring of the early 20th Century. Classical Pentecostals have historically been predisposed against ecumenism. The reason for this is that ecumenism has often been viewed as an attempt by ungodly men to bring together all religions of the earth into a compromised one world religion.

Perhaps at no other time in North American history has the church been on the precipice that we are today. While the rest of the nations of the earth are experiencing dramatic awakenings, the church of North America continues to lose ground. Morally and evangelistically (if nothing else), the church is not the agent for change or preservation she was just decades ago. Some have forecasted persecution of Christians in the relative near future. All Christian leaders seem to realize that something must change in order for the church to impact the rising generations of fatherless, visionless youth.

Whether the woes of the church can be rectified such that she regains her saltiness is more than a matter of eschatology. Whether you believe that the church is going to usher in the Millennial reign of Christ or that we are on the brink of the Tribulation, we have standing commands in God’s Word to embrace believers as brethren and love one another. My prayer is that you will study this subject with heart tuned to what the Spirit is saying to the church. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

— Raul Mock, Executive Editor

Introduction
In this paper, I would like to raise and attempt to answer four questions. First, is there a biblical ecumenism, and if so, what does that mean (this will be answered in Part 1)? Second, what are some of the classical Pentecostal objections to ecumenism, and how might these be answered (Part 2)? Third, does Pentecostalism have an ecumenical history, and if so, how has this related to the ecumenical movement in the mainline churches (Parts 3-4)? Finally, what is the future of Pentecostal ecumenism and what might be ways we could contribute to such a venture (Part 5)? Let us plunge right into this difficult topic.