The answer may surprise us.

Pentecostal leader Jack Hayford once said, “Genuine spiritual fullness is bridge building.” That insight cuts to the heart of the issue. If spiritual maturity leads us into isolation or superiority, something has gone wrong. True fullness of the Spirit should expand our vision of the church, not shrink it.

Many Baptists, particularly those influenced by cessationism, believe that certain supernatural gifts, such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing, ceased in the early church. Charismatics, on the other hand, believe these gifts remain active and available today, just as described in 1 Corinthians 12. This disagreement is significant, but it is often overstated.

In practice, the lines are far more blurred than many assume. A growing number of Baptists affirm that spiritual gifts continue today, even if they express them more cautiously. Over the past few decades, studies have shown a notable increase in openness among Baptist pastors to the idea that the gifts of the Spirit are still operative. Even within traditionally non-charismatic environments, one can often find evidence of deep spiritual experience, fervent prayer, and moments that defy easy explanation.

History also complicates the narrative. Charles Spurgeon, the famed “Prince of Preachers,” was a staunch Baptist with no formal connection to charismatic theology. Yet accounts from his ministry include moments of remarkable spiritual insight that many today would describe as prophetic. Similarly, Billy Graham, arguably the most recognized Baptist figure of the modern era, spoke openly about divine healing, the laying on of hands, and the possibility of renewed signs and wonders in the last days.

These examples suggest that the divide is not always as clean or as rigid as our labels imply.

On a personal level, my own journey reflects this complexity. As a young believer, I was committed to Christ and grounded in Scripture, yet I sensed that something was missing. My first encounters with Charismatic Christians were, admittedly, uncomfortable. Their expressions of faith seemed unusual, even excessive at times. But I could not deny that many of them possessed a depth of spiritual life that I longed for.

And that is the point. The church was never meant to be a collection of isolated tribes, each guarding its own distinctives. The apostle Paul’s vision in 1 Corinthians 12 is not of uniformity, but of unity, a body with many members, each contributing something essential. The problem arises when we elevate our distinctives above our shared foundation in Christ.

When Charismatics lose sight of that foundation, they risk drifting into excess and confusion. When Baptists do the same, they risk reducing the Christian life to doctrine without experience. Both dangers are real. Both require correction. And both are best addressed not in isolation, but in conversation.

Image: Stephanie Krist

There is much we can learn from one another. Charismatics can benefit from the Baptist commitment to biblical clarity and theological discipline. Baptists can be enriched by the Charismatic emphasis on the active, present work of the Holy Spirit. The broader Christian tradition reminds us that no single group has a monopoly on truth. As the early church father Justin Martyr suggested, whatever is true belongs to all Christians.

In the end, the question is not whether Baptists and Charismatics will agree on every point of doctrine. They will not. The question is whether they can recognize one another as fellow members of the same body, pursuing the same Lord, and working toward the same mission.

If they can, then perhaps the divide is not as wide as we have imagined. And perhaps, in a divided world, that unity will speak louder than any difference ever could.

PR

A Visible Unity: Cecil Robeck and the Work of Ecumenism is a revised version of Josiah Baker’s dissertation, written under the supervision of Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen at Fuller Theological Seminary’s Center for Advanced Theological Studies. In this book, Baker argues that methods of ecumenical work express a shared ecclesiology among churches, and that as these methods evolve, the ecclesiologies of churches working together converge. To support his thesis, Baker traces the thought and contributions of Pentecostal historian and ecumenist Cecil “Mel” Robeck throughout his years of involvement in the ecumenical movement, demonstrating how specific ecumenical methodologies have led to ecclesiological convergence among divergent groups. This is a novel approach in that Baker chooses a single person who participates in multiple ecumenical initiatives as his locus of inquiry, rather than analyzing multiple persons or ideas related to a single initiative (9). Additionally, Baker’s choice of a Pentecostal voice confronts prejudices within the field of ecumenics that have excluded, dismissed, or marginalized Pentecostals, thereby allowing Robeck’s contributions to interrogate the presuppositions that have led to such a position. One of Baker’s stated goals for his book is to “canonize Robeck as one of the most influential leaders of the ecumenical movement as it entered its second century” (xi).

The chapters draw on Robeck’s publications, personal interviews with the author, and his documented participation in ecumenical initiatives. Each chapter, from chapter 2 on, focuses on a particular ecumenical methodology. Methods include reconciling memories, conciliarity, bilateral dialogue, spiritual ecumenism, and Christian forums. In chapter 1, Baker divides Robeck’s ecclesiology into three fundamental dimensions: (1) the church as a divine initiative with God as the source of its unity and power to pursue unity, (2) the church as a historical community that inherits Tradition but is also subject to social forces, and (3) the church as the people of God that cannot exist apart from all its members (28). This ecclesiological framework informs Robeck’s thought and participation, which Baker analyzes in the subsequent chapters. Chapter 2 considers how Robeck’s ecclesiology comes to bear in his work on the Azusa Street Revival, the topic for which he is most widely recognized. Such work reflects hopes of achieving racial reconciliation through the reconciliation of shared memories, enabling racially divided churches to see themselves as part of the same story and community.

Chapter 3, on conciliarity, recognizes Robeck’s role in expanding the World Council of Churches (WCC) through his participation in various assemblies and consultations as a Pentecostal. Baker argues that the methodological shift in how the WCC pursues relations with Pentecostals directly resulted from Robeck’s work as co-chair of the Joint Consultative Group at the Harare Assembly in 1998 (100–101). Bilateral Dialogue is the subject of Chapter 4. This method creates opportunities for divergent churches to discuss issues that divide them as equals, converging in their ecclesiologies around elements of a common Tradition. Examples come from Robeck’s involvement in the Catholic-Pentecostal, Reformed-Pentecostal, and Lutheran-Pentecostal dialogues.

In Chapter 5, Baker leverages Robeck’s Pentecostal identity and Patristics scholarship to understand his affinity with spiritual ecumenism. This method, which relies on shared spiritual practices, creates a bridge between Pentecostalism and other confessions, as Pentecostals also make claims of apostolicity based on the practice of charismatic gifts, not only in the New Testament but also in the Patristic period. Finally, Chapter 6 explores one of the newest ecumenical methodologies: Christian forums. Baker acknowledges Robeck’s central role in pioneering this methodology through the Global Christian Forum (GCF). The GCF was created as a common space for dialogue outside of existing church or ecumenical bodies, with at least half of the participants coming from non-WCC member churches. Informed by his Pentecostal heritage, Robeck proposed incorporating testimonies into the form. Although initially rejected, the GCF eventually adopted the practice. Baker finds that ecclesiological convergence in Christian forums occurs through testimonies, as the sharing of stories fosters recognition of the Christian other as a fellow believer.

A Visible Unity is excellently written and remarkably well-organized. Baker is meticulous in the way he structures each chapter and section, reinforcing his thesis at each seam of his argument. The result is a coherent and easy-to-follow presentation. The Introduction will be difficult for readers new to ecumenics due to its theoretical density. However, this is to be expected from a project that began as a dissertation. With many important definitions and distinctions, non-specialists will need to slow their pace before continuing to Chapter 1. After the Introduction, though, readers will notice that Baker’s prose lightens up considerably.

This is a novel contribution that centers the work of a Pentecostal ecumenist, a label some might consider a paradox. Although Baker does well to acknowledge this tension, he could have commented on additional reasons Pentecostals are averse to ecumenism, such as suspicions rooted in premillennial dispensational interpretations of apocalyptic passages in the Bible. This added background would not only help non-Pentecostal readers better understand prevalent Pentecostal attitudes toward ecumenism, but it would also help eschew broad-brushed assumptions about Pentecostals and their eschatology by showing that Robeck, though unabashedly classical Pentecostal, does not share those same suspicions. Still, the portrait Baker paints of Robeck sufficiently illuminates and nuances ecumenical and Pentecostal discourse. I recommend A Visible Unity to seminarians and specialists who are interested in ecumenics, Pentecostal studies, systematic theology, and missiology.

Reviewed by Jacob A. Palma

Publisher page: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/visible-unity-9781978717206/

Discover more from Mel Robeck at PneumaReview.com

When we talk about our identity in Jesus, we often use terms that are singular and individualistic. “I am a child of God.” “My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and I am a member of the Body of Christ.” These are truths we need to be reminded of. However, we should also use plural and collective statements to identify with the people of God’s redemptive covenant.

Paul describes what being in Messiah means in Romans 6 when he answers the rhetorical question, “Shall we continue in sin so that grace may grow even more?”

Romans 6:2-5 (NKJV): “Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united [planted] together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.”

In the early passages of his account, Nehemiah learns of the grave difficulties Jewish people are experiencing in the conquered and devastated land of Israel. Although he was born in captivity and was serving as cupbearer to the king of Persia, he identified not only with those suffering in the land of their ancestors but with those ancestors who broke covenant with God. He owned the sins of his fathers as if they were his own. Nehemiah knew he was a participant, he was in the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.

Image: Andrea Lightfoot

We are in Messiah more completely than when the nation of Israel was in David, the runt of Jesse just in from tending sheep, when he went up against the champion, a giant named Goliath who was trained for war all his life.

In all our beautiful difference, despite our shortcomings and failures, from many tribes and cultures, we are one in Messiah.

Oden and Packer have done evangelicalism a valuable service in this work affirming and outlining its underlying unity contra a reputation for fragmentation. Drawing upon a wide array of trans-denominational and international confessions, they posit a remarkable coherence among evangelicals regarding ‘primary’ doctrines. As senior statesmen of the evangelical movement they are uniquely qualified for this endeavour, representing (some would say) opposite ends of the evangelical spectrum (Wesleyan and Calvinist). Their collaboration is itself indicative of the unity they further affirm. Oden and Packer’s own analysis of and vision for evangelical unity strengthens the work substantially. Some repetitiveness is evident but this is a very readable book.

However, while One Faith takes an important step toward not only affirming but also advancing evangelical unity, it does not deal with what its authors consider ‘secondary’ doctrines that admittedly involve controversy. Is the alleged unity substantive when it is decided in advance to ignore diversity? How contemporary evangelicals deal with differences says something too. Nevertheless, the distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ status issues is an ancient and useful one potentially capable of carrying the burden and blessing of diversity. Though not a specifically scholarly work, students of evangelicalism as well as evangelical laity and clergy will benefit from this book.

Reviewed by Tony Richie

Originally published on the Pneuma Foundation (parent organization of PneumaReview.com) website. Later included in the Summer 2024 issue.

Pastor Wesley Zinn shares a report from the prayer and worship gathering, United Prayer Rising (UPRising) Europe, held July 8 through 11^th at Ashburnham Place in the UK.

From the United Prayer Rising webpage:

In July 2016 in Ilsan, South Korea, we witnessed a spiritual “UPRISING (United Prayer Rising)” where generations from across nations converged to fast, to pray, and to believe God for a reversal of the trends of attacks happening globally among the youth today, and to see the birthing of new, youth-led prayer and mission movements. On its last day, at the Nuri Peace Park, DMZ (the border between North and South Korea), the youth contended for a reunification of Korea, and we continue to witness today the hope of it becoming so alive!

After the UPRISING in Korea, young people have owned the vision, and have taken the zeal for united prayer to their respective regions and nations. The “waves” have rolled out.

There have now been UPRisings around the world in nine difference nations and locations. The most recent was UPRising Europe, help in a field in the south of England, but representing the whole European continent.

Each UPRising event is planned, organized, and led by local young adults, with guidance and shepherding from a multigenerational team. All of this is very informal and unofficial, but the presence of the Holy Spirit’s leading and power is stirring a movement that is gaining momentum and growing from event to event. Already plans are underway for at least two more events in Mexico and Australia.

I was invited to attend the UPRising event this past January in Jakarta, Indonesia as part of the multigenerational shepherding team [Editor’s note: See Pastor Zinn’s report of UPRising Jakarta 2019]. There I was introduced to the UPRising Europe leaders and again served a pastoral/shepherding role during the organizing stages, and during the event itself.

The UPRising Europe event was a 72 hour worship and intercession gathering. The call was For Worship, For Prayer, For a Continent. Around 250 attended, but the significant number is 26. 26 nations were represented, nearly all from Europe. It was powerful to join in to fervent prayer for each country represented in the tent. And it was revival stirring aroma to be led in worship by teams from all over Europe. Women from Iceland teamed with a Latino drummer from the United States and a guitar player from Malta. A family who runs a House of Prayer in Albania drove the 36 hours to lead worship for two hours and then I found them serving in the lunch line. A worship team from Russia was followed by Ukrainians. Unity that may not happen in politics and earthly government was occurring in worship and in the family-of-God oneness in the prayer tent.

Can Evangelicals unite amid its constituencies’ diverse denominational affiliation? Nine North American religious scholars from the Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal and Presbyterian denominations explain how their own confessional membership supports their corollary belonging as Evangelicals. Of the contributions, seven of all nine professors were presidents and deans of schools in theological educational at the time the volume was published, and so this volume carries implicit weight coming from the personal reflection of senior administrators and leaders in their respective ecclesiastical theological education institutions.

Byron D. Klaus on the cover of his book, And That’s the Way I See It!: Reflective commentary on contemporary issues (2013).

Readers will learn about navigating denominational identity, evangelical affiliation, and how their dual traditioning relates with the historic Christian faith. The last essay in the volume reviews the historical developments, the contemporary challenges, and the global opportunities for the renewing denominations. Baptist David Dockery explains how those who seek to renew their denominations do so by their emphasis not so much on theological distinctives but by their anchor and practice on denominational polity, liturgical practice. Indirectly, Dockery’s essay also encourages the traditions to become more trans-generational and transcontinental while maintaining fidelity to the historic Christian faith in doctrine and in its gospel-centered mission (pp. 209-232).

Actually, that accusation against Luther is much exaggerated.  The fact is that the Church had already been “rent apart” several times over. Eastern Orthodoxy had separated from the Western Church in 1054, centuries before Luther was born. Even earlier, in the Third Century, the Western Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Church (Coptic) had done the same, and the Nestorian Church of late Antiquity, at one time the largest among the Christian groupings, had long been separated and independent.

All these divisions, including Luther’s contribution, seemed to be a wicked disobedience of Jesus prayer for the Church to be one (John 17). Indeed, it has been especially shameful how Christians of different groups and denominations often persecute each other. This began as early as the Third Century when Oriental Christians (now the Coptic Church) and Western Christians in North Africa started going at each other – killing the other’s priests, and burning their churches.[1] The worst of this happened in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) when Protestants and Catholics fought each other to exhaustion, and were forced to accept that Church unity could not be brought about by exterminating the other side.

Now back to Luther. Luther’s prophetic reproof of Catholic abuses and his insight into salvation by grace alone did not cause the Church’s fragmentation. Rather it was mainly the reactions of the Catholic hierarchy that would not accept his reproof that forced the division. Catholics now have to admit to this since as they have recently accepted that Luther was right about the core issue, salvation by faith alone.[3]

What can Christians do to bring racial unity in their communities?

Added October 3, 2016: “Here is a clip from my interview about the recent race related community factions concerning police killings in America with Andrew Knox on the 700 Club Interactive. The interview aired last Thursday on the Free Form Network (formerly ABC Family Channel).”

“Regent professor and pastor Antipas Harris shares what Christians can do in the midst of the current social climate of racial tension in America.”

In Preserving Evangelical Unity, editor Michael L. Meiring brings together a variety of voices from within the Evangelical community to discuss an assortment of theological issues for which there is no uniformity in belief. He maintains that the early Church can be characterized by its harmoniousness but this type of solidary is lacking within the contemporary context. According to the editor, theological dissidence could be the most significant problem facing the Church today. Meiring argues that Christians can disagree on certain non-essential beliefs, while still enjoying common fellowship, but he warns against “extreme evangelical fundamentalists” who say that one must conform to a certain standard – typically their standard – in order to be considered a Christian. However, Meiring insists that three beliefs are imperative for all Christians to hold: the Trinity, original sin, and salvation by grace. Beyond these beliefs, he argues that Evangelicals can be united despite their differences.

The bulk of this volume is dedicated to exploring a number of non-essential topics that include divine sovereignty (a Calvinist view versus an Arminian view), baptism (infant versus believer’s baptism), dispensationalism, charismatic gifts (a cessationist versus a Pentecostal perspective), and women in leadership. Each topic is given attention from two different contributors, mostly having very divergent views and often from different backgrounds. After each contributor presents their opinion on one of the aforementioned topics, their counterpart provides a counter response. On several occasions a reply to the counter response is offered as well. This format allows for extended conversations to occur between the contributors and for readers to analyze the nuances and particular concerns raised by the contributors.

Every contributor is gracious and respectful of their dialogue partner, yet they are not reserved in pointing out their disagreements. Pentecostals may be particularly interested in the chapters concerning the charismatic gifts, but each chapter raises theological issues that are both common within Evangelical circles and deserving of attention. In my opinion one of the best chapters is Eric Severson’s essay on infant baptism. If one cannot devote themselves to reading the entire book, I highly recommend his chapter. This book can be credited with displaying heterogeneity among Evangelicals, which has many benefits, but I would have appreciated more content dedicated to promoting their unity. Two pages within the appendices are given to a document entitled “Our Unity in the Essentials,” which was also “signed” by each contributor. However, nothing is said about the manner in which this document was constructed and how it came to be adopted. My other concern is that Meiring insists on establishing the Trinity as an essential belief, but many Christian, including Oneness Pentecostals, are likely to have concerns about this standpoint. Thus some of his essentials are contestable and possibly not so indispensable. In conclusion, this volume may benefit those who are looking to explore diversity within Evangelical theology, but I question how much it promotes or even preserves unity. It seems Meiring intends to do so by rejecting dogmatism and modeling collegiality among some Evangelicals, but, in the very least, I think that a concluding chapter to assist the reader in thinking through these contentious issues would have been helpful.

Reviewed by David Bradnick

Publisher’s page: http://wipfandstock.com/preserving-evangelical-unity.html

(Kingston, Jamaica) — A three-day consultation took place involving representatives from six different “believers baptism” church traditions to share their understandings and practices of baptism and to explore how their thinking has changed in light of the emerging theological convergence on baptism and growing ecumenical encounter over the past 30 years. This was the first time such a gathering has taken place, and thus represents an historic moment in the life of these traditions.

The traditions included the Baptists, Brethren, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Mennonites, and Pentecostals. The 18 participants came from Jamaica, Kenya, Germany, Paraguay, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The initiative for the consultation grew out of the annual meeting of Secretaries of Christian World Communions in 2012, which noted fresh thinking and official agreements around the mutual recognition of baptism between churches who practice “infant baptism” and those who have practiced “believers baptism” have been observed.

The agenda of the consultation included presentations from each of the traditions on their past and current teaching and practice of baptism, with attention to how their understandings have changed or developed, along with the opportunity to discuss the presentations. A representative of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches was also present to provide input from the perspective of the wider global discussion on baptism within the ecumenical movement.

The highlights of the consultation, as stated in a report on the meeting, included:

• gratitude for the opportunity to have an open and honest reflection on the meaning, practice and shared understandings of baptism among the participants;
• naming the potential found in the image of “being on a journey” for the Christian life, with different forms and expressions of initiation and confession, while sharing a similar call to discipleship;
• the significance of understanding the Holy Spirit as a source both of our diversity as well as our unity in Christ;
• the need for a re-examination of the language of ‘sacrament’, ‘ordinance’, ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’ as ways to acknowledge that God is the primary actor in baptism;
• the need to recognize the continuity between ecumenical reception of other traditions as church, and the practices that marks each tradition as a unique expression of the body of Christ.

The full text of the report on the meeting will be shared with both the Conference of Secretaries of Christian World Communions and the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC with the hope that it will move the discussion and work on the mutual recognition of baptism and Christian unity forward.