The Tongues of Pentecost: A Pentecostal Perspective on the Promise and Challenge of Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue

Abstract

The international Pentecostal/Roman Catholic dialogue began in 1972 between the former Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity and the Pentecostals. du Plessis was the organizer of the dialogue from the Pentecostal side. The role of du Piessis was quite amazing, since he had already been disfellowshipped from the Assemblies of God prior to his involvement in the dialogue with Roman Catholics. In fact, the dialogue did not involve any official representation by the Pentecostal churches, but merely David du Plessis and friends. As Peter Hocken noted, it was the perspicacity of the then Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity that recognized in du Plessis a prophetic figure representative of Pentecostalism in spirit and did not, therefore, merely dismiss him as a maverick.(1) The documents and articles that have emerged from the three quinquennia of dialogue since 1972 reveal some understanding between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics of possible convergences and divergences on several issues, such as scripture, worship, and koinonia.(2) Despite the dialogue, Pentecostals who participate must still do so in the shadow of misunderstandings and criticisms from Pentecostal leadership and laity. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., has described the barriers that Pentecostals have sought to erect in order to block the way to ecumenical discussion with Roman Catholics.(3) Now that a North American series of ecumenical meetings between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics has begun as a complement to the ongoing international dialogue, a Pentecostal theological reflection on the future promise and challenge of such ecumenical encounters seems more important than ever before. At the base of this reflection is the question of the theological issues at stake for Pentecostals in continuing and cultivating the dialogue with Roman Catholics. What is it about our piety and theology that compels us ahead in a dialogue that is so sharply criticized by the leadership of our Pentecostal churches? What promise and challenge might such a dialogue pose for Roman Catholics? A Vision for Pentecostal Ecumenism in the Tongues of Pentecost It is quite natural for a Pentecostal to begin a discussion of the promise and challenge of Pentecostal/Roman Catholic dialogue with the of After all, the Pentecostal movement is noted for its accent on what Hendrikus Berkhof termed the neglected third element beyond the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification: empowerment for witness in the world, such as we have featured in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. The baptism in the Holy Spirit as a post-conversion empowerment for gifted service, especially as evidenced by speaking in tongues, was at least the most controversial and, therefore, outstanding distinctive of classical Pentecostalism at the beginning of the movement. The prodigium (astounding sign) of the Spirit's empowerment in tongues worship featured in Acts 2 and the credibility it gained from the sanctified lives of those who bore witness to Christ have been honored by most Pentecostals as valuable distinctives. More recently, however, scholars of Pentecostalism, such as Donald Dayton, have shifted the popular focus on tongues as the distinctive of Pentecostalism to an overall Gestalt of spirituality that strives for a holistic or full gospel. For Pentecostals, this gospel includes conversion, Spirit baptism, bodily healing, and an eschatological expectation for the imminent return of Christ. This more holistic doctrinal approach to defining Pentecostalism is important for understanding the diverse theological roots of the Pentecostal movement in the Holiness movement of the nineteenth century.(4) Walter Hollenweger, however, believes that this ideengeschichtliche (idea-historical) approach is not adequate by itself. Fundamental for Hollenweger is the realgeschichtliche understanding of Pentecostalism, which focuses on the actual spirituality of the movement. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.