Catholic, Diolgue KarKain

8/19/2019 Catholic, Diolgue KarKain

1/7

Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness: RomanCatholic-Pentecostal Dialogue on Mission, 1990-1997

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

F

or the past quarter of a century the two largest Christiancommunities—the Roman Catholic and the Pentecos

tal—have been in dialogue at the international level.1 Althoughthis historie dialogue has escaped the notice of even ecumenicalprofessionals, its significance can hardly be overestimated. Withregard to sheer numbers of Christians, the significance of theCatholic-Pentecostal dialogue is immense; together these twoChristian families represent at least two-thirds of world Christianity.2

In the 1990s the dialogue teams dared to take up the subjectsof mission, proselytism, and common witness. An indication ofthe delicateness of these issues may be seen in the fact that in theearly 1990s in Latin America alone about 8,000 Catholic faithfulleft their churches every day to join Pentecostal and other charismatic churches.

3

Development of the Dialogue

In 1972 the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity of theRoman Catholic Church and leaders of the Pentecostal WorldConference initiated the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue.The initial contacts were made by Fr. Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B.,and the late David du Plessis.

4

The topics and themes for the various phases can be summarized in these terms:

1. Mutual introduction (first quinquennium, 1972-76);2. Contra-positions (second quinquennium, 1977-82);

3. Search for common identity (third quinquennium, 1985-89);4. Mutual cooperation in the Christ-given mission (fourth

quinquennium, 1990-97).

The first quinquennium, 1972-76, focused on establishingmutual trust and understanding. Discussions were mainly on thephenomena of Pentecostalism, an area fairly unfamiliar to mostof the Catholic team members. The second quinquennium, 1977-82, covered faith and experience, hermeneutics, speaking intongues, healing, tradition, the church as communion, Mary, andministry. The overall theme for the third quinquennium, 1985-89, was Communion of Saints. This phase produced a highlyacclaimed report entitled Perspectives on Koinonia.

5

The fourth phase of the dialogue covered seven years, 1990-97, with five consultations over five years followed by two yearsdevoted to preparation of the final report. The themes of theconsultations were Meaning of Mission and Evangelization (1990);Biblical and Systematic Foundation of Evangelization (1991);Evangelization and Culture (1992); Evangelization and SocialJustice (1993); Evangelization/Evangelism, Common Witness,and Proselytism (1994), and Common Witness (1995). Final Report 1990-1997 explained the reason for selecting evangelizationand mission: "Since many Christians have seen the last decade ofthe second millennium as one in which to emphasize evangeliza-

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, former president of Iso Kirja College in Finland, is

Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary,Pasadena, California.

tion, and since significant tensions exist between Pentecosand Catholics on this issue, it appeared appropriate to conctrate on this topic" (no. 5).6

Although the goal of the dialogue was not structural unthe Pentecostal and Catholic participants alike shared a concfor the unity of the church, and they engaged in the dialogue wthe aim of fostering respect and mutual understanding. BCatholics and Pentecostals "have become increasingly awarethe scandal of a divided witness. It is a scandal when unbelievare more aware of those things which separate these churcthan those things they hold in common. It is a scandal, too, wCatholics and Pentecostals demonstrate a lack of love or trusspeaking negatively about one another or acting in ways antagonize or exclude one another" (no. 9).

Theological Basis of Mission

Theologically and ecclesiologically Roman Catholics and Pecostals are in many ways diametrically opposed to each otThe one is a highly structured, hierarchical church with a pnounced sacramental theology and a formal liturgy, while other is a lay movement, with spontaneous worship stnonwritten (oral) theology, and no international body to spfor it.

Against this background, it is highly significant that Roman Catholic and Pentecostal participants came to agreemon the theological and biblical basis of mission. The biblical bof mission is described in Final Report 1990-1997. The missio

nature of the church and missionary intention of God is seenan overarching principle of both the Old and New Testame(no. 22), and mission is described in a holistic way. In accordawith recent conciliar understanding, mission at its most funmental level is described as missio Dei.

Both Roman Catholics and classic Pentecostals hold thatincarnation of the Son of God has brought to the world a unirevelation of God. They therefore place the core of evangeltion in the person of Christ: "The content of the messagesalvation is Jesus Christ himself, the way to reconciliation wthe Father" (no. 23). Significantly enough, Final Report 1990-quotes the Catholic mission document Evangelii nuntiandi (nalmost verbatim. The Holy Spirit, seen as the primary move

evangelization and salvation, is the dynamism "at work ininternal building up of the church as well as in the· workspreading the Gospel 'to the ends of the ear th/ "7

Contextualization

The relationship between culture and Gospel is extremely cplex. Catholics and Pentecostals acknowledge that proclamaand Christ ian lifestyle are always embodied in a specific cultBoth accept also that there is considerable good in cultunotwithstanding the fact of humanity's fall from grace (no. 2(Catholics tend to value human cultures more because of Thomastic doctrine of grace fulfilling what is lacking in natuIt was agreed that evangelists act unjustly toward peoples cultures if they import political, economic, or social ideolo

16 INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN OF MISSIONARY RESE


2/7

alongside the Gospel. The evangelized must also be aware ofheir own culture and religious history and must discern howheir response to the evangelizers is faithful to the Gospel as

embodied in their own religious history and culture (no. 30).The term "secularization," though widely used in this dia

ogue as well as in missiological discussion elsewhere, is anambiguous term. The 1985 symposium of European bishopsightly paid more attention to the empirical and historical (intead of metaphysical) notion of secularization, according to

which there is probably no such a thing as secularization per se,but only varied situations that are the result of complex socialcompromises. In that approach, secularization, rather than beingviewed as an obstacle to evangelization, was seen as a tool to helpone think through the connection between religion and theurrounding society.8

Pentecostals in Latin America have had to tackle massiveocial problems, such as the deterioration of the structure of theociety and increasing feelings of helplessness. In contrast, Cathoics have focused attention on the challenges facing Europe withhe increase in secularization, particularly of women. This devel

opment is not necessarily a fruit of the feminist movement. It israced, rather, to such factors as the progress of medicine and

women's paid work in post-industrial societies. The development of medicine has enabled the control of birth and reducednfant mortality. Financial independence leads to a yearning for

equality. Women tend to affirm their independence from instituions, such as the church, that are dominated by men (no. 34).

Secularization in the popular sense of the weakening ofChristian commitment is something to be deplored and condemned. More positively, however, it is to be met with a Chrisian message. The tragedy of secularization is that many peopleace new challenges without guidelines from the fields of religion

and ethics (no. 34). Secularization is also occurring in the church,not just outside, as Christians adopt the values of materialisticulture or use the Gospel for political purposes.

What then, is the proper reaction of churches to changingocial circumstances, pluralism, and growing secularization?

The dialogue members, although entertaining somewhat differng emphases, believe that intensification of evangelization andnformed contextualization are the necessary means to counterhese challenges.

Social Justice

t is a standard charge by many Catholics, especially in LatinAmerica, that Pentecostals are indifferent to social concern andone-sided in their emphasis on evangelism. To be sure, Pentecosals have not articulated a theology of social concern, although in

ecent years some promising attempts have been made.9

Instead,Pentecostals have offered service to the hungry, naked, persecuted, socially disadvantaged, and so forth.

Catholic social teaching, with a much longer history, is stilln the making. The Vatican II documents Gaudium et spes and

Dignitatis humanae provide a contemporary basis. The theological starting point is the grace of God in the transforming powerof the Gospel on individuals and communities. It is disputedwhether social justice is "integral"

10 to proclamation or "consti

utive"11

to the preaching of the Gospel.It is significant ecumenically that in principle Catholics and

Pentecostals are in agreement that evangelization and socialustice belong together and cannot be separated. They agree that

he Word of God is the foundation of both evangelization andocial justice (no. 35).

In the Old Testament there is a strong insistence thatpeople whom God has freed should live justly (e.g., Jer. 2122:3; Amos 5:7-12; 8:4-6; Mie. 6:12). The fact that we find inGospels both the Great Commission to evangelize the nati(Matt. 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18) and the Great Commandmenlove God and one's neighbor (Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:28Luke 10:27-28) suggests that there is a continuum betweentwo (no. 56).

Models for the practice of evangelization and social jus

are also found in the life of the early church (Acts 2:42-47; 437). Evangelization and social justice are intrinsically linkedthat the church cannot have one apart from the other. common agreement shows without the slightest doubt

Evangelism and social justiceare intrinsically linked, sothat the church cannot haveone apart from the other.

Pentecostals too have committed themselves to the interelation of evangelization and social justice. This does not mhowever, the giving up of the prioritization of personal evanlism and individual conversion.

Significantly enough, there is a Trinitarian approach totheology of social concern: "Clearly, any striving for social jusin which our faith communities engage needs to be rooted inlife of God/Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (no. 59).

Life in the Holy Spirit energizes Christians to engagevangelization and to work for justice in society. "Transformpeople are compelled by the Spirit, the Creator and Sanctifietransform the world in the light of the in-breaking Kingdom

God" (no. 59).The overall topic of the third quinquennium (1985-89)

koinonia, which has a bearing upon social justice. It was agrthat koinonia as lived by the early Christians had social impltions. Their communities did not act from a concept of so

justice. Rather, the concern they showed for the poor, widoand strangers was seen as an extension of their worship (no.The faith community—as seen in the New Testament and incontemporary world—evangelizes through its proclamation through its communal life. This lifestyle is but the living out ofkoinonia given to the church by the Holy Spirit.

The absolute norm for social justice is nothing less thankingdom of God, a point on which both Pentecostals and Ca

lics agree (no. 66).

Proselytism: "The Hot Potato"

Pentecostals have rarely addressed the issue of proselytisand to date they have not participated directly in the devement of any ecumenical documents that address the problemproselytism. They are among the groups most frequently charwith proselytizing activities, but typically they have not binvited to participate in discussions on the subject, nor ireadily apparent that they are particularly concerned to addthe subject themselves. Proselytism, understandably, is a ccern of older, more established historic churches. The evange

ing activities of such groups as Pentecostals have been effecto the point that older churches are alarmed by the dange


3/7

losing a substantial number of their members as a result of suchactivities.

Since the beginning of the dialogue process (1972), themembers of the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue have committed themselves to address the issue of proselytism. FinalReport 1990-1997 notes that the fact that "this discussion has atlast begun is a sign of the growing trust and maturation ofPentecostal-Roman Catholic relations" (no. 68). Both teams entered into a conversation on this topic with a number of misgiv

ings, largely because of a long history of mutual suspicion andhostility. In Jpoth churches there are Christians who would notfeel it appropriate for the dialogue to take up this issue. Both theCatholic and the Pentecostal teams debated within themselves,and then together, the wisdom of undertaking such a discussionin light of possible repercussions on their mutual and growingrelationship (no. 68).

The first step in movingbeyond name-calling is for

the churches to take oneanother more seriously.

The issue of proselytism arises between Pentecostals andCatholics largely because of a lack of a common understandingof the relationship between the church, on the one hand, andbaptism as an expression of living faith, on the other hand (no.69). The dialogue was bold enough to take examples where theolder church (usually Catholics) has been frustrated by the"attacks" of newer groups (usually Pentecostals). On the onehand, the newcomers often have not appreciated the centuries-long evangelizing efforts of the older churches or their wide

impact on people and culture (no. 71); they have not alwaysregarded them as true Christians (no. 82). On the other hand,Catholicism, with its earlier Christianization of a given culture,has taken for granted that the culture remains permeated by faith(no. 73). The method of entrance by the newer groups has notalways been led by the Spirit of the Gospel, nor have the olderchurches been willing to talk to the newcomers (no. 76). At times,instead of open communication, there has been persecution (no.82). Conflict arises when, without personal acquaintance, thenewcomers, whose motives often are legitimate, do not appreciate the efforts of the established churches ( nos. 75, 76). Lack ofcommunication leaves the door open for more conflict, resultingin further disunity, which then becomes "a stumbling block to

the world and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the good news to every creature" (no. 78).

It would seem that the first basic step in moving past the stateof name-calling is for the churches to begin to take one anothermore seriously. Unilateral actions that violate others do notcommunicate community. Neither does name-calling, nor themaking of accusations to third parties, without first addressingthe perceived offender.

Contrary to what some Pentecostals believe, the discussion onproselytism is not meant to downplay or hinder evangelization butrather to help it. Both parties agree: "What we both desire is thepure preaching of the Gospel. Most of our conflicts diminish if weagree that this is what evangelization is all about" (no. 78).

The 1993 Pentecostal position paper is very frank abouissue of proselytism. It states, "They [Pentecostals] are, at tiguilty of the charges. They share what they believe to beGospel, even attempting to convert people who say that thepart of another tradition." But the paper underscores the facthere must be a reason or reasons for the Pentecostals' behaSome of these reasons, as already alluded to above, come result of Pentecostal understandings of ecclesiology, of spirdiscipline, of Christian discipleship, of fruit in the Christian

which points to the transformation which has taken place taking place in the one who claims to be Christian." ChargesPentecostals proselytize merely in order to increase their mbers at any cost, or that they do so to further some (NAmerican) political agenda, have been largely discrediterecent years by respectable non-Pentecostal scholars who looked at the growth of Pentecostalism.13

The 1994 Santiago Faith and Order meeting issued probthe most adequate explanation in relation to newer groupscharges against their proselytizing action: "[We] believemost groups and persons who are engaged in such activitieso out of a genuine concern for the salvation of those address." The same statement, however, continues with a

for dialogue in order for some methods and intentions tchallenged by other churches.

14

Whatever distorted motives there may have been in Pecostal evangelization, for the purposes of ecumenical dialthe record must be clear: "In a very real sense evangelizatithe self-understood raison d'être of the Pentecostal MovemeIn other words, to speak about Pentecostals is to speak aevangelization. What some churches regard as proselytism most Pentecostals an urgent passion for the fulfillment of mandate. Pentecostals regard a lack of passion for the salvaof souls as abnormal; a passion to carry the message to the of the earth in the power of the Spirit is normal.

Ecumenically, it must be noted that there is a definite d

ence between true evangelization and proselytism. When Calics on their own volition may choose to leave the church andother churches, this change does not constitute proselytCatholics in the dialogue were prepared to acknowledgepoint—a truly significant concession.

Catholics and Pentecostals mutually concluded "proselytism is an unethical activity that comes in many forsome of which are (no. 93):

• all ways of promoting our own community of faith thaintellectually dishonest, such as contrasting an ideal presetion of our own community with the weaknesses of anoChristian community;

• all intellectual laziness and culpable ignorance that nereadily accessible knowledge of the other's tradition;

• every willful misinterpretation of the beliefs and practicother Christian communities;

• every form of force, coercion, compulsion, mockery or indation of a personal, psychological, physical, moral, soeconomic, religious or political nature, etc.

This definition calls for several observations. First, the nition follows closely the most important conciliar statemSecond, it includes attitudes as well as actions itself. Thirdpoint of departure is the individual's right of freedom in easpect of Christian life.


4/7

Toward a Common Witness

"What shape, if any, would common witness take between twotraditions which are either in the initial stage of ecumenicalrelationships, or belong to denominations which are uneasyabout any form of ecumenism?" asks the Catholic cochairpersonKilian McDonnell, O.S.B. He further asks: "Is it even possible forChristians of different traditions to express their faith together innatural ways without committing themselves to structural re-

union? Is it possible to engage in common witness while rejectingecclesiastica) reunion as an ideal? Are there no . . . choicesbetween organic reunion on the one hand, and no commonwitness whatsoever on the other ha nd?"

16

The theological basis of common witness is found in JesusChrist, the Absolute Witness. As already seen, Pentecostals canagree with Catholics who, in the words of Pope Paul VI, say:"There is no true evangelization if the name, the teaching, the life,the promises, the Kingdom and the mystery of Jesus of Nazareth,the Son of God are not proclaimed."

17 It is the experience of Jesus

that unites Catholics and Pentecostals in a common task. Butthere are also a host of biblical truths that join Pentecostals andCatholics and point to common witness, McDonnell adds.

18

"Once mutual trust as persons and reciprocal respect for eachothers' traditions has been established, then some limited measureof common witness is possible" (no. 122, emphasis added). Whenwe take into consideration the goal of the dialogue, spiritualexchange rather than structural union, this kind of approachseems viable.

A limited common witness is already possible, because inmany ways a vital spiritual unity exists between Catholics andPentecostals, a real though imperfect communion (no. 122). Forthe Roman Catholic Church the basis of ecumenical dialogue,and consequently of limited common witness, is found in theCatholic recognition of the baptism performed by Pentecostals inthe name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This implies

a common faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.19

Pentecostals do not seeunity between Christians as being based in a common waterbaptism, mainly because they believe that the New Testamentdoes not base unity in baptism. Instead, they believe that thefoundation of unity is a common faith and experience of JesusChrist as Lord and Savior through the Holy Spirit. This beliefimplies that, to the extent that Pentecostals recognize that RomanCatholics have this common faith in and experience of Jesus asLord, they may share a real through imperfect koinonia withthem.

20 The understanding of what constitutes the basis of

koinonia and thus common witness is different, but the fact of areal, though imperfect, koinonia is affirmed.

Furthermore, there is a clear Christological concentration,

or, to be theologically more precise, a pronounced ChristologicalTrinitarian approach. In a striking sentence, the Trinitarian out-look is described as a divine program a Ρ atre ad Patrem: "Witnessis rooted in the apostles' experience of Jesus who is the image ofthe Father sent in the power of the Spirit to return all to the source,the Father" (no. 117).

It is emphasized repeatedly that common witness does notimply downplaying or neglecting important doctrinal differ-ences, nor does it involve abandoning one's convictions andidentity. It is not an exercise in compromise and can sometimeslead to a separate, even contradictory witness, though always inlove and candor (no. 123).

Two useful principles were commended for churches: "We

cannot do what conscience forbids. We can do together whatconscience permits in the area of common witness." This first

principle emphasizes that the common witness must be pruhonest, and humble. It also recognizes the limits of com witness because of different pastoral, doctrinal, and polisues. While Catholics and Pentecostals build on those thingunite them, common witness would also acknowledge the ing differences, the most striking of which is division arounLord's Table. The second principle urges us to use every pomeans of doing common witness and to grow toward grpotential (no. 127).

Prayer and social action are especially commended with evangelization. Some measure of common prayer sindispensable for common witness. How can there be a wtogether if Catholics and Pentecostals do not pray togethefact, praying together is already a common witness (noGood works of love can take numerous forms, from quedisarmament and peace, to providing emergency relief forgees, to rehabilitation of drugaddicted persons and prost(no. 129).

That these kinds of suggestions are not without a baactual experience is seen in the growing number of precealready in existence. On the one hand, there is an unrecoamount of common witness in terms of prayer, visitation o

sick, witnessing, and other kinds of cooperation going on grassroots level. A number of recorded examples of a com

witness can encourage for future efforts: a eulogy preachedCatholic priest in Iran 1995 when a Pentecostal leadermurdered; a Pentecostal leader invited to preach in a Catcathedral in the United States; the cooperation of Pentecand Catholic charismatics at local and international levelsthe interdenominational evangelistic campaigns of Billyham, where both Pentecostals and charismatics (including from the Catholic Church) are actively involved (no. 120)last item is significant in that it shows the possibility of evangelistic ventures between Christians from various chureven when there might be significant doctrinal difference

What is needed is willingness to forgive past attitudesins against each other by the grace and justice of God. Inforgiveness, as united prayer, is already common witness.sides are called to take initiative for reconciliation (no. Forgiveness is based on the truth established by both sidestruth is not established by a judicial procedure (see 1 Cor. 6

by a relational one. Once mutual forgiveness has been exprreconciliation can be effected. Both teams urge their churchpublicly express reconciliation in a form acceptable togroups (no. 124). When forgiveness and reconciliation afected, personal inward conversion, the renewal of heartmind, are also attainable. One sign of this change is gromutual understanding and trust. "In other words, we ch

but the change is not compromise" (no. 119).

What About Differences?

With regard to divergences on mission and evangelizatiotween Catholics and Pentecostals, we must keep in mind th

that the participants were engaged in dialogue more than f years before starting the final quinquennium in 1990. The ephases revealed some radical differences in soteriologyecclesiology that had bearing on the topics of the dialogumission (but they were not revisited in the final phase).

The main divergences can be listed as follows: (1) salvoutside ekklesia and the role of the Holy Spirit in the missio

the nature of conversion, and (3) the focus of evangelizatiSalvation outside ekklesia and the role of the Holy Sp


5/7

mission. Catholics and Pentecostals have differing ideas aboutthe role of the Holy Spirit in evangelization.21 While both agreehat the Spirit prepares the hearts of men and women to receivehe Gospel and that all who will be saved are saved because of

Christ, most Pentecostals—who base their understanding on astrict reading of the New Testament—oppose the Catholic idea ofhe possibility of salvation outside ekklesia. The Catholic view has

several nuances, even tensions,22 but it is a view much more openo the possibility of salvation outside the church than the Pente

costal view, which basically equates with the (older) Protestantview and tikç current evangelical approach. When the issueeappeared in the fourth quinquennium, it was admitted (to aimited measure) that a shared anthropology and openness to the

Spirit might provide seed thought for further discussions (nos.20,21).

The role of the Holy Spirit in the world (and, consequently,n mission) is generally emphasized differently in Catholicism

and Pentecostalism, although as we have seen above, both acknowledge the Spirit's indispensable role. For Pentecostals, theHoly Spirit brings power, zeal, and persistence in proclamationand a "mountain moving" faith. They speak freely about spiriual gifts and "signs and wonders." While Catholics do not deny

any of these (although they feel uneasy about the signs-and-wonders language), they see the Spirit's role more as a quietprocess than as a sudden outpouring. Most probably, this difference of orientation does not necessarily have to do with theologyo much as with an ecclesiocultural frame of reference. Pentecosals are used to thinking of the work of the Spirit more in "power"erms, while Catholics appreciate more his role behind the scenes.

The nature of conversion. Both Catholics and Pentecostalsaffirm the necessity of conversion as the goal of proclamation.But because of differing soteriological and ecclesiological docrines, the topic of conversion is generally approached from a

For Pentecostals social justice is not a cause but aconsequence of successfulevangelism.

different orientation. Pentecostals insist on an individual, peronal conversion, whereas Catholics, while not downplaying the

meaning of individual conversion, attempt proclamation for abroader orientation. Pentecostals are concerned as to whetherhe Catholic inculturation remains true to the Gospel in terms of

ndividuals converted and spiritually nourished, while for Cathoics their main concern is to relate conversion to the social context.

This difference of orientation is also visible in relation toocial justice. For Catholics the point of departure is the grace of

God, mediated through the Word and sacraments, in the transorming power of the Gospel on individuals, communities, andocieties. Catholics are disposed to address not only individuals

but also social structures and cultures with the changing powerof the Gospel. The Pentecostal focus has been on the change ofndividuals to change societies. For Pentecostals social justice is

not a cause but a consequence of successful evangelistic efforts.Conversion is seen primarily in individualistic categories (nos.60-64 especially).

For Catholics, conversion means a lifelong process, whereasPentecostals generally think in terms of a radical, sudden conver

sion experience. It must be admitted that the difference of ortation does not relate so much to theology per se as to diffeecclesiocultural contexts. It has also to do with differing samental views. Catholics practice infant baptism, with the exptation that later on the Spirit will quicken the faith of the baptiwhile Pentecostals baptize those who have experienced consion.

The focus of evangelization. While Pentecostals and Cathagree that all people, whether non-Christians or Christians

other churches, need to hear the Gospel in an evangelistic mner, there is a difference in focus. Catholics generally thinkevangelization as an action toward those who have never heor toward their own members who have lost their faith. Whecomes to proclaiming the evangelistic message to Christianother churches, they prefer to speak of "witness." Pentecostalnot usually differentiate objects of evangelization. For thatheists, followers of other religions, as well as nominal memof other churches, are in need of evangelization and converseven if they have been baptized. The rationale is to be fountheir understanding of salvation, which is not mediated throsacraments (baptism or any other) but through conscious fresponse.

This difference, of course, has bearing upon the issueproselytism. What Pentecostals believe to be legitimate evanlization, other churches might consider sheep-stealing. As Ptecostals get to know other Christians and build mutual trthey may be helped to differentiate, at least to some degree, ttargeting for evangelization. Sometimes the tension also hado with terminology. What Pentecostals call evangelization min older churches be viewed as catechesis (note, John Paulterm "radical catechesis," which amounts to evangelization Pentecostal context).

The focus of evangelization has to do with overall missstrategy. Catholics ask Pentecostals why they invest such a laamount of resources in areas where there is substantial Chris

witness by other churches, rather than evangelizing the grownumber of followers of other religions or those without religion.23

Conclusion

The Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue is a remarkaachievement, a true exercise on the frontiers of ecumenReading Final Report 1990-1997 on mission and its related theone might get the impression that ground-breaking results wachieved between these two churches. Both parties condeproselytism, while strongly supporting legitimate evangeltion. Both parties have a mutual vision for the importance

social justice in mission. There is no need to downplay thhistoric mutual affirmations. They truly point the way to a mcordial relationship between these two churches.

At the same time we must admit that there is more toissue of mission, evangelization, and proselytism than the reing of this document reveals. There are radical theological digences that have to do especially with ecclesiology and relthemes as well as salvation. Even if the third quinquennium, wits topic of koinonia, has clarified foundational ecclesiologthemes, it has not solved them. Reading the remarkable doment Perspectives on Koinonia leaves one with some unanswquestions. Did the dialogue really uncover what are consideto be the main doctrinal and polity divergences between Ca

lics and Pentecostals? Is there not also the related questionfaith, salvation, and sacraments, which are at least as challeng


6/7

issues? Until there is some additional light shed on these two

cardinal issues, speaking about koinonia, common witness, and

condemnation of proselytism, is at best open to various, even

conflicting, interpretations.

In su m, the participants, and especially the drafters of F

Report 19901997, are to be commended for their undertakin

such a historical move in ecumenical missiology.

Notes1. For a detailed treatment of the topic, see my monograph Ad Ultimum

Terrae: Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness in the Roman

CatholicPentecostal Dialogue, 19901997, Studies in the InterculturalHistory &i

%Christianity (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999). Also

see the following dissertations: Arnold Bittlinger, Papst und Ρ fingstier:Der römische katholische-pfingstliche Dialogue und seine ökumenische

Relevanz (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1972); Veli-MattiKärkkäinen, Spiritus ubi vult spirat. Pneumatology in Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1972-1989) (Helsinki: Luther Agricola-Society,1998); Paul D. Lee, "Pneumatological Ecclesiology in the RomanCatholic-Pentecostal Dialogue: A Catholic Reading of the ThirdQuinquennium (1985-1989)" (diss., Univ. of St. Thomas, Rome,1994); Jerry L. Sandidge, Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982): A Study in Developing Ecumenism, 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang, 1987).

2. For the significance of the dialogue to the ecumenical world in

general and to Catholic-Pentecostal relations in particular, see twoarticles by the Catholic co-initiator and cochair of the dialogue, Fr.Kilian McDonnell, O.S.B.: "Improbable Conversations: TheInternational Classical Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue,"Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 17, no. 2 (1995):163-74; "Five Defining Issues: The International ClassicalPentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue," ibid., pp. 175-88.

3. Walter J. Hollenweger, "From Azusa Street to Toronto Phenomenon:Historical Roots of the Pentecostal Movement," Concilium 3 (1996):3.

4. It is in many ways a remarkable fact that the Pentecostal side took theinitiative to set up the dialogue. The Catholic cochair, K. McDonnell,states: "The initiative for the dialogue came from the Pentecostals,but was warmly received by the Secretariat for Promoting ChristianUnity" ("Improbable Conversations," pp. 167-68). This initiative ofPentecostals is of special ecumenical significance when we rememberthat most Pentecostals, especially back in 1960s, thought of Catholicsin very negative terms and regarded all kinds of ecumenical relationswith bad feelings.

5. Published under the title "Perspectives on Koinonia" in InformationService 75 (1990): 179-91, and Pneuma: The Journal of the Society forPentecostal Studies 12, no. 2 (1990): 117-42.

6. Each quinquennium was followed by a final report and identified bythe years of the dialogue. When paragraph numbers are given in thetext and in these notes, they refer to Final Report 1990-1997, the reportthat is the focus of this article. In these notes the reports will bereferred to as FR I (Final Report 1972-1976), FR II (Final Report 1978-

1982), FR III (Final Report 1985-1989), and FR IV (Final Repor1997).

7. In the unpublished Agreed Account, 1991, FR I, no. 10.8. Les évêques d'Europe et la nouvelle evangelisation, ed. Hervé L

Conseil des conférences episcopales d'Europe, Coll. "Documdes Églises" (Paris: Cerf, 1991).

9. The most sophisticated and comprehensive treatment of theolofoundations of Pentecostal social concern is Douglas Petersen, N

Might, nor by Power: A Pentecostal Theology of Social Concern

America (Oxford: Regnum, 1996).10. Evangelii nuntiandi (1975), nos. 29,31.11. "Justice in the World," Synod of Bishops (1971), no. 6.12. The most comprehensive, up-to-date discussion is offered by

M. Robeck, Jr., the Pentecostal cochair, in the position paper fo1993 session entitled, "Evangelization, Proselytizing, and ComWitness: A Pentecostal Perspective" (54 pp., unpublished).

13. Ibid., pp. 2,11.14. On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Official Report of the Fifth World C

on Faith and Order, éd. T. F. Best and G. Gassmann, Faith and Paper no. 166 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994), p. 257.

15. Robeck quotes the Assemblies of God (USA) ConstitutiDeclaration, which says that "the priority reason-for-being oAssemblies of God is to be an agency of God for evangelizingworld" ("Evangelization," 4).

16. Kilian McDonnell, "Can Classical Pentecostals and Roman CathEngage in Common Witness?" Journal of Pentecostal Theology 797 (the published version of his position paper for the 1995 sess

17. Evangelii nuntiandi, no. 22, quoted in ibid., "Can PentecostalCatholics Engage," p. 98.

18. McDonnell, "Can Pentecostals and Catholics Engage," p. 98.19. FR III, no. 54.20. Ibid., no. 55.21. There was a tentative discussion concerning salvation outside

church during the second quinquennium (1972-76); see FR II, n22. For a recent study of Vatican II's understanding of world relig

and the possibility of salvation, see Miikka Ruokanen, The Ca Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Va

Council (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992). Ruokanen's (Lutheran) selicited a number of critical responses from Catholic missiologwhich were published in International Bulletin of Missionary Reduring 1990-92.

23. Agreed Account, 1992, FR III, no. 2 (unpublished).

22


7/7

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Catholic, Diolgue KarKain

Documents

Transcript of Catholic, Diolgue KarKain