“Full Communion”: A Pentecostal Model

Ecumenism Group

Harold D. Hunter, IPHC Archives & Research Center

Lee University, Cleveland, TN

Presented to the 36^th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies

Abstract:

When I organized the first international conference of pentecostal and charismatic scholars at Brighton 91 – after being turned down by the WCC General Superintendent in his Geneva office to join along with Canberra and their theme ‘Come Holy Spirit’ – I developed a model that remains useful to this today. That is, when organizing a conference I always draw from four streams and five continents.

The four streams in this paradigm are Roman Catholic, Orthodox Churches, Protestants, and Pentecostals. Obviously this does not account for the whole of Christianity and does not explain many important nuances but it provides a working premise.

Despite centuries of fragmentation, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox have managed to keep ‘internal’ divisions of the last century shrouded in thick clouds of mystery. Using the paradigm above, I can say that the division and fragmentation associated with Classical Pentecostalism is no worse than that known to Protestantism.

With the rise of conciliar ecumenism in the 20^th century, ecclesial bodies that achieve organic unity are held in high esteem. Despite the lack of proper recognition, organic unity is also part of the story of Classical Pentecostals. In the USA, among the representative examples are the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Open Bible Churches, the United Pentecostal Church International and the International Pentecostal Church of Christ.

This paper addresses the question of how some Pentecostals compare to the Canberra model of church unity made visible or, to use conciliar language, achieve full communion.

This study will show how some North American Classical Pentecostal denominations associated with the Pentecostal World Fellowship (PWF) might engage the discussion among conciliar ecumenists couched in the language of “full communion.” Findings of the National Council of Churches USA (NCCUSA) Faith and Order Commission will be compared to the journey of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC) with headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. A like study would be appropriate for the Open Bible Churches, United Pentecostal Church International, and/or the International Pentecostal Church of Christ, among others.

In March 2000, a study group of the NCCUSA Faith and Order Commission commenced a quadrennial study (that still continues) of a concept well known among conciliar ecumenists as “full communion.” Apparently there was an expectation that this would be a rather straightforward process. However, the group quickly learned that the term did not have clear application for churches represented around the table. Some of the traditions used the term “full communion” but without a common meaning. Other traditions did not use such a term even if they were committed to the underlying principles associated with the term.

If one were to chat with those in the pews of many PWF churches in North America about “full communion,” it would not be a surprise to first hear questions of clarity about the term itself. Some would doubtless first connect the term with the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper which is sometimes referred to simply as “Communion” from the pulpit. Pentecostals would hardly be alone in this regard.

The Canberra Model

Attempting to avoid adding to the confusion the NCCCUSA Faith and Order study group set out to produce a typology, taxonomy or roadmap that would unearth the central issues involved in the discussion. The first order of business were papers on “The Unity of the Church: Gift and Calling,” a Faith and Order document adopted by the Seventh Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra, Australia in 1991.

The key term in the Canberra document was the Greek word koinonia, a term used in the New Testament to embrace a range of meanings, including fellowship, close mutual relationship, participation, sharing in, partnership, contribution, and gift. Some like to translate koinonia as “communion” whereas North American Pentecostals raised on the King James Version of the Bible might first say “fellowship.”[1]

The Canberra document isolated the following as characteristics of koinonia:

1. the common confession of apostolic faith;
2. a common sacramental life entered by the one baptism and celebrated together in one Eucharistic fellowship;
3. a common life in which members and ministries are mutually recognized and reconciled;
4. a common mission witnessing to the Gospel of God’s grace to all people and serving the whole creation.

This is followed by a strategy for achieving full communion embodying those elements.

The NCCCUSA Faith and Order study group that studied “full communion” from 1999 to 2003 noted that there were many churches that would achieve this meaning of full communion without having to distort the essence of the life of the Body of Christ as they perceive it. Incidentally, this raises a question often missed by churches aligned with the PWF that would not consider membership with the World Council of Churches (WCC) an advantage. Integral to the WCC constitution is the right reserved by member churches to never violate their understanding of the meaning of the essence of the church. The “Constitution and Rules of the World Council of Churches,” Point 6:b: has the title “Matters concerning ecclesiological self-understanding”:

Where a matter being raised is considered by a member to go against the ecclesiological self-understanding of his or her church, he or she may request that it not be put to a vote.[2]

The point of reference for the NCCCUSA Faith and Order debate were agreements achieved between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) with the Episcopal Church and a group of churches in the Reformed tradition. The ELCA added a provision for joint decision-making which realizes the Canberra stipulations and the second is a mutual lifting of condemnations that reflects Lutheran history in which anathemas were given and received.

The NCCCUSA Faith and Order study group then reviewed the accord between the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Reformed Church in America (RCA). Absent here is any attention to a historic episcopate.

The Roman Catholic Church speaks of three bonds of unity in the church: unity in faith, unity in worship, and unity in ministry. Unity in ministry involves the so-called Petrine ministry of papal primacy. This remains evident in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint and “Petrine Ministry: A Working Paper” distributed by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. I am not aware of a member body of the PWF that would embrace papal primacy.

The resolute stand for the historic episcopate by the Episcopal Church and the Petrine ministry by the Roman Catholic Church demands close attention. Although both churches could employ the koinonia language of Canberra to talk about full communion, each reserves an additional element that is for them non-negotiable.

The same intransigence is illustrated among the Orthodox. The Orthodox insistence of the territorial principle rejects any denominational model that allows parallel church bodies in the same geographical area. Obviously the Orthodox have conveniently abandoned this principle in North America and elsewhere.

Traditions Outside the Canberra Model

The NCCCUSA Faith and Order study group then began to look at groups that do not find the Canberra version of koinonia satisfactory. First case in point was the Baptists. Then a look was given at the Churches of Christ who were birthed in a form of restorationism that led to an exclusive ecclesiology. Also distant from the Canberra model is the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) that was included in this study.

The Religious Society of Friends seemed pressed to accommodate the Canberra model with their emphasis on religious experience that focuses on inward spiritual change brought about by the Holy Spirit. This situation of groups like the Friends who do not use the matter of sacraments is addressed in the Canberra statement in its discussion of the forms of Eucharistic hospitality that could be appropriate in the light of convergence in faith, and in baptism, Eucharist and ministry. There it says that “we gladly acknowledge that some who do not observe these rites share in the spiritual experience of life in Christ.”[3]

When O.C. Edwards wrote of the quadrennial report of the NCCCUSA Faith and Order study commission on full communion he concluded:

            The main result of this study has been to see that many of the churches that use     the Canberra model find their own sense of the essence of in the Body of Christ        to lie in a sine qua non that the koinonia categories really do not touch. Either    that or the churches belong to traditions that find the entire Canberra mode of       stating things to be foreign to their way of thinking.[4]

The International Pentecostal Holiness Church

Clearly, Pentecostal bodies that belong to the Pentecostal World Fellowship fall into the category of those traditions outside the Canberra model. One approach is to compare and contrast the findings of this study commission to the journey of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (IPHC). To facilitate this process, aspects of IPHC history will be treated using the following categories: organic union, affiliation, fraternal relations, and common mission.

First to the matter of organic union. The IPHC resulted from a merger in 1911 between the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church and the Pentecostal Holiness Church. Both groups started as Holiness bodies in the late 19^th century. The Tabernacle Pentecostal Church consolidated with this body four years later.[5]

A little noticed part of this process is that when the original motion was before the PHC in 1909, G.B. Cashwell submitted an amendment to include those Free-Will Baptists who were Pentecostals. The motion passed with the amendment, but nothing more is heard about the Free-Will Baptists in relation to the 1911 merger.

It seems possible that among the issues that this would have brought to the surface was differing views on tobacco. The FBH were completely against any contact with tobacco whereas the PFWB history includes members growing, selling and some even using tobacco. Prior to his Pentecostal experience, Cashwell was involved in the tobacco business and his mother used snuff all of her life.[6]

During the 1960s, a serious discussion about organic union developed between the IPHC and Church of God (Cleveland). A joint committee was appointed in 1959 by the churches to study this possibility and several meetings were held in Cleveland, Tennessee and Franklin Springs, Georgia. Talks eventually stalled on the point of merging, but relations seemed warm during the 1960s joint Holiness Conventions in Charlotte, North Carolina, Falcon, North Carolina, Doraville, Georgia and Greensboro, North Carolina.[7]

The formation of the Congregational Holiness Church (CHC) in 1921 was a direct result of controversy within the IPHC, particularly the Georgia Conference, over the use of physicians. The original ordeal also surfaced deep-seated questions about how denominational polity was to be implemented. Contrast this to a “Joint Meeting of the Study Commissions of the Congregational Holiness Church and the Pentecostal Holiness Church” which met March 14, 1962, September 26, 1962, April 2, 1963, October 8, 1963 and September 23, 1964. An earnest attempt to breach the gap was underway when Bishop J. Floyd Williams was general superintendent of IPHC and openly saying that IPHC got it wrong in the original controversy. Boards from the IPHC and CHC met March 11-12, 1980 in Franklin Springs, Georgia and adopted an “Agreement of Affiliation” that quotes John 17:21.[8] An “Agreement of Affiliation” was signed October 10, 1980 between the IPHC, the CHC and the Pentecostal Free-Will Baptists (PFWB) as a result of a joint session of the executive boards of the churches.[9] When the three executive boards convened November 24, 1980 in Falcon, North Carolina, committees for affiliation were approved. A “Board of Administration for Affiliation” taking in all three groups met March 16, 1981 then February 2, 1982 in Greenville, South Carolina that produced an organizational flow chart.[10] Formal papers were prepared in 1983 for moving toward consolidation of PFWB with the IPHC.[11] Notes from the “Meeting of Affiliates” which took place March 27, 1984 in Franklin Springs, GA show agreement “not to promote the idea of full amalgamation as such for anytime in the near future”.[12] The general boards of all three groups met August 24, 1984 and confirmed affiliation agreements as originally designed. Later that year, CHC rejected the idea of pastoral exchanges.[13]

Executive boards of CHC and IPHC met August 6, 1988 in Greensboro, North Carolina. Bishop Leon Stewart subsequently invited CHC for a joint meeting of the boards in April, 1989. CHC responded that they needed a different date.[14] In 1990 CHC notified IPHC that they were working towards consolidation with PFWB and the International Pentecostal Church of Christ (IPCC). The original IPHC-CHC proposal was rejected by the 1991 CHC general conference although a joint conference was held as late as September 24-26, 1997.[15] Unfortunately, no files are available which clarify the status of relationship between the IPHC and CHC during Bishop Underwood’s second term (1993-1997). Underwood was no doubt preoccupied at the time with the 1994 launching of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Churches of North America (PCCNA).[16]

In the late 1990s, the divide was bridged by a series of meetings with the CHC initiated by Bishop James D. Leggett. The initial hope on the IPHC side again was organic union which has changed to acceptance of a fraternal relationship.[17] The level of cooperation is indicated by the 1998 agreement on conferring seconded status to ministers so that one can keep her/his credentials with one group while working with the other.[18] The IPHC connection with the PFWB goes back one hundred years and the friendship remains warm these many years primarily on the IPHC side through the IPHC North Carolina Conference.[19] The PFWB and IPHC North Carolina Conference were among the sponsors of “Azusa East” held December 31, 2006-January 3, 2007 in Falcon, North Carolina.

IPHC USA Affiliations

Not unlike several churches in the now defunct Pentecostal Fellowship of North America (PFNA), IPHC forged affiliations with groups outside North America. Principal among them were the Pentecostal Methodist Church of Chile, the Pentecostal Church of Chile, and the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Brazil. These are worthy of mention because documents from the churches in Chile stipulate liberty in the mode of water baptism.[20] However, when the IPHC General Executive Board (GEB) met March 8, 1968, they decided to sever relations with the Pentecostal Church of Chile. Their complaint was that the Pentecostal Church of Chile was a member of the WCC. Concerns were also expressed at this meeting about the position of the Pentecostal Methodist Church of Chile on infant baptism and initial evidence. After reassurances about the initial-evidence dogma, IPHC was reminded that they initially practiced infant baptism.[21] When this affiliation was reaffirmed by the IPHC GEB on December 17, 1980 one of the documents made specific reference to sprinkling and the baptism of children.[22] The document signed with the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Brazil identifies cardinal doctrines to include: justification by faith, entire sanctification, the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues, divine healing, and the second coming of Christ.[23] The Pentecostal Methodist Church of Chile and the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Brazil participated in the third global IPHC conference held February 13-16, 2003 in Costa Rica.

Some would argue that the oldest Pentecostal Bible school in North America is Holmes Bible College in Greenville, South Carolina. Originally known as Altamont Bible and Missionary Institute, this school traces its start back to 1898. The IPHC signed an affiliation agreement with Holmes Bible College on January 22, 2002. This made official a relationship that goes back to the start of the 20^th century as this school has provided numerous missionaries and pastors for the IPHC.

Meetings were held at least on March 15, 1962, April 3, 1963 then September 24, 1964 in Franklin Springs, Georgia between designated leaders of the IPHC, the Emmanuel Holiness Church, and the Pentecostal Church of Christ (PCC).[24] The Emmanuel Holiness Church had opened discussions with the PCC in 1958. A joint meeting of the PCC general board and the IPHC GEB on August 21, 1965 in Greensboro, North Carolina discussed the possibility of PCC becoming a ‘trial conference’ in the IPHC.[25] A lengthy proposal about affiliation was presented by the PCC in the March 21, 1966 joint PCC-IPHC meeting held in London, Ohio. The study commission asked that an evaluation report be presented to the next PCC annual conference.

Bishop J.A. Synan made a presentation on the IPHC to the annual conference of the PCC which convened August 9-12, 1967 in London, Ohio. When the IPHC GEB met August 19, 1968 in Bakersfield, California, J. Floyd Williams reported a negative vote by the PCC of 68 to 62. The GEB meeting December 3-5, 1968 in Franklin Springs, Georgia affirmed the following written by Bishop J.A. Synan to the PCC on September 6, 1968:

In the meantime, may we say that we have always cherished the Christian fellowship which we have enjoyed with the brethren of the Pentecostal Church of Christ; and although merger did not develop we shall have no reason not to continue to enjoy the kind of fellowship and brotherly esteem which has prevailed in the past.[26]

In the meantime, the PCC merged with the International Pentecostal Assemblies (IPA) in 1976 to become the International Pentecostal Church of Christ (IPCC). IPA has a historical link to the IPHC in the person of G.B. Cashwell, a Pentecostal Holiness minister who went to the Azusa St. Revival in 1906. One visible sign was that the IPA continued publication of a paper known as Bridegroom’s Messenger which was started by Cashwell in 1907. The IPHC and the IPCC continue to enjoy close fellowship as shown by joint efforts at the Beulah Heights Bible School in Atlanta, Georgia.

The IPHC GEB which met March 8, 1968 in Franklin Springs, Georgia adopted the following:

By motion, the General Executive Board of the Pentecostal Holiness Church extends its warm greetings to the Rev. J.L. Sullivent and other members of the General Board of the Apostolic Church of God. We welcome a closer fellowship between the two churches and the establishing of a Study Commission where our leaders can meet periodically and become better acquainted.

At the 1973 IPHC general conference, Bishop J. Floyd Williams reported that affiliation negotiations were underway with the Christ Crusaders of America, Inc. with Elder Jesse Winley as General Superintendent. This predominantly African-American body with headquarters in Harlem, New York City, claimed over 5,000 members. Bishop Williams reported preaching at their general conference and having papers signed by the IPHC GEB.[27]

Then consider the case of the Original United Holy Church of the World, Inc. Springing from one of America’s oldest Pentecostal bodies, this predominantly African-American denomination came in close orbit to the IPHC in the 1970s then renewed friendships in the early 1990s. The first time around, papers of affiliation were approved during a process that spanned 1977 through 1979.[28] Bishop J. Floyd Williams, IPHC General Superintendent, said the following to the 1981 IPHC general conference:

The basis of our union is that the United Holy Church and the Pentecostal Holiness Church are one and the same. This reaches further than affiliation. This makes us truly one.[29]

Bishop J.A. Forbes took part in the IPHC GEB meeting held September 1-2, 1982 in Greensboro, North Carolina and was present for the IPHC GBA meeting held July 31 – August 1, 1983 in Orlando, Florida, as an affiliate member of the board.

Then there is the story of the Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas (FBHCGA). This group came into existence in 1908 under the leadership of Bishop W.E. Fuller, Sr. Although racial prejudice south of the Mason-Dixon line was the context, Bishop Fuller remained a lifelong friend of Bishop J.H. King, one of the IPHC pillars. Relations with the FBHCGA improved when overtures were made by Bishop J. Floyd Williams in the 1970s.[30] More extensive exchanges have been evident in the last five years under the leadership of Bishop James D. Leggett and Bishop W.E. Fuller, Jr. Relations are mending with perhaps the possibility of working toward the fraternal level.

There were three divisions of note in the history of IPHC. The only group not previously named here was organized in 1918 as the Pentecostal Fire-Baptized Holiness Church. This group has consistently lost members and one estimate put their total membership at 300 persons in the year 2000.[31] The group has had a hard time attracting members with a discipline that prohibits televisions and neckties for men. The IPHC has not been able to foster personal relationships with their leaders, but did publish in 1982 a history of the group by two of their adherents.[32]

Shared Pentecostal Mission

This ecumenical impulse was exhibited in the person of Bishop J.H. King, a foundational figure for IPHC, who participated in the 1912 unity conference. While in Europe in 1912, King took part in this historic conference run by Pentecostal legends such as Thomas B. Barrett, Alexander Boddy, Jonathan Paul, B. Gerrit Polman, and Cecil Polhill. This was part of the early stirrings in Europe cut short by World War I that would eventuate in the 1947 formation of the Pentecostal World Fellowship (PWF).[33]

The IPHC was a founding member of the Pentecostal Fellowship of North America (PFNA) that took shape in 1948. The PFNA and the more racially inclusive Pentecostal-Charismatic Churches of North America (PCCNA) gave rise to a protocol that allows for the transfer of ministers—male and female—from one member body to another.[34] It is also appropriate to mention that Bishop B.E. Underwood, then IPHC General Superintendent, was critical for the transformation of PFNA to PCCNA. The same protocol does not work with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) or the World Evangelical Alliance because IPHC would not accept a minister who is not baptized in the Holy Spirit with the sign of initial tongues.[35]

However, it may be possible to lump together PFNA, PCCNA, and PWF as manifestations of common mission. Here there are shared Eucharists and mutual recognition of water baptisms among most member churches. Also likely is the transfer of ministers among PWF churches although no official mechanism is in place for such a process.[36] Although it is unknown how PFNA-type churches other than IPHC would respond to infant baptism and sprinkling by the Pentecostal Methodist Church of Chile, the breadth of recognition here seems greater than that known among magisterial churches. Another obvious divide in this area for Pentecostals is that many Oneness Pentecostals still require rebaptism for candidates coming from PWF-type Pentecostals.[37]

The latitude with the Eucharist and water baptism has more to do with doctrinal motifs attached to these ‘ordinances’ than an implied unity with those who exercise various charisms. A clear distinction would be made between receiving another Pentecostal for ‘holy communion’ over against a Roman Catholic Charismatic priest. There are commonly held beliefs about scripture and ancient creeds. There are said to be no barriers of race and class but obviously there is no uniformity about women ministers. Allowable diversity includes polity as it relates to the use of bishops, elders, and deacons.

An extension of the shared Pentecostal mission can be seen in the IPHC engagement of ecumenical groups like the North American Renewal Service Committee (NARSC) and the International Charismatic Consultation on World Evangelism (ICCOWE). NARSC is perhaps best known for Kansas City ’77 and ICCOWE for Brighton ’91.[38] Both bodies bring together Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Charismatics, and Pentecostals. Vinson Synan led NARSC for over 15 years (1984-2001?) and IPHC was always represented on the steering committee. Synan has long been a member of the ICC/ICCOWE executive and Bishop Leggett is a member of the advisory board. Here, alas, there is no shared Eucharist or mutual recognition of water baptism. Nor is there an exchange of ministers. It is also worthy of mention that Dr. Vinson Synan was the driving force behind the 1970 launch of the Society for Pentecostal Studies.

Shared History

One point that often is right below the surface in these kinds of discussions, is whether Classical Pentecostalism is something of a historical anomaly. I have addressed this question elsewhere,[39] but for now want to look at the claims of magisterial Christendom that they are heirs of a Christianity that was united in the earliest centuries.

This kind of thing was taken up in a thorough probing of ecclesiology by A.J. Tomlinson. Tomlinson was a Pentecostal pioneer who served as the first general overseer of the Church of God (Cleveland) and later founded the Church of God of Prophecy (CGP).

The official history of CGP is a three volume series titled Upon This Rock. Obviously this group interprets Matthew 16:18 differently than the Roman Catholic Church who not only lay claim to apostolic succession but suggest that the slain Peter is literally underneath the basilica in the Vatican. Here is a telling snippet from Tomlinson’s annual address delivered to the November 2-8, 1914, Church of God (Cleveland) general assembly:

 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Although we do not claim a line of succession from the holy apostles, we do believe we are following their example.[40]

This extended quotation from the same address reveals more of what is at stake for Tomlinson:

 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1The one at Nicaea was disorderly and resulted in division, shame and disgrace, while the one at Jerusalem was orderly and resulted in a closer fellowship and union of the multitudes and brought consolation and joy to all who were interested. And when the decrees (not creed) were delivered to them the churches were established in the faith and increased in number daily. Bear in the mind that the council at Jerusalem was conducted under theocratic form of government which honored God and the Holy Scriptures in the final settlement of the matter in question, while the one at Nicaea was operated under episcopal government and not a word of Scripture was given as authority for the creed and nothing said about it being pleasing to the Holy Ghost.

We are certainly following in the footprints of the noble and ever-to-be-revered apostles and elders of the early Church when we declare that in all of our deliberations the final decision and settlement of every question must be in harmony with God’s Holy Word, and a ‘Thus saith the Lord’ or ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us,’ at the end of the decision.[41]

Tomlinson was attempting to establish a church government that he called judicial only, and not executive or legislative. Those who attended the annual general assemblies were not known as delegates but seekers who attempted to achieve consensus and it was up to each local church to ratify resolutions for them to be considered binding on local bodies. Tomlinson was keenly aware of the plethora of denominations, but lifted up Jesus’ prayer in John 17 as a way toward uniting all believers.[42]

Tomlinson spoke of a united church in the opening centuries of Christianity depicting Jerusalem as a center linking far flung churches. He meant by this to give James first place over Paul or Peter when it came to councils like that recorded in Acts 15.[43] Tomlinson is less precise when it comes to understanding how local churches related to one another outside such a structure. He conceded that an episcopacy did eventually emerge, but only as the church lost its way. Tomlinson espoused a vision of restoring the apostolic order known as theocracy.

During a plenary of the May 2003 meeting of the WCC – Pentecostal Joint Consultative Group, the following were points of discussion:

Historically, the church has never been united in one institution. However, in the history of the church there are moments both of separation and unification. Under certain conditions, either development may be perceived as the work of the Holy Spirit. For example, Methodism began as a renewal movement in the Church of England. The Pentecostal movement in Chile began as a renewal in the Methodist Church, before it was expelled. In the USA, the African Methodist Episcopal Church arose as a result of racism and racial segregation in the Methodist Church. Today, Anglicans and Methodists in the United Kingdom are working to heal the wounds from their separation in the 18th Century. In the United States, the Commission on Pan-Methodist Cooperation and Unity seeks to heal many wounds resulting from racial conflict between Methodist denominations. These efforts to overcome and move beyond the separations of the past are also the work of the Spirit. Does that imply a judgment of what happened in the past? Have movements in the history of the church resulted in something positive or promoted scandal?[44]

Ironically, some of these new alliances have spawned new divisions.

During this same meeting the Pentecostal team asked for discernment about when division was constructive or destructive. Can divisions edify the body of Christ as arguably was the case with Paul and Barnabas? Does a division correct an abuse, error or oversight such as current developments within the Episcopal Church? The point of such questions is to note the semantic link between “unity” and “division”. The way in which one is defined has consequences for how the other is defined and perceived.

Paul N. Anderson, Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies at George Fox University, wrote a response to Ut unum sint and “Petrine Ministry” for the NCCCUSA Faith and Order Commission. Anderson casts Peter as a bridge from James to Paul and speculates on whether “rock” means a person, a confession or the fact of inspiration. Using Raymond Brown as an ally, Anderson applies Peter’s “royal priesthood” to all then goes on to argue that “charisma and structure” go hand in hand in the Petrine and Johannine models of Christocracy.

Both have their roots in apostolic memory and contribution. Nor should either of them be seen as the institution of Christ to the exclusion of the other.[45]

Recalling the divisions recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 about those “of Paul, “of Cephas,” “of Apollos,” and even “of Christ,” Anderson continues:

Paul emphasized the priority of corporate solidarity in following Christ together. Likewise, Peter exalts the ‘Shepherd and Bishop of your souls’ as an extension of the ministry of Christ over his own contribution. Therefore, the leader of one sector of the Church does well to heighten the singular ministry of the Lord and to embrace the distributed ministries of others.[46]

Anderson terms this “the pattern of true apostolic ministry.”

 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Of profound relevance to the current landscape of Christendom is the theological diversity contained in the canonical record itself.  Ernst Käsemann brought to the 1963 Montreal conference on Faith and Order his publicized view that the New Testament canon does not dismiss but in fact contains "... the basis for the multiplicity of the confessions."[47] Coping with the additional realities of diverse cultural and social contexts strengthens the argument of Jürgen Moltmann that the church should not be seeking 'uniformity but should be working through the ecumenical movement to expand its range of unlikeness'.

If Käsemann’s point is lost in the chatter of conciliar ecumenical circles, I still find it an anchor. This is true even though such a position is in considerable tension with the magisterial traditions that read their brand of Christianity as normative in the first century. This put me at odds with William Henn when I engaged him during the 1999 International Roman Catholic – Pentecostal Dialogue that met in Venice, Italy. Henn insisted that tensions in the ‘New Testament Church’ “did not tear the Church apart into distinct communities which were divided from one another.”[48]

James D.G. Dunn doubtless had it right when he concludes “there was no single normative form of Christianity in the first century.”[49] Dunn uses adjectives like Jewish, Hellenistic, early Catholicism, enthusiastic and apocalyptic to categorize the primary forms of earliest Christianity. Dunn is also right to insist that all forms of Christianity function with a canon within the canon. Dunn resorts to his typical quips by tying Roman Catholic ecclesiology to the Pastoral Epistles, the (early) letters of Paul to Protestant theology, Eastern Orthodoxy to Johannine writings and Pentecostalism to Acts. This reductionist paradigm does have a legitimate point, however, which should challenge ecumenical deliberations predicated on a view that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox have sole ownership of first century Christianity. Those espousing such a monolithic view of earliest Christianity often then wrongly infer that Pentecostals can never rise above the status of a schismatic sect.

Some Reflections

While Magisterial churches that belong to the NCCCUSA and the WCC may continue to suffer divisions/schisms, many Pentecostal denominations will continue to seek renewal, restoration and unity. Consider the biblical narrative of the journey on the road to Emmaus as a powerful metaphor for some Pentecostals. For those Pentecostal churches that are not at the point of joining an organization like the WCC, they may be inclined to take an “Emmaus walk”, willing to engage in dialogue, learn and come to a place of understanding as Christ becomes present and the will of God, according to the Scriptures, becomes known.

This short presentation does not provide unassailable proof, but seems to suggest that some Pentecostal bodies are known to engage in various forms of uniting including organic unity. This is not to deny numerous fractions among Pentecostals any more than those visited among churches called Protestant. A question mark should also be placed against the notion found among some magisterial traditions that Christianity was united up until the 11th century divide between East and West. Thus, perhaps Pentecostalism has been rescued from some stereotypes that circulate freely among conciliar ecumenists while the same group may need to revisit one of their presuppositions.