A Threefold Cord: Weaving Together Pentecostal Ecumenism, Ethics, and Evangelism in Christian Conversion
Tony Richie
Introduction
According to an ancient Jewish sage, “A cord of three strands is not quickly broken” (Eccl 4:12b). In this presentation, I wish to weave together three strands of the Pentecostal cord often deemed disparate: ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism. My hopeful prayer is that the result will agree with the sage’s observation. My own intuition indicates our assigned task of moving “Towards an Ethical Approach to Conversion: Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World” requires an integration of these three values.i Attention to our “multi-religious world” manifests a need for commitment to ecumenism. An “ethical approach” highlights the importance of ethics. Of course, “Christian witness” emphasizes evangelism. My goal is to suggest a way these three worthwhile values may relate positively in contexts of Christian conversion practices from a Pentecostal perspective. Like the strands of a threefold cord, ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism are distinct but not separate, and weaving them together greatly enhances their working strength. Where crises or confrontation precipitated at least in part by performance of Christian evangelistic mission in interreligious contexts occurs improved relations may be thus more readily (and realistically) attainable.
Context of Pentecostal Status and Insights on Ecumenism, Ethics, and Evangelism
Few, if any, have been better positioned to evaluate the ecumenical identity of Pentecostalism than Mel Robeck. An accomplished and widely published Pentecostal historian/historical theologian (Fuller Theological Seminary), former president of the Society for Pentecostal Studies and editor of its official journal, he’s also been a leading ecumenist on the international level for decades. His “Taking Stock of Pentecostalism” is especially helpful for the present task because it so clearly and concisely illuminates and integrates the status of Pentecostal insights in the areas of ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism. He insists Pentecostals are indeed ecumenical but just don’t know it, primarily because their ecumenism is perhaps unconsciously qualified by complex political, social, and theological factors.ii He notes the incredible diversity, or “multi-cultural” identity, of Pentecostalism. Culturally, politically, racially, socially, and, to some extent anyway, theologically, Pentecostalism is definitely not monolithic. However, Pentecostals have not learned how to deal with their own diversity without pain to themselves and others. Yet their diversity is worth sustaining and celebrating as it leads into more openness ecumenically and otherwise.iii
Robeck makes the obvious observation that Pentecostals are also evangelistic; but he lambastes the movement for being “indiscriminate about the appropriate objects of our evangelistic efforts.”iv Here he faces fearlessly the issue of Pentecostal proselytism. He thinks three factors contribute to the problem: zeal, fear, and ignorance. Though focusing on historic Christian churches, he makes it clear that proselytism is a problem with non-Christian religions, including even other biblical religions such as Judaism and Islam. Pentecostal evangelistic zeal is often viewed by religious others as fomenting “acts of betrayal and proselytism.” Fear, especially fear of losing distinctiveness and power, is probably behind an all-too-common ecumenical reluctance, and greatly contributes to the problem of indiscriminate evangelism. Ignorance of what God is doing among religious others is another clear contributing cause to the problem of proselytism. In all of this, indiscriminate evangelism is an overarching issue. Robeck accordingly calls Pentecostals to engage in some serious introspection and reflection about the movement’s evangelism motives and methods.v
Robeck advances four important elements of advice for Pentecostals. First, become less judgmental and more willing to listen and act with respect toward religious others. Second, look past ourselves and our own contexts to become participants in the larger work of God in the world. Third, commit to understanding and participating in the globalization process already underway today. Fourth, and especially for North American Pentecostals, turn our attention to the areas of greatest differences with Christians around the world in seeking better and more critical self-understanding. For Robeck, the ecumenical enterprise is part of a grand, all-encompassing development of Pentecostal identity and theology.vi
My own research confirms and further informs Robeck’s.vii Inherent within Pentecostalism is an innate unifying agency of the Holy Spirit, an impulse toward ecumenism and inclusivism, in relation to religious others which has often been neglected, probably at least partly due to over identification with anti-Pentecostal ideologies. Arguments and examples from the New Testament, historical precedents in early classical Pentecostalism, and contemporary practice of missions by the global Pentecostal movement support this thesis. Pentecostals may enthusiastically embrace ecumenism and inclusivism in meeting challenges of religious diversity and plurality with an uncompromising, all-encompassing stance faithful to Christ and his Spirit through the apostolic injunction of “the unity of the Spirit” (cf. Eph 4:3). Pentecostals ought to view religious diversity as an opportunity rather than a problem. A trajectory of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue consistent with ethical evangelism is true to an original and authentic Pentecostal ethos.
My work also probes problems with the terminology and philosophy of “aggressive evangelism.”viii I am not fond of the term “aggressive evangelism” as it carries a connotation of coercion. I favor “energetic” or “enthusiastic” evangelism. These are consistent with primary Pentecostal values of power and fullness indeed dear to Pentecostals based on pneumatological texts such as Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8, and 2:4. Remarkably, the biblical tradition stresses responsible, responsive Christian evangelism (e.g., I Pet 3:15). Therefore, Pentecostal evangelism should rid itself of any residual elements of aggression in the sense of coercion or manipulation. That is unethical evangelism. However, do not expect Pentecostals to surrender their energy and enthusiasm for evangelism. That is appropriate evangelism.
Furthermore, I explore potentiality in the concept of “dialogical evangelism.”ix As the Christian Church endeavors to be faithful to its evangelistic mission, increasingly intense problems arise in international contexts of cultural diversity and religious plurality. Pentecostals, often noted for aggressive evangelism, are frequently at the forefront of such negative encounters. A complementary paradigm of dialogical evangelism, however, is sensitive to this situation without stilling the voice of evangelism. Based on the encounter of Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10), in which the Christian apostle and the devout pagan learned from each other as the Holy Spirit worked conviction of sin, dialogical evangelism is as much about the conversion of Peter as it is about the conversion of Cornelius (though in somewhat different senses). Here the gospel is objective, standing over against both evangelist and evangelized so that both may together learn of Christ. Otherwise, an evangelist is only a propagandist! Undoubtedly, all Christians should share their experience of Christ with others but the question is how to do so without internal contradiction of the message. The dialogical approach is especially well suited to contexts of religious plurality.
In Robeck’s “Taking Stock of Pentecostalism”, ecumenism and evangelism are directly and explicitly addressed (and assessed!), while ethics, with Robeck’s strong hortatory angle, indirectly and implicitly underlies everything. However, a disappointment is that it does not deal directly with the interreligious aspect in any depth. Robeck focuses on ecumenism in the narrower sense of the Christian oikumene or household or faith.x Recently Dr Robeck explained that though he has felt it necessary in his own work to concentrate on relations between Christians, he is convinced of the importance and relevance of Pentecostals working on relations with non-Christian religions.xi Furthermore, he fully affirms interreligious relations and dialogue from a decidedly biblical and Pentecostal perspective.xii Amos Yong and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen have surely shown that this is a fertile field for contemporary Pentecostal theology.xiii Yong, through his category of “pneumatological imagination,” insists that a robust trinitarian pneumatology befitting of Pentecostals suggests the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit in or among non-Christian religions. Kärkkäinen explains that a truly trinitarian theology of religions, always identifying the Spirit in relation to God and to Christ, also opens up the way for talking about the Spirit’s relationships beyond the Church with the Kingdom and with the world.
As for ethics, Mel Robeck’s implicit ethical assumptions are probably generally applicable for most Pentecostals. He makes these assumptions more explicit elsewhere.xiv Robeck believes Pentecostals inherited from the revivalism and Holiness movement a commitment to social transformation that they have unfortunately unfaithfully fulfilled. Robeck offers a threefold explanation for this phenomenon. First, Pentecostals adopted a premillennial eschatology that tends to downplay social action. Second, the rise of liberalism’s association with the social gospel tainted social activism for typically conservative Pentecostals. Third, peer pressure came into play from Evangelicals whose values were further set against socially minded liberals.
The upshot is that Pentecostal social ethics often reveal a considerable gap between the ideal and the real but the ideal is still real. Our task then requires not only outlining theological bases but also implementing practical steps for actual improvement. Nevertheless, hopefully what has been accomplished thus far is to affirm and undergird the assumption that an accurate ideal Pentecostal ethic does indeed address and embrace religious others in a way that positively influences ecumenical and evangelistic endeavors or interaction. In other words, Pentecostal ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism ought to go together. Tension sometimes experienced between them at the level of interreligious relations is, therefore, due to an improper or unbalanced application of one or more of these reciprocating realities.
Cooperative Discernment on Ecumenism, Ethics, and Evangelism
I have suggested that fundamental to moving “Towards an Ethical Approach to Conversion: Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World” is the appropriate balancing of ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism. This assertion is consistent with the biblical pattern. Jesus’ incredible ecumenical prayer is uttered in the context of evangelistic mission (John 17:20-23). His great commandment concerning evangelistic mission carries an explicit ethical imperative of discipleship (Matt 28:16-20). His uniquely Christian ethic is attached to evangelistic mission (John 13:34-35). In addition, all of these elements meet and merge in Paul’s paradigmatic speech in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). The next step seems to be discerning when these interlocking relations are being put into practice appropriately or not.
Yong observes that the process of Christian discernment in the Pentecostal-Charismatic tradition includes elements of both the divine and human.xv Assuming the paramount significance of the former, I wish to highlight some helpful hints for the latter (cf. 1 Co 12:10 and Pp 1:10). Having concluded that ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism belong together, how are we to correlate them? My first suggestion has to do with a reciprocity rule. I refer to improper or unbalanced applications mentioned above. When Pentecostals or other Christians emphasize either ecumenism, ethics, evangelism all out of proportion to the other two then problems are inevitable. We should be surprised if no problems surfaced under such circumstances.
Just suppose we emphasized evangelism almost exclusively in comparison to ecumenism. Then unethical evangelism either unaware or unconcerned with how religious others, Christian or non-Christian, are affected inevitably occurs. A certain amount of psychological and sociological coercion or manipulation may be tolerated based on a sort of the end justifies the means mentality. When criticized, as we most surely will and should be, we indignantly defend our attitudes and actions based on our preeminent commitment to evangelism. But our defense is faulty. It is not faulty because evangelism is faulty, but because it is being faultily practiced. And it is being faultily practiced because it is not being properly balanced in relation to equally important values of ecumenism and ethics. Other speculative scenarios could be suggested where values of ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism are allowed to get out of balance with inevitable detrimental effects. By creatively mixing and matching values, we could probably come up with problems of imbalance ad infinitum (or at least, ad nauseam).
The safeguard is simple. I suggest a principle of boundary impingement. Whenever one or the other of our values begins to impinge upon—to encroach upon or to infringe upon—that of the others, it is improper and unbalanced. We must chart a new course. Probably this state will reveal itself to practical observation. For example, if in the performance of evangelism I find myself frequently forced to face choices between it and ecumenical and/or ethical issues I’m surely overstepping somewhere somehow. The time has come for adjustment. This principle of impingement will help us guard against overdoing one of our triad of values to the diminishment of another.
Perhaps more difficult is the task of guarding against the negligence of a value. When one or more of our triad of values is underrated though not ostensibly upstaged by another, how are we to know? Here I’d offer an idea on the invalidity of a vacuum. Of course, I’m not questioning the scientific concept of a vacuum, say for example, in outer space. What I am suggesting is that here on earth in the human religious realm a vacuum does not really tend to exist for long. Something else will rush into the empty region and fill it even if it doesn’t originally belong or if it is actually wrong. This is surely so for our present discussion. Wherever we neglect, again, for example, evangelism, then ecumenism or ethics will rush in to fill the void. Obviously, the principle of impingement will soon start to show itself. We will violate the rule of reciprocity. Then, if we are only observant, we will know that we’ve got out of balance in quite another way. We can accordingly make course corrections. Significantly, this process of discernment requires honesty and humility on our part and, especially, prayerful openness to the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Co 12:10).
Current Progress Regarding Christian Conversionary Thought and Practice
In the spirit of the preceding, I will use remaining space and time to look at the text of a preliminary statement produced in Lariano, Italy by the forerunner of the gathering in Toulouse, France to address “Towards an Ethical Approach to Conversion: Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World.” Though not final or conclusive, it still made several important contributions capable of profitable appropriation.xvi My intent here is to look at it from the perspective of the holistic Pentecostal ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism set forth above. That this process may contribute in some small way to our final goal of developing an adequate “code of conduct” regarding Christian conversion is my hopeful prayer.
On the positive side, all three of our values, ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism, are prominently present. The Lariano Report has an attractive, even, irenic tone. It affirms the overall value of the religions and of religion. Significantly, it asserts the universal freedom of religion, including the right to practice and to share one’s religion, and the right to convert from one religion to another.xvii More negatively, evangelism is mentioned positively only rarely. Most references are markedly negative. In part, this understandably arises from the fact that the meeting’s participants, consisting of both Christians and non-Christians, convened to address problematic evangelistic efforts and attendant incidents in multi-religious settings. It should nonetheless warn us to watch out for reflexively denigrating a core value of evangelism in the process. Our task is not to decide on or even discuss whether we evangelize but the way we evangelize. For Pentecostals, and probably for most other Christians, evangelism, that is, our witness of Christ, is nonnegotiable.
A question arises in this connection as to whether our participating non-Christian counterparts see this process in the same way as do we. The answer is, probably not. After all, we’ve a different frame of reference. Do they at least understand that this is not a process of curtailing evangelism because of ecumenical and/or ethical concerns so much as it is a uniting and directing of all three in tandem? That is an incredibly important distinction. That they/we were not consciously making it when drafting the Lariano document is further reflected in that, not counting the entirely ecumenical “Introduction,” five of the ten summations avidly affirm ecumenism and even conclude somewhat climactically ecumenically. Indeed, one almost senses an ecumenical crescendo throughout. At the time, and still for that matter, I felt this to be a good thing. Yet I’m anxious not to usurp evangelism at the expense of ecumenism (or vice versa). I wouldn’t wish to see frayed fiber on any of the strands of our threefold cord. While serious concern shows first for ecumenism and then for ethics, the same is not clearly visible for evangelism.
The Lariano Report contains excessive, and therefore offensive, anti-evangelism language (e.g., healing from “obsession to convert”), but appropriately lifts up the importance of “self-criticism and repentance”. It is sometimes vague to a fault (e.g., “inter alia,” or “among other things”!). This ambiguity is a great concern where it censures exploiting vulnerable people without carefully defining vulnerability. Yet its advocacy of transparency and hints about “ulterior” motives in humanitarian aid are primary and proper concerns.xviii This is the issue of honesty. Evangelism that is intentionally unclear about its intentions is dishonest, and dishonesty is unethical. Yet it is unfair to ask Christians to conceal their faith. That would be dishonest too.xix
Some (unintentionally) hidden complexities are present too. A practical note that “all faiths should follow” the code of conduct we devise may be an overly optimistic or misleading statement. We ought not to interpret this through an idea of enforcement. Most of all this process is of a primarily voluntary nature. Nonetheless, the power of positive peer pressure can be effective in making this thing work well. Perhaps this is something people of other faiths should understand about Christians, especially some of us from non-hierarchical groups. In the same vein, how much right do Christians have, even with non-Christians sitting in on our procedures, to expect “all faiths to follow” what will still be an essentially Christian code of conduct? Furthermore, several great religious traditions are not evangelistically inclined at all. Is it honest to imply they’re keeping this code in the same sense that Christians are expected to do so? Perhaps the most we can expect from our friends in these faith traditions is their cooperation with us as we keep it. Not that that in itself won’t be of great service and value. It may be, along with conscientious Christian cooperation, the key to its success. However, we will need to make sure it doesn’t deteriorate into a way to constrain or control Christian witnesses while everyone else remains pretty much undisturbed. If Christians do witness righteously according to an agreed upon standard, what do we have a right to expect from other faiths? Are we unreasonable to expect amicable acceptance of Christian witness by religious others? Are we both really willing to allow the objects of such evangelism to make their own choices unfettered by any intervention?
As already said, overall, the Lariano Report, and more importantly, the direction it sets for our work of moving “Towards an Ethical Approach to Conversion: Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World,” can be enthusiastically affirmed. Yet it needs further development. At least some of that development ought to aim at a more conscious (and conscientious) application of an integrative utilization of ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism. As it stands, ecumenism dominates ethics and, even more so, evangelism to the point that evangelism is handicapped and undermined. Yet we ought not to mute its beautiful ecumenical nature either, but only better relate it to other equally important needs.
Conclusion
“A cord of three strands is not quickly broken” (Eccl 4:12b). Interlocking concerns of ecumenism, ethics, and evangelism indicate that each ought to be grounded in and guided by the others in faithfulness to their own unique goals. In short, ecumenism ought to be ethical and evangelistic as well; ethics ought also to be ecumenical and evangelistic; and, evangelism ought in addition to be ecumenical and ethical. For the present task, this especially means we should examine whether our evangelism praxis is sufficiently united with and directed by ecumenical sensitivity and ethical honesty.xx If not, as sometimes seems to be the case, our challenge is to make appropriate changes. In my opinion, Pentecostals can and should help lead the way in this important process.
-----------------------------
Rev. Dr. Tony Richie, Bishop/Senior Pastor, New Harvest Church of God in Knoxville, TN, is also a missionary teacher at SEMISUD (Quito, Ecuador) and does adjunct teaching at the Church of God Theological Seminary (Cleveland, TN). He serves Society for Pentecostal Studies as liaison to the Interfaith Relations Commission of the National Council of Churches of Christ. Since 2007 he is a member of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs.
-----------------------------
i I originally presented this paper to the Consultation on Christian Conversion jointly sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID, Vatican) and the Inter-Religious Relations Dialogue (IRRD, World Council of Churches) at Institut Catholique de Toulouse in Toulouse, France on 8-12 August 2007, co-chaired by Fr. Felix Machado and Dr Hans Ucko.
ii Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. “Taking Stock of Pentecostalism: The Personal Reflections of a Retiring Editor,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 15:1 (Spring 1993), pp. 35-60 (39-45).
iii Ibid: pp. 46-51.
iv Ibid: p. 51. Italics are original.
v Ibid: pp. 51-58.
vi Ibid: pp. 58-60.
vii See Tony Richie, “The Unity of the Spirit: Are Pentecostals Inherently Ecumenists and Inclusivists?” Journal of European Pentecostal Theology Association (2006.1), pp. 21-37, and “Azusa-era Optimism: Bishop J. H. King’s Pentecostal Theology of Religions as a Possible Paradigm for Today,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14:2 (April 2006), pp. 247-60. For a more developed and expanded version of the latter, see Tony Richie, “Azusa-era Optimism: Bishop J. H. King’s Pentecostal Theology of Religions as a Possible Paradigm for Today,” The Spirit in the World: Emerging Pentecostal Theologies in Global Contexts, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Eerdmans, forthcoming 2008).
viii Tony Richie, “A Pentecostal in Sheep’s Clothing: an Unlikely Participant but Hopeful Partner in Interreligious Dialogue,” Current Dialogue No 48, Geneva, WCC, December 2006, pp. 9-15 (p. 10).
ix See Tony Richie, “Revamping Pentecostal Evangelism: Appropriating Walter J. Hollenweger’s Radical Proposal,” International Review of Mission (forthcoming July-October 2007). Note now that dialogical evangelism as expounded in this paper is not advocating using interreligious dialogue as a stealthy conversion technique. It simply suggests that in a mutually respectful conversation the Spirit’s transforming power may work in and among us all.
x Although some use “ecumenism” or “ecumenical” in a broader sense including Christian and non-Christian religions, a distinction is quite correctly maintained by most regarding ecumenism and interreligious/interfaith. Contra Hans Küng, Christianity and the World Religions: Paths to Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (New YorkL Doubleday, 1986), p. xiv. In this essay, I use the terms ecumenical and ecumenism partly because this is also an intra-Christian conversation.
xi Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. “John Paul II: A Personal Account of His Impact and Legacy,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 27:1 (2005), pp. 3-34 (27-28).
xii See The Suffering Body: Responding to the Persecution of Christians, eds. Harold H. Hunter and Cecil M. Robeck, Jr. (Bletchley, Milton Keyes MK: Paternoster Press, 2006), pp. xx-xxii. I am grateful to Mel for bringing this reference to my attention.
xiii Cf. Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology of Religions, (JPTSup) (Sheffield: Sheffield, England; 2000) and Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical, & Contemporary Perspectives (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) and Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004).
xiv See Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “Pentecostals and Social Ethics,” Pneuma 9 (Fall 1987), pp. 103-07. Cf. also M. D. Palmer, “Ethics in the Classical Pentecostal Tradition,” The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2002), pp. 605-10 (605-07).
xv E.g., see Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 249.
xvi “Report from Inter-Religious Consultation on ‘Conversion—Assessing the Reality’” (Lariano, Italy, May 12-16, 2006). The complete document is available at http://www.oikoumene.org/?id=2252. In my original presentation at Toulouse, I did a point-by-point critique of this document. For the sake of space and time, I here condense it to a few summary paragraphs.
xvii Though not explicitly stated, this affirmation clearly presupposes the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article # 18: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
xviii Helpful background to a discussion of just what entails “unethical” behavior or “ulterior” motives in winning converts may be found in the The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990-1997 Between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders on “Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness,” especially paragraphs 90-97. See http://www.pctii.org/cyberj/cyberj4/rcpent97.html. Thanks to Mel Robeck for reminding me of this document.
xix At Lariano, we discussed these points in the context of so-called “aid evangelism.” The consensual sentiment was that humanitarian aid is not an appropriate excuse for coercive evangelism but that still all one does in Christian love is in itself something of a righteous witness of Christ. In general, our Toulouse talks suggest carefully defining vulnerability is a vital matter as well. Particularly impressive were the insights (in their keynote presentations) of the Catholic Charismatic Dr. Fiorello Mascarenhas of the Catholic Bible Institute and the Evangelical Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher of Martin Bucer Seminary regarding ethical evangelism in ecumenical settings.
xx Thanks to Drs. Raymond Hodge and Amos Yong for reflections on an earlier draft of this paper, and to all of the participants at the Consultation on Conversion at Toulouse for their stimulating discussion.