jepta 2001 21 - European Pentecostal Theological Association

The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association, Vol. XXI, 2001
The Place of the Church in the Economy of Salvation.
Roman Catholic and Pentecostal Perspectives:
Room for Rapprochement
INTRODUCTION'
Huibert Zegwaart
It is common knowledge that the views of the Roman Catholic Church on
ecclesiology and those current within the Pentecostal movement are widely at
~ariance.~ Indeed, a mixture of the Presbyterian and Congregationalist models of
the Church, which are in vogue in large sections of the Pentecostal Movement,
may be regarded as the very antipode of the Episcopal model of Roman
Catholicism. The focus of this paper will not be on ecclesiology as such, but on
the relationship between ecclesiology and ~oteriology,~ as may be inferred from
the title. Before getting into the topic, a word needs to be said about the
derivation of the thesis and my own vantage point.
During the 4th phase of the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal ~ialope,'
' Paper presented at the EPTA Conference, Bucharest, Romania, April 2001.
On terminology: The term 'Pentecostal movement' is used in its narrower sense, excluding the
so-called Neo-Pentecostals, or Charismatics-within-the-historical-churches. That is to say, the
term denotes the same group as is indicated by the expression 'Classical Pentecostal Churches'
in the nomenclature of the International Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue.
' It hardly needs pointing out that also in this respect the Pentecostal Movement is far from
being homogenous. Pentecostals of various kinds differ over virtually every aspect of the faith,
save the belief that the biblical promise of the Baptism in the Spirit and charismatic gifts still
constitute a living reality in the life of believers. Concerning models of church-organization,
several are in use: many denominations that go under the name 'apostolic' veer towards the
Episcopalian model, while the Assemblies of God-type are mostly Presbyterian with strong
Congregationalist features.
' Or in the terminology used by Kilian McDonnell, "The Pros and Cons of Dialogue with
Roman Catholics", JPT 16 (2000), 90-101,9 1-92.
' I consider myself a staunch supporter of this type of Dialogue with other Christian
communities. Not only is it a way of working out the Lord's prayer "that all shall be one", but it
may also help alleviate mounting tensions in those regions of the world where the growth of
Pentecostal churches - as long as it still lasts - is easily perceived as a threat to those Christian
bodies which are well established in that region. Thus, the strategic significance of these talks
(removal of false stereotypes and misunderstandings) should not be underestimated. Moreover,
both parties involved in these talks could benefit from the challenge that is posed by the
different theological stance that is formulated 'from the other side of the table'. Especially
Pentecostals - who do not have a long-standing tradition of sustained theological reflection -
could benefit from the stimulus provided by these talks.
The Place of the Church in the Economy of Salvation. Roman Catholic and
Pentecostal Perspectives: Room for Rapprochement Huibert Zegwaart
I was an 'involved observer' at six of the eight venues.' In the first session I
attended (in Rocca di Papa [Italy] in 1992), two paradigms of evangelization
were discussed. One related to the Pentecostal Evangelization of Latin America,
the other the Roman Catholic (re-)evangelization of Europe. Of the Pentecostal
Dialogue team, only one member was European (Miroslav Volf). Though
officially an observer, I was graciously allowed to participate in the plenary
discussions as if I were a full member of the Pentecostal team. In the years
following, it occurred to me that the theological differences between the two
parties in the area of ecclesioJogy were more profound than simply two opposing
organizational models. In fact, they were more profound than simply two
alternative views of what the Church is. At several points, it occurred to me that
the difference touches the basic theological outlook of both partners in the
Dialogue.
While the theological outlook on many issues was stamped by ecclesiological
convictions on the side of the Roman Catholics, on the side of the Pentecostals it
was stamped by soteriology. In other words, ecclesiology and soteriology
function as theological prisms; the one for Catholics and the other for
Pentecostals.
This became abundantly clear whenever the issue of proselytism was on the table.
In the discussions about this thorny issue, Pentecostals were prone to consider
first of all the spiritual well-being of the individual, while Catholics were prone
to consider first of all the spiritual well-being of the community. To be sure, the
delegates of both parties would immediately claim that they do not lose sight of
the other concern; and that their purview is in fact inclusive. Granted, but the
initial concern indicates where the emphasis really lies. If the parties at the table
insufficiently recognize the prismatic significance of their respective points of
departure, and that this point of departure affects the entire theological construct,
they will inevitably misunderstand each other. If this analysis holds water, we
would do well to engage in serious theological reflection on the relationship
between Ecclesiology and Soteriology.
' Due to serious difficulties which arose over 'proselytism', two years had to be added to the six
years planned for this phase. The 4th phase, the topic of which was "Evangelization,
Proselytism and Common Witness" lasted from 1990 to 1997. To my knowledge, this had not
happened before. Also a novum of this phase was the fact that the report could not be written in
a single venue, because the delegations could not agree on the wording of some passages
(mostly dealing with - again - proselytism). And so another venue had to be added (Rome 1997)
in which the process was finally completed.