06 Next Generation Essay: Uniting Opposites: Considering the ecumenical potential of Catholic and Pentecostal ecclesiologies • Australasian Pentecostal Studies

Next Generation Essay: Uniting Opposites: Considering the ecumenical potential of Catholic and Pentecostal ecclesiologies

By Kate TennikoffSydney College of Divinity, BTh (hons) student

kate.tennikoff@scc.edu.au

Introduction

When it comes to reflecting on suitable structures and appropriate forms for the church in today’s world, the scripture leaves plenty of room for creativity. Whilst Jesus declared that he would build his church, [1] he certainly did not specify how it was to be organised, nor did the New Testament writers designate any such ecclesial prototype. Rather, the scriptures depict the early church as the epitome of diversity, loathsome perhaps to the modernist want for uniformity and, yet, replete with possibility for the post–modern church, which finds itself in a world of eclecticism. This is not to suggest that the church can indiscriminately appropriate any form or structure, as if it were chameleon in nature. On the contrary, there are certain principles and values which must imbibe such an organisation and, similarly, there will be certain structures that better harmonise with the truth of the gospel and more accurately reflect the values of the kingdom than others. [2]

With this in mind, there are a few non–negotiables that the church has traditionally affirmed. These being, that the church is one, the church is holy, the church is catholic and the church is apostolic. Yet even these qualities, so central to its configuration, are interpreted in a variety of ways by differing traditions. [3] For instance, one’s opinion will vary depending on whether their ecclesiology has been developed ‘from above,’ tending towards more hierarchical structures, or ‘from below,’ that is, from a more grass roots perspective. [4] Interestingly, the two largest ecclesial bodies in the world today, the Roman Catholic Church and the modern Pentecostal movement, [5] have largely developed their ecclesiologies from opposite ends of this spectrum. Both are rightly considered churches and yet both look decidedly different.

Such difference in itself is not necessarily something to be avoided. In fact, many argue that "diversity is fundamental to Christianity" [6] and, as we noted earlier, the communities that constituted the early church adopted a range of differing forms, while still remaining essentially united. [7] We might propose, then, that difference tends only to be deleterious when our fundamental positions become irreconcilable, when rather than appreciating our differences we estrange ourselves from one another, boldly declaring that we are the true church. Such estrangement typically breeds contempt, ignorance breeds hostility, and instead of the church being ‘one’ the church becomes ‘many.’ Rather than a unified body, there results a dismembering of sorts such that our witness to the world is tragically diminished. [8]

It is with these things in mind that we direct our attention towards the ecclesiologies of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal traditions. The following essay will begin by reflecting on the more traditional Catholic conceptions of church, prior to the second Vatican Council, after which we will consider how Catholic views have changed since that time. Similarly, we will look at the ecclesiology of early Pentecostalism before moving on to survey its development over the past one hundred years. Having outlined Roman Catholic and Pentecostal ecclesiologies we will compare and contrast their respective positions with the aim of determining the potential for greater ecumenical cooperation between the two institutions.

Roman Catholic Ecclesiology

Hans Küng asserts that the church "must constantly reflect upon its real existence in the present with reference to its origins in the past, in order to assure its existence in the future." [9] With this in mind, let us begin our reflection on the Roman Catholic Church.

Although the New Testament church was chiefly comprised of local community–based fellowships, [10] after Constantine’s conversion, the church in the West grew progressively institutional in form. Moreover, as it continued to develop throughout the Middle–Ages the church became increasingly hierarchical, [11] such that it was eventually understood as "a universal corporation under the Bishop of Rome." [12] Indeed, at the height of its power papal dominion extended not only over the whole Western Church but also reached well into the political arena. [13]

Yet the supremacy of the pope and the associated hierarchicalism of the church began to be questioned with various precursors leading up to and culminating in the sixteenth century Reformation. [14] Typically viewed as being spearheaded by Martin Luther, the Reformation was largely aimed at grievances pertaining to the abuse of power. [15] From all accounts it seemed that this attempt at reform proved rather futile, with Luther being excommunicated and declared "an obstinate schismatic and a manifest heretic." [16] Nevertheless, despite his dismissal, Luther’s views did acquire a considerable following and by the middle of the sixteenth century significant numbers had abandoned Catholicism. [17] As time went on it became clear that the Vatican needed to respond and, consequently, the Council of Trent was convened in 1545 to "clarify and defend Catholic Doctrine." [18] The council addressed a variety of issues including Luther’s notion of justification by faith and, yet, as Klaus Schatz notes, the most controversial and hotly debated issues related to papal primacy and the role of the episcopate. [19] Interestingly, these issues remained essentially unresolved by the end of the Council [20] and, yet, in the centuries following, clearly defined doctrines were constructed supporting both papal primacy and infallibility, [21] teachings that were only affirmed and more clearly defined at the first Vatican Council (1869–1870). [22]

For Avery Dulles and Joseph Komonchak these views typified a strongly institutional model of church. [23] At top of the institutional pyramid was the pope, with unquestionable authority as the successor of Peter, under whom was the episcopate, governing their various parishes, as well as the priests who presided over their congregations. At the base of this structure were the ‘faithful,’ called to passive, unquestioning obedience. [24] The unmistakable focus during this period was the universal church, [25] upheld as the ‘perfect society,’ [26] marked by uniformity and centralised control. [27]

Nevertheless, this institutional or ‘juridical’ model of Church was to undergo significant scrutiny in the years following. Even in the decades prior to Vatican I there was emerging an ecclesiology of a different kind in the work of Johann Möhler. Given the aforementioned emphasis on the universal church, Möhler’s focus on an ecclesiology of communion was no less than extraordinary. [28] Although he did not develop a comprehensive theology of the local church, [29] Möhler was able to re–direct attention once again towards a pneumatological ecclesiology; [30] an understanding of the church as constituted by the Spirit, who distributes various charisms, creating a diverse and yet unified ecclesial body. [31] His approach began with the local community and, in contrast to his contemporaries, built upward "from the local bishop to the metropolitan and, finally, to the episcopal college and to the papacy." [32] Even the pope was seen as a part of this community, standing within it and "never above or apart from it." [33] While Möhler’s ideas did not hold much sway over the outcomes of Vatican I, his ideas were taken up and expanded on in the twentieth century by theologians such as Yves Congar. [34]

In developing his own ecclesiology of communion, Congar’s emphasis was "solidarity in love." [35] Like Möhler’s before him Congar’s was a pneumatological approach, which pointed out that since each person has received the Spirit, each person, therefore, has something to contribute to the body of Christ. [36] Congar sought to re–orient people’s attention once again to the biblical images of the Church, particularly the image of the ‘people of God.’ [37] In doing so he made room for a ‘theology of the laity’ and condemned "the medieval notion of the Church defined principally in terms of the clergy." [38] While recognising that positions of authority do exist in the Church, he called for a ‘radical conversion,’ asserting that these positions cannot properly be understood from a secular point of view. Instead, they must be reframed in light of the truth of the Gospel. [39] And so, while Congar was reprimanded for some of his views, [40] particularly for his use of the word ‘ministry’ in regards to the laity, he nonetheless exerted a strong influence over the outcomes of the second Vatican Council. [41]

Vatican Council II, held between 1962 and 1965, radically modified Roman Catholic ecclesiology. The three stated purposes for the council were "spiritual renewal, pastoral updating, and ecumenical unity" [42] and while the preliminary documents prepared for the council were hardly reflective of these goals, the schemas ended up being re–written to better reflect these aims. [43] Significantly, the new schemas were vastly different from the first and included concepts such as the ‘people of God’ and even addressed the role of the laity. [44] What is more, the idea of koinonia was also introduced, bringing trinitarian perspectives into the picture as well. [45] Importantly, this Catholic understanding of koinonia was sacramentally framed. Indeed, for Catholics, the church itself is seen as a sacrament, that is, "the universal sacrament of salvation." [46]

By the close of the Council in 1965 the final draft of the ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,’ or Lumen Gentium, [47] had significantly re–framed the teaching of Vatican I regarding papal primacy and infallibility, indicating that these notions must be understood with respect to collegiality. [48] As Thomas Rausch explains, "as members of the episcopal college united with its head, the bishop of Rome, bishops exercise supreme and full power over the universal Church, particularly when gathered for an ecumenical council." [49]

Given these features of the official documents, many argue that Vatican II pronounced a clear shift from a juridical ecclesiology to a much more pastoral approach. [50] Yet others, such as Hermann Pottmeyer, contend that the sections of Lumen gentium pertaining to the hierarchical Church indicate that the shift was not so radical. [51] Pottmeyer notes that the council’s teaching on collegiality did not bring about a resultant decentralisation of power, because, in fact, the notion of collegiality is still able to "coexist with a concept of the papacy that promotes centralization." [52] Christopher Ruddy concurs, adding that despite the inclusion of images pertinent to an ecclesiology of the local church, Vatican II still produced a primarily ‘universalistic ecclesiology’ promoting papal hegemony. [53] With this in mind, Hugh Lawrence makes the case that if the laity and clergy truly share in the one priesthood in Christ, as Lumen gentium suggests, then, this must cause the church to re–evaluate issues of ministry and governance to allow for lay participation. [54] Despite these issues Vatican II still played a significant role, at least in highlighting the need for a comprehensive ecclesiology of the local church and in recognising the laity as participants in the church’s mission. Indeed, what began at Vatican II was the seed of renewal to be watered in the years to come. The significance of the council is apparent from the plethora of documentation that ensued and the countless talks that have been held to discuss its teachings. Noteworthy is the discussion of the 1985 Synod of Bishops who concluded that of all the ecclesial images coming out of Vatican II the most vital was that of ‘communion’ or koinonia. [55] This concept, standing alongside images such as the people of God and the body of Christ, helped Catholics to appreciate that "the universal Church is not something distinct from the individual churches but exists only in them and out of them." [56] It affirms that the "local church is wholly church even though no local church is the whole church." [57]

The contemporary Catholic understanding of koinonia begins with the local church, or more precisely the local bishop [58] and, as we noted earlier, is thoroughly sacramental in orientation. [59] As such, the Eucharistic celebration that the Bishop presides over becomes the key expression of the unity between local churches. [60] Following this logic, Catholics understand the relationship between the universal and local church as one of a ‘communion of communions,’ [61] not to be understood as a ‘plurality’ of churches, but rather, as one church with many localised expressions. [62] Within this framework the role of the college of bishops and, of the pope as its head, is to "serve and promote koinonia." [63]

Significantly, the notion of koinonia has been the impetus behind more recent Catholic charismatic ecclesiologies such as that of Hans Küng and is reflected in Pope John Paul II’s historic 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint, both of which will be looked at in more detail a little later on. For now, it is sufficient to note the general trajectory of Catholic ecclesiology post Vatican II, as we move on to consider Pentecostal conceptions of the church.

Pentecostal Ecclesiology

Having focussed our discussion exclusively on Roman Catholic ecclesiology up to this point we will now turn our attention to the Pentecostal church. Effectively growing out from the Holiness Movement in America in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, modern Pentecostalism has strong holiness roots and important ties to Wesleyan Methodism. [64] Moreover, given that Pentecostalism grew out from a Protestant renewal movement, it therefore has, as all protestant churches do, a common heritage with the Roman Catholic Church.

The Pentecostal point of departure from the Holiness Movement in America is generally considered to have occurred on the first of January 1901 when Agnes Ozman was baptised in the Spirit under the ministry of Charles Fox Parham. [65] The movement grew rapidly in the early years aided by the success of the Los Angeles ‘Azusa Street’ revival, a ministry headed up by William J. Seymour. [66] The Azusa Street mission drew thousands from all over the world [67] and was characterised not only by various physical manifestations of the Spirit but also by a significant "absence of racial discrimination." [68] Notably, these events marked "a new and important chapter in the history of Christianity." [69] Indeed, since that time the Pentecostal movement has proved to be "one of the fastest growing Christian communities in the late twentieth century," [70] with Walter Hollenweger pointing out that the movement’s "growth from zero to 400 million in ninety years is unprecedented in the whole of church history." [71]

Yet, with Pentecostal communities emerging across the globe, arising within a plethora of differing contexts, the Pentecostal movement certainly did not develop as a coherent whole. Moreover, the resultant diversity of the movement has meant that attempts to categorise and define Pentecostalism have been quite complex. [72] Indeed, one cannot speak of an overriding Pentecostal ecclesiology as such; rather, one must address an assortment of ecclesiologies, trends, patterns in church structuring and dominant themes regarding the nature and mission of the church. [73] The difficulty in ascertaining the basic ecclesiological views of various Pentecostal communities is further exacerbated by the fact that Pentecostal energies are typically directed towards pragmatic ventures rather than reflective ones. [74] Having noted this patent diversity, then, we will thus narrow our focus for the purposes of this paper to consider Pentecostal ecclesiology as it has developed in the Western world, all the while bearing in mind that "any kind of classifications are at best generalizations." [75]

In the early years following the Azusa Street revival there was a sense that the Pentecostal movement would be a great unifier in the wider Christian community. [76] Yet, as with many ‘grassroots’ movements, Pentecostalism very quickly split off into various denominations and took on the racial separatism characteristic of its time. [77] This detachment was not only from one another but also from more mainstream Christian traditions. [78] Various factors contributed to this separation, not the least of which was the socio-economic disparity between the typical Pentecostal congregations and those of older, more established churches. [79] Amongst the earliest Pentecostal denominations was the Assemblies of God in America. Established in 1914, it adopted an essentially democratic style of church governance, characteristic of nineteenth century Protestantism in America. [80] Other key denominations included the Pentecostal Holiness Church and the Church of God in Christ. [81] Yet, as time went on the number of denominations increased, not only in the United States, but all over the globe. [82]

Nevertheless, even as more denominations came into being, their comparative ecclesiologies were not entirely dissimilar. [83] By and large the Pentecostal church in the West affirmed free–church, congregational type structures over hierarchical ones, preferring to view the church as a fellowship of believers rather than an institution. [84] Further, whilst Presbyterian and Episcopalian structures were also adopted, such approaches were typically accompanied by a strong affirmation of the priesthood of all believers. [85] For most Pentecostal churches their ecclesiology was informed by a strong "restorationist desire" to return to "apostolic times." [86] Along with this restorationist disposition Pentecostals generally drew from the various images of the church found throughout the New Testament scriptures such as the ‘body of Christ’ and the ‘temple of the Spirit.’ [87] In relying on these metaphors, the focus, even up until the present day, has been almost exclusively on the local church, with little to no consideration of the church universal. [88] Some have argued that this local church bias has been further encouraged by the pluralistic orientation of Western society with its incessant desire for independence and, while this may well be the case, a strong pneumatological orientation has undoubtedly fuelled this disposition as well. [89] This pneumatological approach favours seeing the church as a charismatic communion of persons, much akin to the notion of koinonia so prominent today. [90] For Pentecostals, each one in the charismatic community is gifted by the Spirit and called to participate in service of the other. [91] Thus, Pentecostals affirm "the active participation of the whole assembly of God’s people in acts of worship." [92] Moreover, given that no individual believer is endowed with all the gifts of the Spirit, "the fullness of God can only be experienced in solidarity." [93]

The Pentecostal disposition towards a charismatically oriented ecclesiology certainly has its benefits and, yet, it is also important to mention the difficulties associated with an exclusively charismatic approach. As Yves Congar notes, Pentecostals can tend to adopt "an unhealthy opposition between ‘charism’ and ‘institution.’" [94] Moreover, Simon Chan contends that this charismatic approach tends to be sociological in orientation and has led Pentecostals to conclude that the church is formed as each Spirit–filled believer voluntarily participates in the community, rather than the church being formed through the work of the Spirit gathering believers together. [95] Chan goes on to say, that historically speaking, such a sociological/voluntaristic position has contributed to ‘frequent fragmentation’ in the church. [96] All of this is not to suggest that Pentecostals should capitulate to hierarchicalism, ignoring their democratic and egalitarian heritage. Rather, it is to note that a charismatic ecclesiology should not be the sole focus, such that it excludes any notion of leadership and institution within the body of Christ.

With these things in mind, it is intriguing to observe the modern shift in some Pentecostal denominations towards more centralised governance and hierarchical configurations, seeing a number of Pentecostal churches throughout the United States and Australia replace congregational structures with Presbyterian type elderships. In some cases this has meant that the senior pastor has been given ultimate decision–making capacity. [97] One of the key factors in this development has been the so–called ‘Apostolic Revolution,’ advocated by proponents such as Peter Wagner. [98] Notably this transition has not been universally praised within the movement, with certain groups, such as the Assemblies of God in America (AGUSA), consciously setting themselves up against such anti–democratic approaches. For those who have jumped on the apostolic bandwagon there is certainly need for greater reflection, as it can end up devaluing the role of the priesthood of all believers [99] and, in some cases, can allow pastors "a kind of authority that rises above human criticism." [100] Thus, James Hernando argues, when Pentecostals look to the first apostles and particularly to the apostle Paul as role models, they must recognise that these men and women exercised leadership within the context of accountability to the other. [101] Finally, whilst leadership is certainly essential in the modern Pentecostal church, pastors must exercise their responsibilities within the context of community and the priesthood of all believers must be allowed a voice. [102]

Ecclesial Differences

Having outlined the respective ecclesiologies of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal traditions, we will now move towards a comparative analysis to determine the potential for greater ecumenical cooperation between these two communities. As Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen notes "ecclesiology determines one’s view of ecumenism: what one believes about the church and its ecclesiality carries over into one’s approach to the challenge of unity." [103]

From the above delineation what becomes clear is that the respective ecclesiologies of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pentecostal movement are decidedly different in orientation. That is to say, Roman Catholics have traditionally developed their ecclesiology ‘from above,’ placing emphasis on the institutional and universal church, while Pentecostal ecclesiology has been developed ‘from below,’ leading to an emphasis on the local community of believers in fellowship.

In line with their effectively ascending ecclesiology, or ‘grass roots’ orientation, has been the noted voluntarism within the Pentecostal movement. Indeed, the Pentecostal view considers the church to be formed through the voluntary participation of believers gathering together in Christ’s name. [104] Catholics, on the other hand, focus on the work of the Spirit in constituting the church in and through the various sacraments. [105] In fact, as we noted earlier, the church itself is understood as a sacrament – "the universal sacrament of salvation." [106] This sacramental orientation, however, is completely foreign to Pentecostals. As Kärkkäinen points out, "while all Pentecostals do sacraments, their theology is not sacramental." [107] More importantly, Pentecostals, like Protestants in general, would by no means attribute a salvific role to the church as Roman Catholics do. For Pentecostals, justification is by faith alone. [108]

Further influenced by their Protestant heritage, Pentecostals have been avid proponents of the ‘priesthood of all believers’. Moreover, for them, Christ alone is our Great High Priest and mediator, through whom we approach the Father. [109] In this matter there is an obvious divergence with Roman Catholicism. For Catholics, Christ is seen as mediator and, yet, the clergy are also thought to play a part in this mediatory role. [110] Hence, in Catholic circles, there is a clear distinction between priesthood and laity. This distinction has contributed to the aforementioned Catholic hesitation in using word ‘ministry’ in relation to the baptised. [111] Needless to say, Pentecostals have not experienced such difficulties.

Along with these differing ideas concerning the notion of priesthood, Roman Catholics and Pentecostals have also held alternate views on apostolicity and ordination. For Pentecostals, the church as ‘apostolic’ is typically understood in terms of faithfulness to the teachings of the early church apostles. [112] For Roman Catholics, however, while they would agree that the church should remain faithful to the apostles’ teaching, [113] the traditional emphasis has been on apostolic succession. [114] Still today Catholics contend that "ordination in the episcopal succession [is] necessary for valid ministry and the full reality of the eucharistic mystery." [115] Moreover, the process of ordination itself is also different. Whereas Roman Catholics understand it as a sacrament which confers the spiritual giftings necessary to fulfil the pastoral mandate, [116] Pentecostals understand ordination more as a public recognition of the spiritual gifts already at work in the individual. [117]

Finally, when it comes to ecclesial structure, the Roman Catholic Church is undoubtedly hierarchical in form, whereas Pentecostal churches have, for the most part, tended to adopt more democratic configurations. Having said this, we did note the Catholic introduction of the concept of collegiality with the second Vatican council, in an effort to temper papal hegemony. Moreover, in the late twentieth century, certain pockets within the Pentecostal movement shied away from congregationalism, adopting more centralised forms of governance. Interestingly, these changes have meant that Pentecostals and Roman Catholics have, structurally speaking, been moving closer together. The question now becomes, what does all this mean for the relationship between the two churches?

Towards Greater Ecumenical Cooperation

In the preceding section our focus was mainly on the differences between Roman Catholic and Pentecostal ecclesiologies. Yet, it is interesting to note, that out from the official Roman Catholic/Pentecostal dialogues a surprising level of agreement has been reached. [118] In fact, during the fourth quinquennium series of these dialogues both parties concluded that there was more uniting them than there was dividing them. [119] In light of this, let us move on to consider the similarities between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals with the view to determine how they might continue to move forward towards greater ecumenical collaboration.

Firstly, for both communities, the unity of the church is framed by their understanding of koinonia and, although this notion is understood in different ways, it is able to function as a starting point for dialogue. In fact, koinonia was focus of the third phase of the official Roman Catholic/Pentecostal dialogues (1985–1989). Stemming from this particular encounter, Pentecostals and Roman Catholics were able to identify various points of agreement with one another, including the conviction that the most profound understanding of koinonia is located in the believer’s participation in the Trinitarian life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [120] Further, it was recognised that ‘mutuality’ is a foundational prerequisite for true koinonia. Having noted this, however, Catholic participants were able to concede a veritable lack of such mutuality in their own fellowship, as evidenced by the "difficulties surrounding lay participation in decision making processes and the lack of sufficient involvement of women in leadership." [121]

Secondly, as we saw earlier, Catholics consider the unity between each local church to be established through the sacraments they hold in common, particularly through their common baptism and the common Eucharist. [122] And, while Pentecostals have never developed a strong theology of the sacraments, there are those who would argue that there is sufficient basis within the Pentecostal worldview to do so. [123] Importantly, if Pentecostals are able to develop an understanding of how the sacraments of baptism and communion relate to church unity, this could serve as the much–needed basis for developing a Pentecostal ecclesiology that extends beyond the local community. For instance, if Pentecostals are able to re–frame their theology of baptism, beyond an individual’s public confession of faith, recognising it as initiation into the one body of Christ, [124] then, this could provide the necessary starting point. With baptism understood as initiation into Christ’s body, then, by virtue of their same baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Pentecostals would be able to locate their point of connection with other local churches, including those beyond their own denomination, and potentially those beyond their own tradition, including Roman Catholics. In regards to this latter possibility, whilst discrepancies would no doubt arise, particularly with issues pertaining to the validity of infant baptism, there would at least be a basis for further dialogue. [125]

Thirdly, we have seen that the Pentecostal focus has generally been toward a charismatically oriented ecclesiology, rather than the institutional/hierarchical approach. Yet importantly, the Pentecostal participants in the third phase of Roman Catholic/Pentecostal dialogues were "ready to go beyond the all–too–simplified dichotomy of ‘charisma versus institution’ to a more fruitful notion of church which is both Charismatic and has structure." [126] Clearly such openness holds the potential for greater consensus and ecumenical cooperation. In this same vain we could argue that increased reflection on the part of Roman Catholics in relation to a charismatically oriented ecclesiology would also contribute towards greater unity.

In fact, the groundwork for such a Catholic charismatic ecclesiology has already been laid through the efforts of Möhler and Congar and, more recently, in the somewhat controversial work of Catholic theologian, Hans Küng. In his 1968 text, simply entitled The Church, Küng presents a clearly pneumatological ecclesiology, noting that the Spirit is essential to the creation of koinonia. [127] Further, in an argument reminiscent of Pentecostal scholarship, Küng points out that every believer is gifted by the Spirit and has a role to fulfil in service of the community. [128] Continuing on this trajectory, Küng ultimately affirms the manifestly Protestant notion of the priesthood of all believers and encourages greater consideration of lay ministry. [129] Importantly, Küng’s ecclesiology does not negate the need for leadership in the church. Whilst Küng argues that there should not be an unquestionable "ruling class" with absolute authority, he still maintains that we need to recognise different roles and ministries in the body. [130] For him, however, the role of leadership is primarily one of service, [131] a conclusion which ultimately leads him to question papal supremacy. [132] Not surprisingly, this was a key point of contention with the Vatican and ultimately led to Küng’s dismissal as a Catholic teacher in 1979. [133] Nevertheless, just sixteen years after his dismissal, it is interesting to read Pope John Paul II’s 1995 Encyclical Ut unum sint, ‘That All May Be One.’ John R. Quinn notes that in this document, "for the first time it is the Pope himself who raises and legitimises the question of reform and change in the papal office." [134] Most significantly, he redefines his role as a ‘ministry in the service of unity,’ and invites Christians from all traditions to assist in envisaging "a new kind of papacy." [135]

Finally, then, if such openness to change in regards to the papal office is coupled with a charismatic ecclesiology such as Küng’s, the Catholic Church could go a long way towards promoting ecumenical unity with Pentecostals. What is more, Pentecostal participation in reflections on the papal office, along with greater consideration of Christian leadership in general, may help to counter–balance the tendency towards more centralised power structures that have been developing in some pockets of the movement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, having surveyed the ecclesiologies of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal traditions, we have seen that the Roman Catholic Church has historically been characterised by hierarchical, institutional type structures, with an overriding emphasis on the universal church. Pentecostalism, on the other, hand has shied away from institutional structures and has focused predominantly on the fellowship of the local community of believers. Having said this, we also noted more recent changes in both communities that have resulted in a movement towards the ecclesial emphasis of the other. Nonetheless, having noted these changes, we still acknowledged significant points of departure between the two churches.

What we suggested, then, was a potential way forward. Firstly, it was recommended that Roman Catholics continue to develop their understanding of a charismatic ecclesiology, implementing these ideas in local parishes, to contribute towards greater mutuality between clergy and laity. Further, a reframing of the role of the papacy was suggested, as Pope John Paul II himself proposed in Ut unum sint. Such endeavours would arguably contribute to greater ecumenical cooperation with Pentecostal churches.

On the other hand, we also considered the possibility of Pentecostals developing their understanding of the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of baptism, reframing it as initiation into the body of Christ, rather than simply approaching it as a public confession of an individual’s faith. In doing so, it was proposed that Pentecostal communities would have a point of reference through which they could conceive of how they are related to other churches, thus contributing to a Pentecostal ecclesiology of the universal church. Further, given the sacramental orientation of Catholics, it was argued this could also function as a point of dialogue for future ecumenical encounters between Pentecostals and Roman Catholics. In the final analysis, then, it can be argued that the ecumenical future between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals remains open and, through the guidance of the Spirit, the hope is that we might pave a way forward toward greater unity.

Notes:

[1] Matthew 16:18

[2] Hans Küng, The Church, (London: Burns and Oates, 1968), 6.

[3] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005), 150.

[4] Hans Küng, The Church, 10. Also see Joseph Komonchak, "The Church Universal as the Communion of Local Churches," in Giuseppe Alberigo and Gustavo Gutierrez (eds.), Where Does the Church Stand?, (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1981), 30–35.

[5] Edgar R. Lee (ed.), He Gave Apostles: Apostolic Ministry in the 21st Century, (Springfield: Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, 2005), 7.

[6] James D. Dunn as cited in Joseph A. Burgess (ed.), In Search of Christian Unity: Basic Consensus / Basic Differences, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 212.

[7] Geoffrey Wainwright, "The One Hope of Your Calling?: The Ecumenical and Pentecostal Movements after a Century," Pneuma 25, no. 2 (2003): 11.

"The unity of the Church could be characterized by St. Paul as the unity of one body with many members. Into the one body of Christ, the members were baptized by the one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12–13), and the unity of the body was maintained by the partaking of the many in the one bread of communion (1 Cor. 10:16–17)."

[8] Walter Kasper, Leadership in the Church, (New York: Herder & Herder, 2003) , 177. Kasper’s sentence is in the past tense.

[9] Hans Küng, The Church, 15.

[10] Karl Rahner (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 32. This is not to idealise this situation, but rather to identify it in contrast to a more structured model. Rahner notes that these communities were certainly not without their problems.

[11] Erwin Fahlbusch et al., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 502.

[12] Erwin Fahlbusch et al., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 502.

[13] Erwin Fahlbusch et al., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 277. In fact, such was the hegemonic papal rule that in the early fourteenth century Boniface VIII put forward a "quasi dogma" in his work Unum sanctam (1302) asserting that obedience to the Bishop of Rome was a requirement for salvation.

[14] Erwin Fahlbusch et al., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 278.

[15] Derek Holmes and Bernard Bickers (eds.), A Short History of the Catholic Church, (Kent: Burns & Oates, 1983), 136–137.

[16] Edict of Worms as cited in Derek Holmes and Bernard Bickers (eds.), A Short History of the Catholic Church, 137.

[17] Derek Holmes and Bernard Bickers (eds.), A Short History of the Catholic Church, 160.

[18] Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 190–191.

[19] Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 128.

[20] Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, 128.

[21] Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, 132.

[22] Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present, 189.

[23] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 15, 24. Also see Joseph A. Komonchak, "The Significance of Vatican Council II for Ecclesiology," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 72.

[24] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 27.

[25] Susan K. Wood, "The Church as Communion," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 159.

[26] Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, (Mahwah: Paulist Press), 1998, 57. Also see Joseph A. Komonchak, "The Significance of Vatican Council II for Ecclesiology," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., 71. Also see Michael A. Fahey, "Ecumenical Ecclesiology," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 116.

[27] Susan K. Wood, "The Church as Communion," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., 159. Also see Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 27. This distance between clergy and laity is made clear by Pope Pius X in his 1906 encyclical where he writes, "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, Pastors and the flock… So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rest the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to all themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors."

[28] Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology, (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2006), 31–32. As Christopher Ruddy notes, in Möhler’s text, Unity in the Church, "the seeds of a renewed theology of the local church in Catholicism were sown."

[29] Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology, 33.

[30] Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology, 33.

[31] Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology, 34. Möhler suggests that, "the church’s unity is… a unity in diversity, which embraces legitimate and productive differences. Such difference is inscribed in the very constitution of the church through the action of the Holy Spirit, who distributes different charisms to the various members of the Body. The Spirit engenders communion, not uniformity."

[32] Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology, 35.

[33] Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology, 36.

[34] Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 92.

[35] Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief, 114.

[36] Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief, 115. "Instead of a pyramidal view of the Church, involving a quasi monopoly of the ministerial priesthood within the local communities, one sees the Church, the Body of Christ, building herself up through multiple contributions. All have received the Spirit or can receive him: pneumatology is an essential ecclesiological datum."

[37] Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief, 81.

[38] Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief, 84.

[39] Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief, 96.

[40] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 28.

[41] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 28. Also see Gabriel Flynn, Yves Congar’s Vision of the Church in a World of Unbelief, 123–124.

[42] Joseph A. Komonchak, "The Significance of Vatican Council II for Ecclesiology," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., 73.

[43] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 18–19.

[44] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 19, 28. Also see Cecil M. Robeck Jr., "Pentecostals and Ecumenism in a Pluralistic World," in Murray Dempster, Byron Klaus and Douglas Petersen (eds.), The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, (Carlisle: Regnum, 1999), 349.

[45] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 20.

[46] Susan K. Wood, Sacramental Orders, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 19.

[47] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 21.

[48] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 23.

[49] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 27. Also see Susan K. Wood, "Issues and Perspectives in Roman Catholic Ecclesiology Today," in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), The Ecumenical Future: Background Papers for ‘In One Body through the Cross– The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity,’ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 126–127. "The Council developed a theology of the episcopacy and the local church and situated the governance of the church within the collegiality of the communion of the bishops with each other and the Bishop of Rome. It taught that the bishops possess the fullness of the sacrament of Orders and that their power is ‘proper, ordinary, and immediate.’"

[50] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 23.

[51] Hermann J. Pottmeyer, "Papacy in Communion: Perspectives on Vatican II — 1998," in Gerard Mannion et al., Readings in Church Authority: Gifts and Challenges for Contemporary Catholicism, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 256.

[52] Hermann J. Pottmeyer, "Papacy in Communion: Perspectives on Vatican II — 1998," in Gerard Mannion et al., Readings in Church Authority: Gifts and Challenges for Contemporary Catholicism, 257.

[53] Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology, 51–53. He considers the discussion relating to the local church to be a very minor aspect of the work, which remains to be fully developed. Ruddy goes on to conclude, that if the Catholic church fails to develop this aspect, it will find itself becoming "increasingly sclerotic and impotent, unable to spread the riches of the Gospel to those who stand in need of them."

[54] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 29. Also see Susan K. Wood, "Issues and Perspectives in Roman Catholic Ecclesiology Today," in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), The Ecumenical Future: Background Papers for ‘In One Body through the Cross– The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity,’ 127. Also see Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 70. "Development of the role of all the baptized in the theology of communion is particularly important for several reasons: the seriousness with which the laity are engaged in the governance of some of the Reformation churches, based on the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers; the role of the laity in ecumenical leadership as the proportion of ordained decline and some lay persons have more training and calling to this ministry; and the realization of the gifts of the laity in the world as outlined by the Council."

[55] Susan K. Wood, "Issues and Perspectives in Roman Catholic Ecclesiology Today," in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), The Ecumenical Future: Background Papers for ‘In One Body through the Cross– The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity,’ 127. Also see Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 58.

[56] Joseph A. Komonchak, "The Significance of Vatican Council II for Ecclesiology," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., 82.

[57] Susan K. Wood, "Issues and Perspectives in Roman Catholic Ecclesiology Today," in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), The Ecumenical Future: Background Papers for ‘In One Body through the Cross– The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity,’ 127. Also see Joseph A. Komonchak, "The Significance of Vatican Council II for Ecclesiology," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., 82. The importance of this image is affirmed by Henri de Lubac, who points out, that "apart from the individual local churches, the universal Church is only an ens rationis, an abstraction."

[58] Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 60.

[59] Susan K. Wood, "Issues and Perspectives in Roman Catholic Ecclesiology Today," in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), The Ecumenical Future: Background Papers for ‘In One Body through the Cross– The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity,’ 129. Susan K. Wood notes that, "one of the most important contributions of systematic theology in Roman Catholic ecclesiology is the concept of the sacramentality of the church." She goes on to reveal that "the sacramentality of the church also provides a theological foundation for a participatory church within Roman Catholicism." This focus on sacramentality is evident in Lumen Gentium.

[60] Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 60.

[61] Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 63.

[62] Susan K. Wood, "The Church as Communion," in Peter C. Phan (ed.), The Gift of the Church: A Textbook in Honour of Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., 165.

[63] Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 61, 63.

[64] Vinson Synan, The Holiness–Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 66.

[65] Vinson Synan, The Holiness–Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 90–91. Also see Douglas G. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 25.

[66] William W. Menzies, "The Challenges of Organization and Spirit in the Implementation of Theology in the Assemblies of God," in David A. Roozen and James R. Nieman (eds.), Church, Identity and Change: Theology and Denominational Structures in Unsettled Times, ( Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2005), 97. Also see Vinson Synan, The Holiness–Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 93.

[67] Douglas G. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement, 57.

[68] Vinson Synan, The Holiness–Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 98–99, 170. Also see Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 183. At Azusa Street, "Blacks and whites were found worshipping and singing together, tarrying before the Lord and praying for one another, ‘mingling and even touching in the mission.’ One participant recollected that at Azusa Street ‘the "colour line" was washed away in the blood’."

[69] Vinson Synan, The Holiness–Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 106. Also see Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002), 68.

[70] Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 24. Also see Douglas G. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement, ix. Also see William W. Menzies, "The Challenges of Organization and Spirit in the Implementation of Theology in the Assemblies of God," in David A. Roozen and James R. Nieman (eds.), Church, Identity and Change: Theology and Denominational Structures in Unsettled Times, 98. Also see Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, 69. "During the twentieth century, the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement became the largest single category in Protestantism."

[71] Walter J. Hollenweger as cited in Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, 69. Also see Douglas G. Jacobsen, Thinking in the Spirit: Theologies of the Early Pentecostal Movement, ix.

[72] André Droogers, "Pentecostalism," in Julio de Santa Ana (ed.), Religions Today: Their Challenge to the Ecumenical Movement, (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2005), 259.

[73] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 2. Also see Shane Clifton , "An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia," phD Thesis, 2005, 45.

[74] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 2. Also see Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, 123. Indeed, there has been little sustained ecclesiological deliberation from participants in the movement. Also see André Droogers, "Pentecostalism," in Julio de Santa Ana (ed.), Religions Today: Their Challenge to the Ecumenical Movement, 258. Moreover, identifying an expressly Pentecostal ecclesiology has become even more difficult in some regions, with the lines between Pentecostalism and evangelicalism for instance, becoming appreciably blurred in the United States.

[75] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, 69.

[76] Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 249. As William Seymour suggested in the inaugural issue of Apostolic Faith, proposing that the Pentecostal movement "stood for ‘Christian unity everywhere.’" Also see Cecil M. Robeck Jr., "Pentecostals and Ecumenism in a Pluralistic World," in Murray Dempster, Byron Klaus and Douglas Petersen (eds.), The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, 342.

[77] Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, 249. Also see Margaret Poloma, "Charisma and Structure in the Assemblies of God: Revisiting O’Dea’s Five Dilemmas," in David A. Roozen and James R. Nieman (eds.), Church, Identity and Change: Theology and Denominational Structures in Unsettled Times, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 80. Also see Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, 180.

[78] Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, 249.

[79] Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, 249.

[80] Jacob Neusner, World Religions in America : An Introduction , (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 85.

[81] Vinson Synan, The Holiness–Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 155.

[82] Cecil M. Robeck Jr., "Pentecostals and Ecumenism in a Pluralistic World," in Murray Dempster, Byron Klaus and Douglas Petersen (eds.), The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, 340–341. As such Cecil Robeck remarks, "the Pentecostal movement has managed, in just less than a century, to contribute to nearly as many different divisions as it took the rest of the church a millennium to produce."

[83] Shane Clifton, "An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia," phD Thesis, 2005, 46.

[84] Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, 123.

[85] Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, 123. Also see Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 2. Also see "Perspectives on Koinonia: Report from the Third Quinquennium of the Dialogue between the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders — 1985–1989," point 84, Online at

http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/e_pe-rc-info.html ,

[accessed January 2008]

[86] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, 73. Also see Edgar R. Lee (ed.), He Gave Apostles: Apostolic Ministry in the 21st Century, 7.

[87] Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, 123. Also see Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 2.

[88] Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, 143. Also see William W. Menzies, "The Challenges of Organization and Spirit in the Implementation of Theology in the Assemblies of God," in David A. Roozen and James R. Nieman (eds.), Church, Identity and Change: Theology and Denominational Structures in Unsettled Times, 100. Also see Walter Kasper, That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity, (London: Burns and Oates, 2004), 25. Walter Kasper notes that whilst Pentecostals are "serious Christians… they lack a developed ecclesiology, especially a universal ecclesiology which transcends their respective communities."

[89] Jeffrey Gros, Eamon McManus and Ann Riggs (eds.), Introduction to Ecumenism, 24–25.

[90] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 1–4. Interestingly, a large part of this viewpoint’s appeal in Pentecostal circles has been its strong biblical footing, and in particular its Lukan basis. Indeed, the notion of church as a charismatic communion of persons is reminiscent of the fellowship that characterised the early church depicted in the book of Acts, a community based on the contribution of every member sharing both spiritually and materially with one another.

[91] Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology, 143.

[92] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, 77. Indeed "The release of the laity in ministry in the Church and world, and their active role in all parts of church life" is essential.

[93] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 9.

[94] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, 77.

[95] Simon Chan, " Mother Church : Toward a Pentecostal Ecclesiology," Pneuma 22, no. 2 (2000): 177. Also see Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 8. Notably, in this understanding "the maintenance of koinonia tends to be primarily a human effort."

[96] Simon Chan, "Mother Church: Toward a Pentecostal Ecclesiology," Pneuma 22, no. 2 (2000): 181.

[97] Shane Clifton, "An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia," phD Thesis, 2005, 217–218.

[98] William W. Menzies as cited in Edgar R. Lee (ed.), He Gave Apostles: Apostolic Ministry in the 21st Century, 41. Wagner writes, "Until recently the central focus of authority in our churches existed in groups, not in individuals. Trust has been placed in sessions, consistories, nominating committees, deacon boards, trustees, congregations, presbyteries, associations, general councils, cabinets, conventions, synods and the like. Rarely has trust for ultimate decision making been given to individuals such as pastors or apostles. This, however, is changing in the New Apostolic Reformation."

[99] Shane Clifton, "An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia," phD Thesis, 2005, 233.

[100] William W. Menzies as cited in Edgar R. Lee (ed.), He Gave Apostles: Apostolic Ministry in the 21st Century, 43.

[101] James D. Hernando as cited in Edgar R. Lee (ed.), He Gave Apostles: Apostolic Ministry in the 21st Century, 100.

[102] Shane Clifton, "An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia," phD Thesis, 2005, 240, 249.

[103] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives, 81.

[104] Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 145.

[105] Susan K. Wood, Sacramental Orders, 22.

[106] Susan K. Wood, Sacramental Orders, 19.

[107] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Church as the Fellowship of Persons: An Emerging Pentecostal Ecclesiology of Koinonia," PentecoStudies 6, no. 1 (2007): 6.

[108] Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, 55.

[109] Erwin Fahlbusch et al., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 350.

[110] Susan K. Wood, Sacramental Orders, 90.

[111] Thomas P. Rausch, Towards a Truly Catholic Church: An Ecclesiology for the Third Millennium, 28.

[112] Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, "Pentecostalism and the Claim for Apostolicity: An Essay in Ecumenical Ecclesiology," Evangelical Review of Theology 25, no. 4 (2001): 324.

[113] "Final Report: Dialogue Between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and Some Classical Pentecostals — 1977–1982," point 88, Online at