Terrence R. Crowe, Pentecostal Unity: Recurring Frustration and Enduring Hopes (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1993), xiv +282 Pps.
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the entrance of the Holy Spirit’s reconciling presence among the varieties of Christian faith and practice through the baptism of the Spirit. The second decade saw the increasing calls for unity around a common mission. But the P. church remained outside the explicit ecumenical movement until the middle of the century when it entered the NAE (viii). This book is an exploration of whether historically conditioned, culturally diverse, and theologically distinct catholic and P. bodies can unite in a common witness (?).The author asserts that Spirit baptism provides special grace to unite disparate P. individuals together in common witness, as well as other groups of Christian denominations together. He examines the origin and development of two very different “Pentecostal” groups: the charismatic catholics and the AG, trying to recover the original charisms of the movement and noting where they have changed or modified over time. In so doing, he is responding to the call of the Second Vaticn Council. He also compares the different meanings of Spirit-baptism amongst members of the AG. He attempts to then construct a common Pentecostal witness in response to his findings.
The author claims that in the move from being a Spirit-led movement to becoming a religious organization, the AG lost its zeal for Pentecostal unity (1). The catholic charismatic renewal is trace to Duquesne University in 1966. By mid-February 1967, approximately 30 students from the Chi Ro Society had read The Cross and the Switchblade by David Wilkerson, and revival had broken out at the university. Ralph Martin noted in 1974 that what was happening to the P. in that era was sort of an ecumenical shockwave, especially in acknowledgement of what God was doing in and through the Catholic church renewal. Crowe states that the charismatic renewal flourishes best where the freedom of the Spirit is trusted and emphasized, which does not preclude control per se, but does indicate that there should be no more control than as needed for good order (108). Originally, Catholics stood shoulder to shoulder with P. to declare their unity through Spirit-baptism, but then lost, and Crowe says they need to get it back (108). After all, all people in the ‘army’ do not need to wear the same uniform (109). Gordon Fee, in “The Issue of Seperability and Subsequence” (Pneuma 7, 1985), argues that for the early Christians the Spirit was the chief element of their new existence, and was the instrument through which they were endued with power. Hollenweger, in “The Pentecostal Movement and the World Council of Churches” (1966), argues that P’s in the early years saw themselves as a renewal movement within the traditional churches. Prompted by mainline rejection, however, the P.’s started to see themselves as prophets against compromised churches. Thus, the original vision of Pentecostalism as a divine gift for Christian unity was subverted (181). Moreover, with the entrance into the NAe in the 1940’s, P.’s further lost their early sense of ecumenism.
Crowe claims that P.s’ can begin to make a common witness within their distinct traditions by recognizing, appropriating, and then sharing together the unique charisms of their varied traditions (196). For P.’s to succeed in uniting people together in a common witness today, Crowe asserts that they must reclaim their original charism of unity and their desire for it, requiring in the first place a repentance for past divisions (201).
Catholics, Crowe notes, have always been more amenable to ecumenism than the Pentecostals (55).