EPTA BULLET1 N

BULLETIN OF THE

EUROPEAN P E N T E C O S T A L

T H E O L O G I CAL

A S S O C I A T I O N

V O L , V I I N O " 1

1988

I , ARTICLES

B r i t i s h Assemblies of God i n the 1930s

by W i l l i a m K. KAY

I n t h i s artic1.e I propose t o look b r i e f l y a t t he soc i a l and economic background which e x i s t e d i n B r i t a i n i n the 1930s and then t o d i s c u s s t h e r e a c t i o n o f B r i t i s h Assemblies of God t o t he s i t u a t i o n which faced it. The first end note g ives f u r t h e r in format ion on t h e raw mater ial behind t h i s a r t i c l e . A s a b a s i c p r e p a r a t i o n f o r research I read through a l l t h e backnumbers o f Redemption Tidings fo r t he 1930s. What contemporary accounts f a i l t o h ighl ight are: (a) "behind t h e scenes" q u a r r e l s between leading p e r s o n a l i t i e s and ( b ) t h e in f luence o f t h e s o c i a l and economic s i t u a t i o n on t h e development of B r i t i s h Pentecostalism. This a r t i c l e a t tempts t o r e c t i f y t h e s e omissions.

Introduct ion

John Nelson PARR c a l l e d toge the r t h e l e a d e r s who formed t h e o r i g i n a l members o f Assemblies of God i n 1923. PARR combined a pass iona te e v a n g e l i s t i c i n t e n s i t y w i th a c l ea r organiza t iona l a b i l i t y , H i s v i s i o n of AoG was o f a s e r i e s o f self-governing congregat ions l i n k e d by a common doctrinal. pos i t i on and d iv ided i n t o d i s t r i c t s l oose ly supervised by a l o c a l presbytery . Th i s v i s i o n simply developed, bu t it has never a l t e r e d fundamentally.

Assemblies o f God i n B r i t a i n came i n t o be ing i n 1924 and by 1929 numbered about 200 assembl ies , t h e l a r g e s t proportion of which (31%) was concen t r a t ed i n Wales. ( 1 ) Estimates of t h e number o f people who were members of AoG assemblies i n 1929 cannot c l a im g r e a t

accuracy, b u t t hese t h r e e ind ica to r s ( a ) t ho c i r c u l a t i o n of t h e magazine Redemption Tidings, ( b ) the probable average s i z e of each assembly and ( c ) the at tendance a t t h e b i g London conventions, a l l po in t t o roughly the same s o r t of f i g u r e : about 10,000 people. The rap id growth i n

.* 1925-1930 was spearheaded by Stephen JEFFREYS' r e v i v a l

campaigns which r e s u l t e d i n t h e formation of s eve ra l new congrega t ions each year . JEFFREYS s a i l e d t o t h e U S A i n t h e Bummer of 1928 and no one of comparable matur i ty o r s t a t u r e was ever found t o rep lace him.

S o c i a l and Economic Conditions

Although B r i t i s h soc i e ty was s t r a t i f i e d i n t he 1930s, and although wealth was very unequally d i s t r i - bu ted , s e v e r a l changes took p lace which l a i d t he foundat ions f o r t h e modern e ra . Cont racept ion , (2) broad- c a s t i n g , cinemas and bui ld ing s o c i e t i e s ( t h a t i s , c h a r i t a b l e i n s t i t u t i o n s which would lend money f o r the purchaaing o f houses a t r e l a t i v e l y low r a t e s of i n t e r e s t ) became f a i r l y common. Unemployment was chronic and severe and about a t h i r d of t h e population l i v e d on t h e border o f extreme poverty. ( 3 ) I n Wales and Scotland unemployment was wors t , b u t those who had a job aaw a gradual improve- ment i n t h e i r s tandard of l i v i n g a s r e a l wages rose by 11% between1929-1933 and by a f u r t h e r 5% up till 1937.(4)

P o l i t i c a l l y B r i t a i n avoided extreme so lu t ions . The Communist Pa r ty never t o t a l l e d more than 18,000 members and t h e r i g h t wing views of S i r Oswald MOSLEY were soon d i s c r e d i t e d . Tho t h r e a t of war from 1933 onwards l e d t o a r i s i n g p a c i f i s t movomont and, when war d id eventua l ly break o u t i n 1939, there were 59,000 conscient ious o b j e c t o r s .

I n t h e l a t e 1920s the Church of England engaged i n a long debate over t h e Prayer Book, a debate which was essentially i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e condit ion of t h e na t ion . Tho s t r u g g l e between anglo-catholic8 and modernists was l a r g e l y ignored by t h e man i n the a t r a e t and, though WI11J.am TEMPLE (who became Archbishop of Canterbury i n

1942) attempted t o i n j e c t some r e a l i t y i n t o t h e church ' s agenda, t he re was l i t t l e of s p i r i t u a l . b e n e f i t t o be de- r ived from t h e o v e r a l l programme of t h e l a r g e s t C h r i s t i a n body i n the count ry . (5) S p i r i t u a l i s m , i n c i d e n t a l l y , had increased a s a consequence of t h e bereavements of t he 1914-18 war and t h e Church o f England was f e e b l e i n i t s denunciation of such a c t i v i t y . ( 6 ) Evange l i ca l s were only a small proportion of a c t i v e members o f t h e Church of ~ n g l a n d . ( 7 )

Methodists and ~ a p t i s t s (8) began t o l o s e t h e i r raison dbi?tre. Methodism had o f f e red evening c l a s s e s and education f o r its people, b u t t h e same o p p o r t u n i t i e s could now be gained elsewhere, and t h e f a c t t h a t nonconformist scholars began t o be t r e a t e d wi th r e s p e c t by Anglicans made it l e s s important f o r nonconformists t o r e t a i n a separate i d e n t i t y .

It is aga ins t t h i s background of b i t t e r pove r ty f o r the unemployed, gradual ly improving l i v i n g s t a n d a r d s f o r those i n work, p r o l i f e r a t i n g en te r t a inmen t and a weakening of nonconformity, t h a t t h e l i f e o f t h e pente- cos ta l churches must be seen.

The most obvious d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e Elim and AoG Pentecostals l ay i n t h e i r mode o f church government. E l i m were much more c e n t r a l l y ogranized than AoG and t h i s had two r e s u l t s : f i r s t , t h e i r m i n i s t e r s were probably b e t t e r paid than AoG min i s t e r s because t h e i r s a l a r i e s were c e n t r a l l y f i xed ; and secondly, when a d i s p u t e a rose between George JEFFREYS and t h e E l i m headqua r t e r s around 1937/8, it sen t 'dhudders through t h e whole E l i m movement.

AoG had problems of its own i n 1934, however. There was disagreement between PARR and f e l low members o f t h e Executive Presbytery. In r e t r o s p e c t , t h e d i s p u t e seems unfortunate and avoidable , PARR had been e d i t o r of Redemption Tidings and had been voted an honorarium with which t o o f f s e t s e c r e t a r i a l c o s t s . PARR i n s i s t e d t h a t he be paid the money which was h i s due, b u t t h e o t h e r members of the Executive judged t h a t he was be ing mercenary, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t many minis te rs and miss ionar ies had t o l i v e on very low

incomes. The d i spu te revea ls t h e s t r e s s and s t r a i n under which many pen tecos t a l l eaders were l i v ing . Money was s h o r t and a t l e a s t two prominent Pentecos ta l s - Howard CARTER and Harold MORTON - had suf fered temporary nervous breakdowns.

However t h e d ispute a l s o br ings t h e opinions and p e r s o n a l i t y of Howard CARTER i n t o focus. CARTER had been p r e s e n t a t t h e inaugural meeting of AoG i n 1924 and he had been imprisoned during t h e 1914-18 war f o r con- s c i e n t i o u s ob jec t ion , He was the P r i n c i p a l of the Mampstead B ib le School and a man of s t rong cha rac t e r and conv ic t ions . Me was a l s o a bachelor and he bel ieved i n ' ' l i v i n g by %aith.I t On one l e v e l t h e execut ive P r e s b y t e r y ' s view o f PARRts a t t i t u d e t o money was simply a p e r s o n a l i t y c l a s h between CARTER and PARR. And, when PARR l e f t AoG, CARTER became t h e dominant f igure .

Undoubtedly CARTER was a man of f a i t h . He s e n t s t u d e n t s a t t h e Bib le School t o pas to r o r pioneer a l l over t h e country and it seems probable t h a t t h e money CARTER r a i s e d from s tudent f e e s was ploughed back i n t o t h e purchasing of bu i ld ings . Thus it i s probable t h a t CARTER bought bu i ld ings , t r a ined s tudents and then sen t s t u d e n t s t o begin churches i n t h e bui ld ings he had bought. No record of t h e f i n a n c i a l t r ansac t ions have surv ived however, and so we cannot be c e r t a i n t h a t t h i s i s how CARTER operated.

The absence of PARR from AoG weakened the movement evnngel.istical1.y a t a na t iona l l e v e l , and CARTER, r a t h e r s u p r i s i n g l y , t r a v e l l e d round t h e world by f a i t h between 1934-36 and was ou'l; of t h e country again towards the end o f t h e decade, CARTER'S absence depleted the teaching s t r e n g t h o f t h e Bib le School and l e f t t h e pioneering a c t i v i . t i e a o f i ts s tuden t s i n o the r l e s s capable hands f o r several. c r u c i a l years . The number of assemblies cont inued t o r i s c ao t h a t t h e r e were about 350 by 1940, and CAR1'ER1 s world-wide disseminat ion of t h e pentecos ta l message was by no means unnecessary or i n va in , but h i s

absence a t home was no t i ceab le . During t h e war yea r s , however, he was confined t o B r i t a i n and h i s p a s t o r a l ministry t o AoG as a whole was inva luab le .

CARTER was no empire-builder and t h e assemblies h i s students had begun and the b u i l d i n g s he had bought were a l l handed over t o Assemblies of Gad, a s was t h e Bible school i n 1.948, CARTER l i v e d by h i s p r i n c i p l e and t r ave l l ed l i g h t . PARR r e tu rned t o Assemblies o f God, but the p i t y i s t h a t he and CARTER never seem t o have been able t o work together harmoniously a f t e r 1934.

When we look a t t h e s o c i a l c a n d i t i o n s of t h e 1930s, it i s c l e a r t h a t n e i t h e r AoG nor E l i m made much a t tempt t o combat unemployment, nor d id they have acces s t o t he growing influence of broadcas t ing . The f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of both AoG and Elim improved throughout t h e 1930s, though i n d i v i d u d p a s t o r s were poor, and t o some e x t e n t , the drabness of l i f e i n t he a r e a s where pove r ty was worst helped Pentecostalism, because t h e assembl ies could o f f e r a br ight and l i v e l y a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e norm. Same o f t he choruses used i n worship, f o r example, were based on music h a l l tunes. In a cur ious way, t o o , t h e menace of the Soviet Union and t h e f e a r o f H l t l e r i s m were incent ives t o conversion, because they seemed more evidence t h a t the n igh t was coming and t h a t t h e r e t u r n of Chris t was near. Moreover, t h e r i s e o f pac i f i sm during the 'same period was a l s o b e n e f i c i a l because it made t h e AoG adherence t o consc ien t ious ob jec t ion l e s s unusual and more accceptable. F ina l ly , a s s e v e r a l men t e s t i f i e d , it was the lack of snobbery i n AoG which was s o appealing. ( 9 ) The Church o f England, w i th i ts eccle-

s i a s t i c a l fac t ions and i ts upper class a t t i t u d e s , seemed t o have nothing t o o f f e r ; Pentecos ta l i sm seemed t o have everything.

William K . KAY Mattersey Mall Doncaster D N l O 5HD England

Endnotes

( A ) The c l a s s i c work on P e n t e c o s t a l i s m i n B r i t a i n i s by Donald GEE. He p u b l i s h e d The P e n t e c o s t a l Movement i n December 1941. The book was p r i n t e d by t h e V i c t o r y P r e s s i n London and p u b l i s h e d by t h e A s s e m b l i e s o f God Bookroom, then s i t u a t e d i n Luton. Subsequen t ly t h i s book was expanded, though i t s e a r l y c h a p t e r s were a lmos t unchanged, and r o p u b l i s h e d i n 1961 under t h e t i t l e Wind and Flame, The p u b l i s h e r s were t h e Assembl i e s o f God P u b l i s h i n g House, which was t h e name given t o t h e s e c t i o n o f t h e Assembl ies o f God which d e a l t with t h e commiss ioning,

and p u b l i c a t i o n o f i t s p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l s , b o t h books and m a g a z i n e s .

GEE1s w r i t i n g abou t p e n t e c o s t a l h i s t o r y i s a lmos t u n p a r a l l e l e d i n t h e a e n s e t h a t GEE h i m s e l f was a p a r t i c i p a t o r i n t h e e v e n t s he d e s c r i b e d , He was a p r e a c h e r , t e a c h e r and e d i t o r , and, even from an e a r l y s t a g e , ho p o s s e s s e d a h i s t o r i c a l s e n s e which enab led him t o s e e t h e P e n t e c o s t a l r o v i v a l w i t h a g r e a t e r s e n s e of p r o p o r t i o n than h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . There a r e however, t h r e e shor tcomings i n G E E ' S work. First., and a p p r o p r i a t e l y , he was inodest about h i s own c o n t r i b u t i o n ; and t h i s means tha t . he was s imp ly unab le t o a s s e s s how much i n f l u e n c e h i s own example and h i s own balanced d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n added t o P e n t e c o s t a l i s m i n B r i t a i n and a c r o s s t h e world . Second ly , GEE f a i l e d t o g i v s an a c c o u n t o f h i s awn s o u r c e s and p r imary documonts. I t i s s imply i m p a s s i b l e t o F ind o u t what GEE had r e a d o r with whom he had t a l k e d w i t h d o i n g his r e s e a r c h . The p r o b a b i l i t y , o f cou r se , i s t h a t G E E knew m a s t o f t h e main p s n t e c o s t a l p r o t a g o n i s t s p e r s o n a l l y and had, over many y e a r s , d i s c u s s e d what t hey F e l t , t h o u g h t and knew abou t t h e o r i g i n s and deve lopmen t O F t h e P e n t e c o s t a l aovenemnt. T h i r d l y , G E E f a i l s t o p a i n t h i s p i c t u r e o f t h e P e n t e c o s t a l movement a g a i n s t t ha s o c i a l and economic background of i t s own day. Th i s i s ve ry u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , People t a k e

s o c i e t a l changes For g r a n t e d and f o r g e t t h a t l a t e r g e n e r a t i o n s may have d i f f i c u l t y i n imag in ing what i t was l i k e t o be a P e n t e c o s t a l a t t h e t i m e when h o r s e s and c a b s were common i n t h e s t r e e t s o f London o r when t h e r e wera no t s l e p h o n e s .

O t h e r a c c o u n t s o f Pent ;ecos ta l i sm i n B r i t a i n a r e i ndeb ted t o GEE and even W a l t e r J, tIOLL.ENWEGER, who l a t e r wrote I h e ~ e n t e c o s t a l s (London: SCH P r e s s , 1972 ) which g i v e s an account o f P e n t e c o s t a l i s m wor ldwide , knew and was i n F l u e n c e d by G E E and , i n f a c t , as a young man

i n t e r p r e t e d f o r him when he preached. HOLLENWEGERfs p e r s o n a l p o r t r a i t t h o s e o f o t h e r n o n c o n f o r m i s t s , c o n t i n u e d t o d e c l i n e , t hough f i g u r e s f o r

of Gee i s g i ven i n L e a r n i n g f o r L i v i n g 12.2 (November 1972) . Learnin! t h e d e c l i n e a r e h a r d e r t o o b t a i n . See A d r i a n HASTINGS, A H i s t o r y of

f o r L i v i n g i n now c a l l e d The B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f R e l i g i o u s Educa t i on . E n g l i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y : 1920-1985 (London: C o l l i n s , 1986) , p. 265.

The main p r i n t e d p r i m a r y s o u r c e s f o r B r i t i s h P e n t e c o s t a l i s m are (9) See Dona ld GEE i n Redemption T i d i n g s ( 1 7 t h August 1945) and

t o be found i n t h e pages o f Redemption T i d i n g s , founded i n 1924 and Tom WOODS Redemption T i d i n g s ( 2 4 t h March 1944).

pub l i shed w i t h o u t a b reak u n t i l t h e p r e s e n t day, a l t h o u g h i n November 1984 Redemption T i d i n g s was renamed Redempt ion. F requency o f p u b l i - c a t i o n has v a r i e d f rom once a week t o once a month ; f r o m 1930-1934, i t was month ly , and from January 1934 f o r t n i g h t l y .

There a re a l s o a r c h i v a l m a t e r i a l s : l e t t e r s , o l d yearbooks, scanty reco rds o f f i n a n c i a l accounts , p r a y e r s h e e t s , pho tog raphs , newspaper c u t t i n g s , a r t i c l e s from d e f u n c t magaz ines, m i n u t e books. and so on, a t v a r i o u s p laces , Some a r e h e l d by l o c a l chu rches , t h e m a j o r i t y were h e l d a t t h e Assembl ies o f God Genera l O f f i c e s a t 106-114 T a l b o t S t r e e t , Nott ingham NG1 5GH, Eng land, b u t a r e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f b e i n g t r a n s f e r r e d t o Ma t te rsey H a l l , t h e Assembl ies o f God B i b l e C o l l e g e a t Mat tersey, near Doncaster DNlO 5HD, Eng land,

(1) These are t a k e n f rom f i g u r e s p r e p a r e d b y B a s i l VARNHAM, t h e General A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f Assembl ies o f God i n B r i t a i n .

(2) See A lan WILKINSON, D i s s e n t o r Conform: War, Peace and t h e E n g l i s h Churches 1900-1945, (London: SCM P ress , 1986), pp. 65, 138. Marie STOPES had p o p u l a r i z e d c o n t r a c e p t i o n i n t h e 1920s and t h e Lambeth Conference debated t h e m a t t e r i n 1930.

(3) Th is was George ORWELL'S assessment i n The Road t o Wigan P i e r , f i r s t p u b l i s h e d by Penguin i n 1937, and t o be f o u n d on page 203 - o f t h e 1983 e d i t i o n i n The Pengu in Complete N o n - F i c t i o n o f George Orwel l .

(4) See D.G.H. COLE. and R. POSTGATE, The Common P e o p l e : 1746- 1938 (London: Methuen, 1938), p. 617. -

(5) This i s o b v i o u s l y a h a r s h judgment and a p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n . (6) See W.R. INGE, Lay Thoughts o f a Dean (London: Pu tnamfs

Sons, 1926), p. 304; and Redemption T i d i n g s (22nd March 1940) . (7 ) See R . MANWARING, From C o n t r o v e r s y t o Co-Ex is tence:

E v a n g e l i c a l s i n t he Church o f Eng land 1914-1980 (Cambr idge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, l 9 8 5 ) , p. 102.

(8) The B a p t i s t s dropped f rom 416,665 i n 1926 t o 396,531 i n 1936, a f a l l of 5% - which i s e f f e c t i v e l y g r e a t e r i f one compares i t w i t h t h e r i s i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e c o u n t r y . By 1946 t h e B a p t i s t s had l o s t a f u r t h e r 41,631. Fu r the rmore , b a p t i s t sunday s c h o o l s , l i k e

Pentec6tisme e t 6vangdlicalisme: Proldgom&nes Zi une analyse sBmantique

e t impl ica t ions r e l a t i o n n e l l e s

de Raymond PFISTER

Dana mes recherches s u r l l i : vo lu t ion des mouvements 6vangEl.iques e t fondamental is tes en Europe j l a i constati: - B ma grande s u r p r i s e - que c e r t a i n s inc luent l e s p e n t e c 8 t i s t e s au nombre des mouvements BvangBLiques, a l o r s que d t a u t r e s l e a Bcartent volontairement. Le p r6sen t Essa i a pour o h j e c t i f de proceder B une cour te ana lyse s6mantiqua des termes "pentecatisme1l e t 11i:vang6- l i c a l i s m e f f ( l ) e t d f e n t i r e r l e s impl ica t ions r e l a t i on - n e l l e s . Il ne s e r a c e r t e s poss ib l e que d l e s q u i s s e r l e s problt?mes posBs par une d e f i n i t i o n de ces concepts.

T . Pentec8tisme e t BvangEilicalisme: analyse a h a n t i q u e

A , Concepts g6n6riques e t a t t i t u d e g loba l i s an te

On semble considerer comme acquis l e f a i t d f u t i l . i e e r l e s termea "pentec?itismell e t IlBvang61icalisme1' comme concepts gBn6riques se r6fi:ran.t I ' c e r t a in s groupe- ments r e l i g i e u x d6fi.nis qu i a n t e n t r e eux des p rop r i6 t e s communes. Ainsi n a n i e l ALEXANDER ( e t d t a u t r e s avec l u i ) p a r l e d t u n Itnoyml durlf pour di:cri.re c e q u l i l considere 8 t r e l e s a s p e c t s l e s p lus marquants de l t i d e n t i t 6

&~ang6lique ( a u t o r i t e absolue de l a B i b l e , n e c e s s i t e d'une conversion pe r sone l l e , pu issance du Sa in t -Espr i t pour l e t6moignage e t l a v i e c h r e t i e n n e ) . Une t e l l e demarche pr&uppose, en f a i t , que nous sommes en presence de concepts suffisamment univoques pour a s s imi l e r d i f f e r en te s expressions d'un meme courant . Mais quand on prend, par example l a taxonomie de Robert WEBBER(2) sup ll6vangelicalisme am6ricain ( q u i mentionne jusqu 'g quatorze d i f f e r e n t e s cornposantes avec chacune son aspec t marquant), on e s t en d r o i t de s ' i n t e r r o g e r s u r l e a p o s s i b i l i t 6 s r e e l l e s de ca t6gor i sa t ion .

Que s o i t pour l e t lpentecbt ismew ou 1' It6vang6- l ica l i sme," nous ne pouvons ignore r l t i m p o r t a n c e des p l u r a l i t & confess ionnel les e t th6ologiques q u i l e s composent e t , par vo ie de consequence, l a d i f f i c u l t 6 de d6f in i r l e s concepts. Pour l ' u n comme pour l ' a u t r e on retrouve au coour des d6bats l e s deux m&mes s u j e t s de controverse: a ) l a quest ion ecc lBs io logique quant B l a nature de l t 6 g l i s e ( 6 g l i s e de mul t i t ude ou Bg l i s e de professants?) ; (3 ) b ) l a ques t ion th6ologique quant B l a nature hermeneutique (fondamentalisme ou modernisme), I1 conviendrait probablement de l e s consi.dGrer sous forme de continuums ( a l l a n t d 'une gauche l i b e r a l i s a n t e B une d ro i t e conse rva t r i ce ) (4 ) p l u t 6 t que sous forme de simple an t i thsses . Ces remarques me semblent en t o u t c a s d t r e suf f icantes pour a f f i rmer que l ' u t l i s a t i o n des termes "pentec8tismet' e t "6vang6licalisme" a b o u t i t neces sa i r e - ment 21 une a t t i t u d e g l o b a l i s a n t e , c ' e s t -&-d i r e qui cherche B r6unir en t o u t des Blements q u i peuvent d t r e extrGmement d isperses ( v o i r e mbme d i s p a r a t e s ) ; c e l l e - c i peut f a c i l i t e r une a s s i m i l a t i o n commode d t e x p r e s s i o n s p l u r a l i s t e s , mais ne sera- t -e l le pas a u s s i une b a r r i k r e B l a compr6hension du concept?(5)

B. Enonc6s de f a i t s e t i n fe rences

Un au t r e aspect du problsme semble p r o v e n i r du f a i t que nous manquons de d i s t i n g u e r suff isarnent e n t r e l e s Bnonces de f a i t s e t l e s i n fe rences que nous f a i s o n s il

propos des sous-groupes du t 'pentecbtismell e t de l t l'BvangBlicaliame.lt En e f f e t , quand nous observons l ' o r t h d o x i e e t l ' o r t h o p r a x i e de chacun d ' e n t r e eux, nous pouvons Bnoncer c e r t a i n s f a i t s qu i son t propres & chaque groupe. Nous pouvons e n s u i t e estimer que s u r l a base de l a presence (ou de l ' absence ) de c e r t a i n s c r i t g r e s , nous possBdons un ensemble de param&tres e t d t i n d i c a t e u r s s u f f i s a n t s pour t i r e s c e r t a i n e s conclusions au s u j e t du concept e tudi6 . Au r i sque de s e meprendre profond6ment, il e s t pour t an t indispensable de s e r appe le r que l e c a r a c t k r e r e l . a t i f ( e t sub j e c t i f ) de ces infgrences peut nous i n d u i r e en e r r e u r au l i e u de nous B c l a i r e r s u r l e problkme, En voulant absolument chercher un c e r t a i n nombre de dBnominateurs communs - un noyau ffdurl ' - on r i s q u e de minimisor l e s marques d i s t i n c t i v e s des groupes qu 'on veut r 6 u n i r sous un mame concept, e t de l e s f o r c e r dans un moule qui peut l e s f a i r e s e n t i r t r o p B l t 6 t r o i t ( ou l e c o n t r a i r e 1 ) .

C, Evaluat ion figt5ea e t r e a l i t 6 6vol.utive

Un mouvement r e l i g i e u x , par dGf in i t ion , n ' e s t jamais une r e a l i t 6 s t a t i q u e . Ne pas t e n i r compte de 1 1 6 v o l u t i o n h i s t o r i q u e des concepts c ' e s t immanquablement s e cantonner das des Bvaluations f i g 6 e s e t des d 6 f i n i t i o n s r6volues. C t e s t l e c a s , me semble-t-i l , de ban nombre d18tudes s u r 1 e llpentecbtisme't e t s u r 1' 18vang61icalismet1 qui ignorent ou minimisent l e s r appor t s s n t r e l e s d i v e r s sens des mots a i n s i que les condi t ions i n t e r n e s ou ex ternes qu i expl iquent l e u r Bvolution.

En soulavant l a ques t ion tt8vang61icalisme ou fondamentalisme , I ' D . ALEXANDER f a i t remarquer que ce d e r n i e r terme t l e s t p redes t in6 il une c a r r i g r e socio- I .ogiqueu(6) du f a i t de son ca rac tb re p l u s univoque e t p l u s commode e t - j t a j o u t e r a i - plus f i g 6 pour l e s beso ins du chercheur . I1 n ' e s t pas bien d i f f i c i l e de s e r end re compte que l a rBal.it6 e s t t ou te a u t r e , e t que l ' h i s t o i r e remet cont lnuel lement en cause l e contenu d l u n concept , quel qu l il. s o i t . S i l t on pewt p n r l e r successive-

men% de fondamentalisme et de n&o-fondamentalisme, d f Bvang6licalisme et de n6o-6vang&licalisrne, (7) cela signifie tout au moins que la r6alit6 Qvolue, que les donn6es changent, et que donc lea termes utilis6s doivent Gtre reconsid6r6s. D'ailleurs en parlant de I'mouvance 8vang6liquett(8) ne faut-il pas reconnartre 1$ le carac- tbre changeant (voire instable) de tout mouvement religieux qui ne peut 8tre que ttmouvement?'f

pour ce qui est du 1fpentec6tismett le problbme se pose exactement de la m&ne maniare. Walter J. HOLLENWEGER vient encore de nous rappeler que Ifhistoire Blargit les concepts, et notre fat;on des les comprendse doit en tenir compte. C'est ce qufil fait, pour sa part, en definissant le ltpentec6tismetf comme 6tant bien siir: 1. les dhominations pentecatistes classiques issues d'un r6veil spirituel au debut du XXe siacle (incluant leurs Bglises missionnaires); mais aussi 2. 1.e mouvement charisrnatique touchant toutes lea Bglises traditionnelles ayant assimilBes le reveil spirituel des annees. soixante et soixante-dix (incluant leurs kglises missionnaires) ; sans oublier pour autan't 3, les Bglises pentecatistes du Tiers Monde dforigine autochtone qui ont vu plus rBcemment le jour sans apport dfoeuvres missionnaires d'origine occidentale et qui rassemblent des populations non blanches.(9) I1 va sans dire qu'une dgfinition ne fait pas et ne fera jamais ltunanimit6. Pour certains elle sera trap Btroite, pour la plupart certainement trop large. I1 y a ceux qui penseront avois le monopole du 1vpentec6tisme," et il y a ceux qui n'en voudront pas pour diverses raisons (par exemple: lfimpossibilit6 pratique de contester un monopole, le besoin d'affirmer une identit6 propre, ... ) . Les definitions conc;ues habituellement peuvent 8tre faussement assurantes alors que la rgalit6 est devenue tout autre.

En conclusion, il parait assez Bvident que ffpentec8tisme'f et ffBvang61icalismet' souffrent tous deux dfun manque de rigueur dans l'utilisation des termes et du contenu qui leur est attribu6.

11, Pentec6tisme et Bvang6licalisme: implications relationnelles

Envisager de parler des rapports en-tre "pente- ~ 8 t i s m e ~ ~ et f16vang81icalismett soul&ve un certain nombre de questions pertinentes que nous pourrions formuler de la fa~on suivante:

1. Quels sont les facteurs d6terminants dans 116tablissement d'une telle relation?

2. Quels sont les diffdrents cas de figure possibles et/ou envisageables?

3. Quels sont les types de rapport effectivement souhait& par lea deux groupes en pr6sence7

A, Les facteurs determinants

Sans pour autant prktendre Btablir une liste exhaustive, ni m6me faire une 6numeration dtB16ments par ordre d'importance, il nous faut - i ce stade de notre investigation - chercher .3 relever les indices ou variables suscep~tibles dfintervenir dans lf6tablissement ou dans la modification d'un certain type de relation:

1, Evolution hintorique (anthcddents) des deux groupos dans un contexte socio-gdographique determin6;

2. FrBJug6s et attitudes des deux groupes issus de ce contexte;

3. Importance et croissance num6riques des deux groupes ;

4. DBmographie des deux groupes (categories socio- prafessionnelles sepr6sent6es);

5. Degr6 dfEl.aboration d'une theologie (orale et/ou Bcrite) ;

6. Degr6 de consolidation des groupes (conception de 1 fautorit8) ;

7. DegrB dfins.titutionnalisation des groupes; 8. Apport des intellectuels; 9, Mise en avant dtune ou plusieurs spdcificitBs

th6ologiques ou eccl~siologiques;

10, Cr6d ib i l i t e e t l e g i t i m i t 6 s o c i a l e s pass6es e t presentes des deux groupes.

Une t e l l e esquisse , q u i m 6 r i t r a i t p l u s ample developpement, nous met en garde c0n'hX t o u t e t e n t a t i v e de gCn&ral isat ions s i m p l i s t e s quj. s e voudra i en t d t r e a vocation u n i v e r ~ e l l e , e t nous i n v i t e h d 6 f i n i r premiere- merit nn t re champ d f i n v e s t i g a t i o n en des termes suffisamment coherents e t sp6c i f iques . C f e S t a i n s i que ma propre recherche s u r l e IfMouvement de Pentec8te" s e l imi te un contexte ggographique e t c u l t u r e 1 b i e n d e f i n i - l lA l sace - e t aux cammunau~t6s pen2;eciit istes ( e t pente- c8tisantes (10) ) de type confessant ,

B , Les d i f f 6 r e n t s cas de f i g u r e

I1 n f e s t peut-Gtre pas i n u t i l e de p r 6 c i s e r que tous l e s cas de f igu re theoriquement p o s s i b l e ne s o n t pas forcgment des types de r appor t prat iquement envisageablea par tous l e s i n t e r e s s b ,

1. S6paration t o t a l e des deux e n t i t & s ( l l )

2. SBparation p a r t i e l l e des deux e n t i t h s

m 3. Assimilation p a r t i e l l e de l f u n e p a r l ' a u t r e

4. Assimilation t o t a l e de l f u n e p a r l ' a u t r e

11 ne sera p o s s i b l e de d i s c u t e r de l a v i a b i l i t 4 de ces c a s de f i g u r e que dans l a mesure oil l f o n ana lysera l e s d i f f 6 r a n t e s v a r i a b l e s (mention6es pr6cBdemment) t e l l e s q u ' e l l e s s f a p p l i q u e n t 21 un contexte geographique p rec i s (pays , r6g ion , v i l l e , . . ,) e t des communaut6s d6f in ies .

C . Loa t ypes de rappor ts souhai.t6s par l e s i n t b r e s s b s

Dans une s i t u a t i o n donnee 11 ne s ' a g i r a pas pour le chercheur d imposer un shema-type, c eat-&-dire un cadre socl.ologique p r e e t a b l i e t f i c t i f , aux r 6 s u l t a t s de son ana lyse , mais p l u t 8 t de l a i s a e s s e d6gager de aa recherche l e t ype de r appor t e x i s t a n t effect ivement parce que souha i t6 p a r l e a i n t6 re s s6s .

L fana lyse s6mantique nous a v a i t d&j& montre q u f i l y a v a i t p l u r a l i t 6 de vues au s e i n mdme des deux groupes en ques t ion . Lfana1yse h i s t o r i q u e du "pentec6tismcfl e t de 1' If&vang.51icalismeff nous montre que l e type de rapport ayan'k e x i s t 6 jusquf $. ce jour tdmoigne d'une! approche 1 l a f o i s dynamique a t Bvolutive de l a p a r t des deux groupes.

Encore une f o i s 11 nous f a u t soul igner l l impor tance de l i m i t e r c la i rement l e champ d f i n v e s t i g a t i o n a f i n de c e r n e r l e p l u s prEs poss ib l e l a r6al iVk8 des d i f f e r ences e t des ressemblances e n t r e l e a deux e n t i t 6 s . Ob s e s i t u e vraimont l a s i n p u l a r i b t & du groupe? Q u e l l e e a t la v e r i t a b l e Btendue du dBnominateur commun? J u s q u f & quel p o i n t y a - t - i l i ncompa t ib i l i t 6 e t I r r 6 d u c t i b i l i t 6 des deux groupes?

En Europe, lfpentec6tismeff e t 6vang6licalisrne" r e p r e s e n t e n t toue l e a deux une minori te r e l i g i e u s e e t , de

ce f a i t , r e a s e n t e n t d f a u t a n t p lus forternent l e besoin de conso l ides leur i n d e n t i t & : ce q u i produi t & l a f a i s un ph6nomZlne de s o c i a l i s a t i o n ( = besoin de s f i d e n t i f i e r p a r r a p p o r t au monde c x t b r i e u r ) e t une recherche hermheu- t i q u e propre (= besoin de s f i d e n t i f i e r par rapport &

Pour ces deux mouvements en qugte de c r 6 d i b i l i t B e t de 16gi t imi t6 s o c i a l e s s e Pose d6sormais l a ques t ion suivante: dans que l l e mesure o n t - i l s , e t /ou pensen t - i l s avoip suffisament besoin l t u n de l l a u t r e pour s e l a n c e r conjointement dans un psocessus d e reconnaissance mutu- e l l e e t de reconnaissance s o c i a l e commune?

Raymond PFISTER Cont inen ta l B i b l e College K a s t e e l s t r a a t 48 B - 1600 St. P i e t e r s Leeuw

Notes - (1) Nkologisme d k s i g n a n t l e c o u r a n t p r o t e s t a n t b v a n g e l i q u e e t l a

r k a l i t k de ses m a n i f e s t a t i o n s . (2) Rober t WEBBER, - Common Roo ts : A C a l l t o E v a n g e l i c a l M a t u r i t y

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978). (3) A l f r e d KUEN, Je b ^ a t i r a i mon E g l i s e ( S a i n t L d g i e r : E d i t i o n s

Emmals, 1967), pp. 259-265. (4) Continuum e c c l k s i o l o g i q u e : m u l t i t u d i n i s m e s t r i c t -

m u l t i t u d i n i s m e c o n v e n t i c u l a i r e - k g l i s e s de p r o f e s s a n t s p r o g r e s s i s t e s - k g l i s e s de p r o f e s s a n t s r B g r e s s i f s ou s d p a r a t i s t e s ( c e s t r o i s d e r n i e r s pouvant d t r e p e n t e c a t i s t e s ou non); Cont inuum t h k o l o g i q u e : l i b k r a u x s t r i c t s - l i b k r a u x 6vangCl iques - C v a n g k l i q u e s l i b k r a u x - nho- kvangk l i ques - n6o-Fondamenta l is tes - f o n d a m e n t - a l i s t e s d i s p e n s a t i o n a - l i s t e s (ces q u a t r e d e r n i e r s pouvant d t r e p e n t e c a t i s t e s ou non). Aucun de ces modkles ne p r e t e n d G t r e une r e p r k s e n t a t i o n p a r f a i t e ou c o m p l k t e des p o s s i b i l i t k s e x i s t e n t e s .

(5 ) Pour ce q u i e s t de l f k v a n g C l i c a l i s m e , l l e x e m p l e a l l e m a n d thmoigne de l a volontt! de surmonter c e t t e b a r r i k r e en d i f f h r e n c i a n t l e s Evangelischen (= k g l i s e s m u l t i t u d i n i s t e s i s s u e s de l a ~ h f o r m e ) e t l e s Evangelikalen ( = C g l i s e s l i b r e s c o n f e s s a n t e s ) .

(6 ) D a n i e l ALEXANDER, tlQuelques aspec ts de l f d v o l u t i o n des mouvemen ts k v a n g k l i q u e s e t f n n d a m e n t a l i s t e s en Europe,t1 en S k c u l a r i - . . s a t i o n e t R e l i g i o n : l a p e r s i s t a n c e des t e n s i o n s , Programme de l a 19bme c0n fQrence CISR (Tub ingen : CISR, 1987)) p. 8,

(7) H a r v i e M. CONN, Contemporary Wor ld Theo logy ( P h i l l i p s b u r g : p r e s b y t e r i a n and Reformed P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1974).

(8) D a n i o l ALEXANDER, i b i d , ( 9 ) W a l t e r J. HOLLENWEGER, Pre face dans Aux sources de l a

s p i r i t u a l i t i ! p e n t e c b t i s t e de D a n i e l BRANDT-BESSIRE (Genkve: Labor e t F i d e s , 1986), pp . 13-33.

(10) P a r l I p e n t e c t 3 t i s a n t e ~ ~ ~ on des ign@ l e s groupes e t communautks dent l a d o c t r i n e e t / o u l a p r a t i q u e peuvent d t r e d B F i n i e s comme k t a n t p c n t o c 6 t i s t e s sans que l e s groupes e t communautBs en q u e s t i o n r e v o n d i q u e n t p o u r a u t a n t l l t ? t i q u e t t e ou I t a p p e l l a t i o n ~ p e n t e c 6 t i s t e . 1 1

(11) I 1 e s t i n t k r e s s a n t de n o t e r t o u t p a r t i c u l i e r e m e n t c o n c e r n a n t l e pen tec8 t i s rne , quo James DUNN a f f i r m e qu f "il s l a g i t be1 o t h i e n d lune q u a t r i 8 m e b ranche du c h r i s k i a n i s m e , 3 ~ 8 t h du ca tho - l i c i s m e , de l r o r t h a d o x i e e t du p r o t a s t a n l i s m e , f ' p. 618 dans l e - Guide i l l u s t r h de l l h i s t o i r e du c h r i s t i a n i s m e ( p a r i s : Le Cen tu r i on , 1982). paradoxa lernent , l e ~ f p e n t c c 8 t i s m e ~ l e s t t o ta le rnon t absent (de l a t a b l e des m a t i b r e s comrne de I t i n d e x ) de l ' o u v r a g e c o l l e c t i f r e d i g 6 sous l a d i r e c t i o n do M i c h e l CLEVENOT, L t Q t a t des r e l i g i o n s dans l e monde ( P a r i s : L a DEcouva r t c / l a Ce r f , 1987).

X I , BOOK REVIEWS

Norbert BAUMERT, Gaben des Geistea J e m , Das charis- matischs i n de r Kirche (Graz: Aus t r ia : Verlag S t y r i a , 1986), pp, 207, Reviewed by Pe te r HOCKEN, Gai thersburg , Maryland, USA.

Norbert BAUMERT has been Professor of New Testament Theology i n t h e J e s u i t Faculeky i n Frankfur t , West Germany s i n c e 1982, and been a l e ade r and teacher i n the Charismatic movement f o r somewhat longer . This book is

not simply about t h e s p i r i t u a l g i f t s , b u t about t h e Charismatic movement a s a whole; t hus t h e sub - t i ' t l e i n t e r p r e t s t h e t i t l e . It has t h r e e s e c t i o n s : 1) Er- fahrungen und Grundhaltung charismatischer Erneuerung (pp. 52) ; 2 ) Die Christuserfahrung des Apos te l s Paulus: Ein biblischetr Zeugnis und heutige Glaubenserfassung (pp. 62) ; 3) Theologische Einordnung (pp. 70). The a u t h o r ' s method can be seen from t h i s s t r u c t u r e . P a r t 1 examines d i f f e r en t aspec ts of contemporary cha r i sma t i c c h r i s t i a n experience, and here BAUMERT g i v e s more space t o t h e s p i r i t u a l g i f t s than l a t e r i n t h e book. P a r t 11 examines Pau l ' s charismatic experience of J e sus C h r i s t , u s ing exeget ical expe r t i s e , and then demonstrates by use o f contemporary witnesses t h a t people today a r e exper ienc ing what Paul experienced. BAUMERT he re s p e l l s ou t h i s charismatic hermeneutic: "Der C h r i s t l e r n t s i c h selbs't; verstehen i m Hinhijren auf d i e He i l i ge S c h r i f t , und e r vers teh t d i e S c h r i f t i m Wiedererkennen s e i n e r e igenen Erfahrung m i t Gott. So deute t d i e S c h r i f t s e i n Leben, und se in Erleben e r s c h l i e s s t d i e S c h r i f t . I m Pu l s sch lag dieses hermeneutischen Z i rke l s gesch ieh t g e i s t l i c h e s Wachstum, das v o l l e r Spannung und Leben ist. 'I (p . 63) Section I1 appl ies t h i s methodology t o d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of c h r i s t i a n l i f e : God speaks c l e a r l y ; dying and r i s i n g with Chr i s t ; l i v i n g with God; t he i n c a r n a t e b o d i l y working of God's grace; C h r i s t ' s Lordship; t h e growth o f t he body of Chris t . I n P a r t 111, BAUMERT addres ses more theologica l ly such i s s u e s as c h r i s t i a n exper ience o f t h e Holy S p i r i t , what is e s s e n t i a l and what may vary , t h e meaning of charism and char i smat ic , and t h e s p e c i f i c i t y f o r the Charismatic movement.

BAUMERTts book is s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h a t a scholar - leader has attempted an i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e e x e g e t i c a l and t h e theologica l with the s p i r i t u a l and t h e p a s t o r a l . This genre is not t o be confused with p o p u l a r i z a t i o n , a mediating of scholarship t o t h e l e s s s c h o l a r l y . I t is a d i f f e r e n t form of wr i t ing t h a t combines t h e t r u l y scholar ly i n terms of exegesis and theology wi th a carefu l a t t e n t i o n t o contemporary c h r i s t i a n exper ience .

I n t h i s r e v i e w e r ' s judgment, t h e most va luable p a r t s of t h e book a r e where t h i s i n t e g r a t i o n is most e f f ec t ive ly r e a l i z e d , a s f o r example i n P a r t I dea l ing with t h e l i f e -g iv ing c h a r a c t e r of c h r i s t i a n testimony. However, t h e r e a r e elemen'ta i n t h i s book t h a t more properly belong t o a p a s t o r a l handbook f o r prayer-group leaders . ~ h u s BAUMERT of t en documents charismatic excesses and imbalance, nddfng recommendations f o r wisdom and balance, ~ o s t o f t h i s is s e n s i b l e enough, bu t t h i s reviewer experienced t h i s dimension a s a d i s t r a c t i o n from t h e book s c a n t r a l i n s p i r a t i o n .

From BAUMERT's t heo log ica l r e f l e c t i o n s , it i s p a r t i c u l a r l y worthwhile t o comment on charismata and the s p e c i f i c i t y of t h e Charismatic movement. FIe recognizes t h a t Paul u ses t h e term "charisma" i n a va r i e ty of senses , but; most of ten i n t h e more s p e c i f i c sense corresponding t o t h e modern charismatic usage which he de f ines RR "cine von Gott f r e i gewahrte gnadenhafte Befghipung zum Dienst em Hei l anderer l ' ( p , 146) . He i s c r i t i c a l o f IILTTLINGER's review o f the Holy S p i r i t i n charisms "working i n and through, bu t going beyond, the b e l i e v e r ' s n n t u r a l a b i l i t y . 'I BAUMERT denies such a b a s i s i n human n a t u r e , whi l e recognizing t h a t charisms always b r i n g human q u a l i t i o e i n t o play: I1aber Grund und Zentrum s o l c h e r Akt iv i t i i t en is t doch n i c h t d i e se menschliche Fah igke i t , sondern eben d i e 'Einwirkung des Geistes , so dass der Trgger e i n e ~ ChRrismaS b e i deu t l i che r Offen- barung ea G e i s t e s manchrnal es geradezu wahmimmt: 'Nicht mehr i c h l e b e , Chr i s tu s l e b t i n m i r t " (p. 161) . So he r h e t o r i c a l l y a ~ k s what n a t u r a l capaci ty l i e s beneath a r a i s i n g from the dead (p . 160).

RAUMERTfs p o s i t i o n on the s p e c i f i c i t y of the Chariamatlc movement needs t o be understood i n t h e l i g h t o f h i e d i f f e r e n c e s over t h e years with the pos i t i on o f h i s f e l l ow German c a t h o l i c theologian, I-leribert MUEHLEN o f Paderborn. While MUEMLEN has sought t o i n t e g r a t e t h i s work o f t h e S p i r i t i n t o c a t h o l i c s t r u c t u r e s with concepts of' Tauferneuerung, Firmenerneuerung and Weiherneuerung, s ee ing t h i s rcnewnl a s f o r a l l , BAUMERT has always had

d i f f i c u l t y with any concept o f t h i s s p e c i f i c cha r i sma t i c experience with tongue-speaking and o t h e r g i f t s a s f o r a l l . H i s concern is first t h e sovere ignty o f God ( ~ o d is f r e e t o ,bestow h i s g i f t s where he w i l l and man cannot organize them) and secondly t h e danger o f u n i v e r s a l i z i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p a t t e r n of c h r i s t i a n exper ience , Thus BAUMERT argues t h a t a l i v i n g experience o f C h r i s t i n t h e S p i r i t is intended f o r a l l Chr i s t i ans : "cine bewusste ~laubens-Erkenntnis und e in Betroffenwerden von Got tes Zusage zum Wesen es vo l l en C h r i s t s e i n s gehor t " (p . 190) . He then sees t he contemporary Charismatic movement a s t h e most recent i n a s e r i e s of Spir i t -animated r e v i v a l s . It has its s p e c i f i c i t y ( c lo se ly r e l a t e d t o g l o s s o l a l i a and other s p i r i t u a l g i f t s ) bu t t h i s is a g i f t f o r some, no t a requirement f o r a l l , Thus he reaches h i s f i n a l conclusion: "Die ICharismatische Erneuerung' i n unseren Tagen ist e i n Geschenk Gottes zu e i n e r char i smat i schen Erneuerung der Kirche" (p. 194) . That i s t o say , t h i s spec i f i c contemporary movement (Char i smat ic wi th a Capi tal C ) i s a t r u e g i f t of God c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a wider charismatic renewal of t h e church. The p r e s e n t rev iewer is convinced t h a t t h e evidence p o i n t s t o t h e Pentecostal-Charismatic renewal of t h i s cen tu ry be ing more apparent where i t s ecumenical c h a r a c t e r is made more cen t r a l than i n t h i s book. While a spec t s o f t h i s renewal a r e not f o r a l l ( p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e s of p r a y e r ) , t h e r e is evidence t h a t some a spec t s a r e f o r a l l , and t h a t t h i s centers on the d i r ec tnes s of communication between t h e Lord and t h e Chr is t ian e s t ab l i shed through baptism i n t h e S p i r i t ( s e e Chapter 6 of One Lord, One S p i r i t , One Body. The Ecumenical Grace of t h e Charismatic Movement ( ~ x e t ~ r : Pa ternos te r Press , 1987) .

BOURDEAUX~ Lorna and Michael, Ten Growing Sovie t Churches (Bromley, Kent: MARC Europe, Keston College Book, No. 17, 1987)~ 210 p p . Reviewed by Steve DURASOFF, S t . P i e t e r s Leeuw, Belgium.

I n t h i s work t h e au thors have se l ec t ed geographic a s w e l l a s a l l t he major h i s t o r i c d iv is ions of

ch r i s t i . an i ty : P r o t e s t a n t , Orthodox and Cathol ic . Some churches inc luded have rece ived l i t t l e pub l i c i t y .

Despi te t h e o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n of atheism i n t h e Sovie t Union, n revival. among many P ro te s t an t s , both r e g i s t e r e d find un reg i s t e r ed is r e l a t i v e l y wel l known. The Ten Growing Churches inc lude the Methodists and Lutherans i n Es tonia , S i b e r i a n Pen tecos t a l s , Cent ra l Asian Mennonites, B a p , t i ~ t s i n Moscow and the Ukraine, Cathol ics i n L i t h ~ ~ a n i a and IJniates i n t h e Ukraine, and f i n a l l y t h e Orthodox i n Moscow and S i b e r i a ,

Natura l sources inadequately explain t h e growth of t h e s e churches i n t h e USSR, Human sources suggested a r e d i s i l l u s ionmen t with marxis t dogma, t he s u f f e r i n g capa- c i t y of ou ts tanding evange l i s t s , motivated grandmothers who teach b a s i c t r u t h s t o ch i ld ren , t h e high moral s tandards and work e t h i c , c h r i s t i a n f ami l i e s , and fore ign r a d i o broadcas tn , But severe r e s t r i c t i o n s thwart t h e t r a i n i n g of t h e c le rgy . The dominant Russian Orthodox Church, when jo in ing t h e World Council of Churches, claimed 50 mill . ion members, y e t they a r e allowed only t h r e e func.t;j.on:Lng ~ e m i n a r i e s . Entrance t o them is con t ro l l ed by t h e S t a t e , The lending P r o t e s t a n t s , ( t h e AUCECB) a merger of B a p t i s t s , Evangel ical Chr i s t i ans , P e n t e c o s t a , ~ and Mennonites a r e l imi t ed t o o f f e r i n g correspondence courses . Only 25 graduated i n 1985.

The mast a c t i v o Chr i s t i ans are s u b j e c t t o h o s t i l e a r t i c l e s i n t h e presn , For more khan 20 years c h r i s t i a n p r i s o n e r s have c o n s i s t e n t l y been numbered 'n t h e hundreds. The au tho r s introduce li t t le-known Pro te s t an t s such as t h e Methodists and Lutherans i n Estonia . Between 1.943 and 1.973 t h e Methodists almost doubled t h e i r small. membership from 3.202 t o 2300, DOURDEAUX admits t he lack

of growth i n the c a p i t a l T a l l i n , where f o r t h e p a s t f i v e years t h e death o f e l d e r l y members has exceeded t h e young people now joining t h e church.

The reviewer was somewhat d isappoin ted t h a t German Pentecostals i n S i b e r i a were s e l e c t e d i n s t e a d of t h o s e i n t he Ukranian Bible b e l t . However t h e succes ses and persecut ions encountered among t h e s e S i b e r i a n s a r e v a l i d representa t ions of t h e C h r i s t i a n s o f Evange l i ca l F a i t h founded by Ivan VORONAEV i n t h e 1920 ' s . This was t h e decade i n which t h i s pen tecos t a l denomination was recognized by the Sovie t government.

The German Pen tecos t a l s i n t h e t i n y E a s t S i b e r i a n set t lement of Chuguyevka r e fused t o r e g i s t e r i n 1981. This was due t o unacceptable cond i t i ons which included renouncing r e l i g i o u s educat ion f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Services were in t e r rup ted followed by f i n e s , a r r e s t s detent ions and co r rec t ive l abo r . The P e n t e c o s t a l s appealed but r eg iona l a u t h o r i t i e s upheld t h e l o c a l Soviets and repress ion and s l ande r cont inued , C i t i z e n s convinced of the i n t e g r i t y o f t h e p e n t e c o s t a l community, were ready t o speak out a g a i n s t i n j u s t i c e . Appl ica t ion f o r emigration by 50 Pen tecos t a l s t o West Germany was refused. Extensive f a s t i n g by 70 b e l i e v e r s culminated i n the a r r e s t of t h e pen tecos t a l pas to r . He was charged under s i x a r t i c l e s of t he Criminal Code which included organizing meetings f o r young people and c h i l d r e n . The pastor was sentenced t o 5 yi?rars i n a l abo r camp 3700 miles away. H i s family was twice r e fused permission t o v i s i t him. O f t h e twenty-two members who demanded h i s r e l ea se i n a publ ic demonstration, seven were t r i e d and sentenced. BOURDEAUX c i t e s t h e s p i r i t u a l growth o f t h e s e Pentecostals whereas numerical growth h a s r e s u l t e d from the l a r g e fami l ies .

The Mennonites i n Cent ra l Asia a r e p re sen ted a s a ' minority of a minori ty . I n 1986 P e t e r REMPEL of t h e European Office of the Mennonite Cen t r a l Committee declared t h a t "The Mennonite churches a r e exper ienc ing more freedom i n t h e USSR than they have s i n c e t h e Revolution. This i s a time of bu i ld ing churches , bap t i z -

ing new members and ordaining new minis te rs . " This may sound l i k e a con'kradiction of t h e above-mentioned German pen tecos t a l s . I n s t e a d it i l l u s t r a t e s the e r r o r of s tereo- typ ing b e l i e v e r s i n t h e Soviet Union.

Introduced i n t o R u s ~ i a from Pruss ia i n 1788 by CATIIERINE IT ' s pc?nerotls land g r a n t s and numerous bene- f i t ~ , t h e Mennoni.l;es were t o number 120,000 by 1917. The Sovie t Mennoniteu have been and remain models of produc- t i v i t y , which has l e d i n t u r n t o some concessions even on m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e . Of t he Mennonites who merged with the AUCECR i n 1963, ninny optad f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n i n autonomous churches allowed by o f f i c i a l s i n 1967. incidental^.^ more than 200 pentccof i ta l congregations a r e present ly r e g i s t e r e d ns autonomous churches.) BOURDEAUX i nd ica t e s t h a t con t r a ry 'to Sov ie t law t h e Mennonites have Sunday school groups of twenty ch i ld ren taught by one or two young women. Since 1974 they have published an unof f i c i a l journal e n t i t l e d Der Jugend Preund.

The Moscow c h ~ i r c h , predominan.l;ly B a p t i s t , a l s o serves as headqunrtera f o r 5,400 churches loca ted i n a l l 1 5 Sovie t Republics . This church union is a merger of B a p t i s t s , Evangc1icn.l C h r i s t i a n s , Pentecos ta l s and Mennonites. Within t h e c i t y limits of Moscow it is the only Rusuian Pro tee tank church serving a population of almost 9 m i l l i o n , I n add i t i on t o i t s 5,200 members t he re a r e now 17 new churches r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e Moscow region. Its church sanc.tunry s e a t s 800 b u t c lose t o 2,000 persons squeeze i n t o t h e ~ i , x s e r v i c e s he ld each week. In each two hour s e r v i c e t h r e e Rermons a r e de l ivered , some by preachers who a t t ended Bible schools , Since the l a t e 3.9501s only a handful of B a p t i s t pas to r s were permitted t o study abroad. In t h e 1970's corroapondence courses f o r p a s t o r s were ofEsred and by 1985 t h e number of graduates t o t a l l e d over 300.

A c r i a i s iwone i n t h e ea r ly 1960 ' s during KMRUSHCEVts ascendancy. Compromising l eade r s a t head- q u a r t e r s i s s u e d R " L c t t ~ r of I n ~ t r u c t i o n s ' ~ t o some 60 Senior P re sby te r s ( t h e equiva len t of D i s t r i c t Super- i n t enden t s o r Bishops) , advis ing them t o have tho pas tors

' under t h e i r c a r e e l i m i n a t e evangel ism i n t h e i r sermons, c u r t a i l baptisms o f c o n v e r t s from 18 t o 30 t o a minimum, and t o f o r b i d t h e church a t t e n d a n c e o f c h i l d r e n . T h i s r e s u l t e d i n a nat ionwide s p l i t among t h e B a p t i s t s and t h e schism remains t o t h i s day. Those who l e f t t h e un ion and a r e known as t h e Reform B a p t i s t s were d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o be recognized by t h e government. Hundreds o f t h e i r l e a d e r s have been imprisoned f o r c o n t i n u i n g t h e i r m i n i s t r i e s . Recent ly t h e Reform B a p t i s t s have been permi t t ed t o r e g i s t e r as autonomous c h u r c h e s .

The Uniates , o r E a s t e r n R i t e C a t h o l i c s i n t h e Ukraine, worship l i k e t h e Orthodox i n form, b u t t h e y recognize t h e Pope a s t h e head o f t h e i r church , They comprise t h e l a r g e s t church i n t h e USSR w i t h no l e g a l e x i s t e n c e s i n c e being o f f i c i a l l y l i q u i d a t e d i n 1946. They a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y p e r s e c u t e d by t h e S o v i e t s and no Ukrainian c a t h o l i c p r i e s t can r e c e i v e o f f i c i a l r e g i s t r a - t i o n t o conduct p a s t o r a l work. Pope John P a u l 11's renewed r e q u e s t s f o r l e g a l r e c o g n i t i o n on t h e i r b e h a l f is viewed a s a provocat ion. A S o v i e t o f f e r i n 1984 t o l e g a l i z e t h e Ukrainian C a t h o l i c Church was c o n d i t i o n e d upon t h e i r b reak ing t i e s w i t h Rome. S i n c e t h i s would be renouncing Cathol ic ism t h e U n i a t e s r e f u s e d .

The Li thuanian C a t h o l i c Church r e c e i v e d p e r m i s s i o n t o b u i l d a church i n a busy p o r t c i t y . The p a r i s h i o n e r s completed it s i x y e a r s l a t e r i n 1960, a t a c o s t o f 3 m i l l i o n r u b e l s , b u t they were den ied e n t r y due t o KRUSHCHEV1s p e r s e c u t i o n . An appea l t o BREZHNEV f o r t h e r e t u r n of t h e church was r e f u s e d though s i g n e d by 148,OOQ. Despite such i n c i d e n t s t h e f u n c t i o n i n g c h u r c h e s s t i l l a t t r a c t l a r g e crowds. I n 1983 some 50,000 p i l g r i m s made t h e i r way t o t h e r e l i g i o u s f e s t i v a l a t S i l u v a , one o f t h e n a t i o n a l s h r i n e s ,

The Orthodox Church i n S i b e r i a h a s a t t r a c t e d i n c r e a s i n g numbers o f t h e young and t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s , ~ e c e n t l y , preaching r e c e i v e s g r e a t e r prominence i n orthodox worship and h o m i l e t i c s i s a rr~njor s u b j e c t i n t h e i r t h r e e t h e o l o g i c a l s e m i n a r i e s

Michael BQIJRDEAUX and h i s wife c r e d i t t h e a r c h i v e s of Keston C o l l e g e f a r e n a b l i n g them t o w r i t e t h i s book. BQURDEAUX, a n Angl ican , founded Keston Col lege i n 1969 a s a c e n t e r f o r t h e s t : ~ l d y of r e l i g i o n under communism. This c e n t e r proviclen pr imary r e s o u r c e t r e a s u r e s f o r s c h o l a r s and miss ions .

David BUTTRICK, Homiletic Moves and S t r u c t u r e s (London: SCM P r e s n , I%!%'), pp. 498, Reviewed by John L. KARSTEN, Z e i s t , The Nether lands .

P reach ing o c c u r s i n 811 o u r churches . Homile t ics is t a u g h t i n a3.X o u r school^^. 1Ct bohoves u s , t h e r e f o r e , t o t a k e n o t i c e of new developments i n t h e f i e l d of h o m i l e t i c s . T h i s book no t on ly voluminou~l and well- w r i t t e n , b u t it n l s a o f f e r s a c l e a r workable theory . DrawS.ng on how a group a s s i m i l a t e s v e r b a l informat ion BUTTRICK a d v o c a t e s spnnlting i n moves. A move is a u n i t o f thought w i t h a firm beg inn ing and end, I n t e r n a l development happens by b r i n g i n g o u t t h e thought , de tach ing i't from what it i~ n o t , and a s s o c i a t i n g it with p r e s e n t e x p e r i e n c e . A move must have a p o i n t o f view, an emoti.onn1 t o n e , and n o t las t l o n g e r t h a n f o u r minutes. A we l l structured move wil.1 e n t e r group consciousness .

Moves can be o rgan ized i n t o s t r u c t u r e s . This r e q u i r e s p l o t t i n g t h e n a r r a t i v e o r t h e argument. I n s p i r e d by RI.ack preaching ( c f , Black P e n t e c o s t a l churches ) , p reach ing c a n b e i n , the mode o f immediacy. The s t o r y l i n e g i v e s movement, t h e meaning l i n e g i v e s c o n t e n t , t h e e x p e r i e n t a l nudienco l o a d s t o c o n t a c t , a l l i n t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e . P rench inf i~ In t h e r e f l e c t i v e mode o f f e r s o p p o r t u n i t i e s , to mpp 1.y S c r i p t u r e most thoroughly. More c o ~ ~ l d b e and i s s a i d i n a very p r a c t i c a l way. Exception cou ld h e talcon t o c e r t a i n under ly ing p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s and c u l t u r f l l l y recognizab1.e elements. S t i l l t h i s book is e s s e n t i a l , r e a d i n g :for a l l p r e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r s of

preaching. It could i n s p i r e pen tecos t a l s c h o l a r s t o s tudy ac tua l preaching i n pen tecos t a l churches, Black and White.

David F. WELLS, God t h e Evangel i s t : How t h e Moly S ~ i r i t - Works t o Bring Men and Women t o F a i t h wi th an introduct ion by J.I. PACKER (Exe te r : P a t e r n o s t e r Press , 1987) 128 pp. Reviewed by Donald Dean SMEETON, Waterloo, Belgium.

Generally Evangel icals have been more comfortable theologizing about t he person of t h e Holy S p i r i t t han i n explaining what He does. Thei r t h e o l o g i c a l t e x t s d e f i n e and defend H i s d i v i n i t y but only awkwardly d e s c r i b e 1-Iis deeds. This sho r t s tudy by t h e Andrew Mutch P ro fes so r o f H i s to r i ca l and Systematic Theology a t Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, is meant t o f i l l t h i s lacuna.

The o r ig ins of t h i s book a r e , a s John R . R E I D descr ibes i n t h e Preface , t o be found i n t h e proceedings of the Consul tat ion on the Work of t h e Moly S p i r i t he ld i n Oslo, Norway i n May 1985. Sponsored by t h e Theologica l Working Group of t h e Lausanne Committee f o r World Evangelization and t h e Theology Unit of t h e World Evangelical Fellowship, t h e consu l t a t i on s t a s k was t o explore how the S p i r i t works i n t h e conversion process . Under the leadership of Tormod ENGELSVIKEN, t h e consul- t a t i o n consis ted of for ty- f ive p a r t i c i p a n t s and f i f t e e n observers from many p a r t s of t h e world and r e p r e s e n t i n g many theological t r a d i t i o n s wi th in Evangel ical ism. The papers, c i r cu l a t ed t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s be fo re t h e confer- ence, cons t i tu ted a s u b s t a n t i a l , i f uneven and i n c o n s i s t - e n t , pneumatology. This arrangement maximized t h e t ime f o r the considerat ion o f s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i s s u e s , The discussions t h a t cons t i t u t ed an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e consul tat ion were charac te r ized by c a r e f u l l i s t e n i n g and by honest confession of d i f f e r ences . I t is s a f e t o say

t h a t f o r many pEW'kicipunkt3 t h e meetings provided a forum f o r o ld p re jud icee bo confronted and new under- s t a n d i n g ~ t o be achieved.

The n a t u r e of t h e meeting seemed t o r equ i r e a more permanent mCoY?d RR we l l aF3 a means of disseminat ing the r e s ~ l l t s t o a wi t1r l . r c i r c l e . Whereas t h e pub l i ca t ion of conference papers i n , o r near , t h e i r o r i g i n a l form of ten c r e a t e s an e d i t o r i a l nlg11,tmnre as well u s an economic d i s a s t e r , EI u n i f i e d work by a recognized theologian with proven wri t i .ng nlr l . l .1~ uoemed ,ta be the answer, The format of t h e book, EoJ.lowj.ng t h a t o f t h e conference, combines theologicnl, muessment with t e s t imon ia l cnee a tudies .

Dav1.d WRL1,S cnndonued the maaaive mater ia l i n t o s i x chapters i n which he s t u d i e s t h e personhood of the S p i r i t , I-1J.a r e l a t i o n s h i p .to o t h e r r e l i g i o n s , H i s work i n making t h e goapnl. e f f e c t i v e , i n forming t h e Church and i n tlpowes encounters ." Each sf t h e m topicn is considered exeget icaTly, t h e s f ogicnl1.y and h i s t o r i c a l l y . The book concludes wi th f i v e c a w wtudies roporking on evangelism i n China, East Afrl.cn, South Afr ica , Aus t r a l i a and the Phi l ippinon.

Among *the lccy I ~ s u e 8 $01: t h e consul ta t ion was the necess i ty t o achieve: a ful.1.er understanding of how the work of t h e S p i r i S t is a " d g n t o the unbel ievsr ." The r epor t s of hctnlinlr,, "power encounters" and l i b e r a t i o n from demonic p o a s e ~ s i o n have markod evangelism i n many p a r t s of .\:he wor1.d b u t wee.kern ~thcol.ogians have found it d i f f i c u l t t o C R ~ ~ ~ ~ T S Z B k h e ~ ~ event^ wi th in t r a d i t i o n a l theologi.ca1 s y ~ t a m o . O n t h e o t h e r hand, Pentecos ta l s have

'been sl.ow t o e s t a b l i ~ h a theological. framework i n which t o understand and cxpln ln t h e s e phenomena. Thus the mixture: o f e v a n ~ o l . i c ~ l and psn tecos t a l theologians a t the consu l t a t i on was n mntter o f p a r t i c u l a r s ign i f icance . Among t h e pen.tscostnl/charismatic p a r t i c i p a n t s were William MENXIES, P e t e r KIJXMIC, Alan COLE and John WIMBER. (For the ~ a k e of understanding any personal b i a s , it must be s t a t e d t h n t t h e w r i t e r of t h i s review was a l s o an observer and, fur thcrmor .~ , a former s tudent - and an admi.rer - a f .the ~1t1Z:hor. ) Others , i n p a r t i c u l a r t h o ~ e

from developing coun t r i e s , o f f e red t e s t i m o n i a l ca se s tud ie s h ighl ight ing the importance of such manifesta- t ions . There was no e f f o r t t o fo rce a ConSenSUS On t h i s issue. Those favoring contemporary char i smata were no t asked t o renounce t h e i r p o s i t i o n ; t hose r e j e c t i n g them were not asked t o endorse them. On t h i s p o i n t and o t h e r s , there was agreement t o d isagree .

Thus i n the s p i r i t o f t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n , WELLS has presented a summary of the i s s u e s t h a t a l lowe him, aa t h e o f f i c i a l s c r ibe , t o r e t a i n h i s own p o s i t i o n . The m a t e r i a l is well organized and well expressed, b u t one has t o wonder what exac t ly is new i n t h e material . . The spectrum of evangel ical opinions a r e acknowledged; o t h e r views a r e re jec ted . Warnings a r e g iven concerning t h e dangers of var ian t emphases, e s p e c i a l l y those from n i n e t e e n t h century Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy.

Undoubtedly many r eade r s w i l l s c r u t i n i z e t h e discussion of charismatic g i f t s and w i l l agree t h a t t h e author has chosen h i s words wi th care . He o f f e r s t h r e e understandings of s i g n s and wonders: "The f i r s t p o s i t i o n - t h a t exorcisms and mirac les , especia1I.y h e a l i n g , should always accompany evangelism - is usua l ly based on t h r e e major presupposi t ions. . . The second p o s i t i o n . . . LEI t h a t the appearance o f miracles i n t he B i b l e i s rhythmic and.. . ended with the conclusion of t h e a p o s t o l i c min i s t r i e s . . . The t h i r d view of s i g n s and wonders accep t s the notion t h a t mirac les i n t h e Bib le appear accord ing t o a rhythm but quest ions whether t h e connect ion wi th t h e apos to l ic o f f i c e can be e s t a b l i s h e d i n so a i r t i g h t a manner" (pp. 8 8 f . ) . The f irst is presumed t o be t h e pentecostal pos i t i on , t h e second is c l e a r l y t h e anti-charismatic argument of Benjamin WARFIELD t h a t has a decreasing number of proponents, and t h e t h i r d p o s i t i o n is suggested as the b i b l i c a l view t h a t mediates t h e previously mentioned extremes. One wonders, however, if the pentecostal /charismatic p o s i t i o n - e s p e c i a l l y t h a t expressed by the consu l t a t i on p a r t i c i p a n t s - can be f a i r l y represented by the words, I theal ing should always accompany evangelism." Is t h i s a t h e o l o g i c a l s t r a w man

t h a t t h e r e a d e r cfln ~ Q R ~ ~ Y d i sca rd? Would it not be mope f a i r *to r e p r e ~ o n t P o n t ' e c ~ S t a l s ns recognizing the sovereignty o f l.110 S p i d t and adml l.l;ing that; miracles haveI i n f a c t 0 f f ; ~ n accompanied *ha spread of t h e gospel? such l inkage i n , f o r mflmple, au~a;pnl;ed by Alan COLE i n h i s case s1:udy of' Chfnn. ( A f lnciologicnl survey indica ted t h a t a I nq:o parccn'tngs of p @ ~ b c 0 8 2 ; a l b e l i e v e r s i n France t r a c e t h e i r convsr~ai on oxpcrioncc; to an experience of heal ing i n ~ t h o m r s e l . ~ ~ , i n Q fanlily member o r i n a c l o ~ e f r i e n d . ) Pnn tccos t f l l .~ have much work t o do i n formulating a coharwlt theology of svnngellsm and i n communicfitl ny: 3 2; clonr1.y.

As a sutnmnry of evnngel icn l th inking about the evangel izing Sp i r i t : of God, this book is exce l l en t . A s a record of t h e c ,~ns t l l t a t ; ion , it is an admirable at tempt a t the imposstble. As n c o n t r l but ion ,to a b ro the r ly conver- s a t ion over t h e r o l e of t h e superna tura l i n evangelism, it is not the f i n n l word. More d i scus~ i jon and l i s t e n i n g a r e requi red .

1 1 1 , NOTES:

The I . kin voor Charismatiache Theologie, a publ ica t ion by t h o Dutch Charismatic foundat ions "VuurV and ~ l C h a r i ~ m a t l s c l w W~rkgsrneenschap Nederlnndttl enjoys a growing readorahip . With t h e twentie'kh i s s u e (1987) the first decade o f t h i a p e r i o d i c a l has been completed and ce lebra ted , no t on ly with a cumulative index, but a l s o with s i g n i f i c n n k r e f l e c t i o n s about the Charismatic move- ment from schol.nrs o f ~ e v e r a l denominations. Among the a r t i c l e s ineludod i n t h i s j u b i l e e e d i t i o n a re : J. VEENMOF, lrne char inmat l schs beweging: E:en l h o l i s t i s c h e i ~ p i P i t u d . i t s i t ~ h e ~ @ g i n g mot mogelijkheden t o t een eigen t h e o l ~ g l . e ; ~ Csen VAN DER LAAN and Jaan-Jacques SUURMOND, We r e l a t i e tunsen de pinksterbeweging en de charis-

matiache vernieuwing;" W . W , VERHOEF, olWissels en samen- hangen; fl K. SLIJKERMAN , T i e n J a a r k a t h o l i e k e cha r is- matische vernieuwing. "

In the a r t i c l e by C. VAN DER LAAN and J.J. SUURMOND, the r e l a t i onsh ip between t h e Dutch P e n t e c o s t a l movement and the Charismatic renewal is cons idered , pr imari ly from the pen tecos t a l pe r spec t ive . The b i r t h of Pentecostalism as an ecumenical renewal movement, i ts development i n t o var ious denominations and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and the unsuccessful dialogue between t h e P e n t e c o s t a l s and the Charismatics during t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s is b r i e f l y described i n the f i rs t p a r t by VAN DER L A A N , SUURMOND then reasons a s t o why the dialogue ceased and o f f e r s suggestions f o r a new s t a r t . The acceptance of a funda- men ta l i s t i c theology i s seen a s a major cause why t h e i n i t i a l ecumenical a t t i t u d e of Pentecos ta l i sm slowly disappeared. In order t o overcome t h i s p r e s e n t p r e j u d i c e , SUURMOND suggests t h a t Pen tecos t a l s and Char i smat ics s t a r t meeting i n prayer and p r a i s e ; and secondly he c a l l s for annual meetings o f pen tecos t a l and cha r i sma t i c theologians and h i s t o r i a n s . This combination o f p raye r and theology, he a rgues , may c r e a t e mutual acceptance and would gradual ly t ake away t h e f e a r on t h e p e n t e c o s t a l s ide of en ter ing i n t o a broader dialogue.

Bishop Joseph McKINNEY, Living i n t h e Power of Pen tecos t ( A n n Arbor, M I : Servant Books, 1986) , pp, 106.

Well known among American Ca tho l i c Char i smat ics , ~ i s h o ~ McKINNEY has a minis t ry t h a t r eaches beyond h i s own e c c l e s i a s t i c a l group. I n t h i s small book, he o f f e r s s p i r i t u a l counsel on prayer , evangelism, h e a l i n g , pray ing with Sc r ip tu re , y i e ld ing t o t h e S p i r i t and hea r ing from God, The mater ial was apparent ly developed and p re sen ted a s homilies and thus has a very p a s t o r a l and pe r sona l tone. The essays a r e not only a f f i r m a t i o n s o f b a s i c

CoNTRTnUTORS: D . D . 5 . -- Donald D. %MEETON; C.v,L, = Cornelis VAN DRR l lAAN

I V , RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Geoffrey AMERN and Grncs D A V I E , Inner C i ty God: The Nature of a s l i e f i n t ho Inne r C i t ~ (London: Hod= & Stoughton, 19637) , pp. 160,

S t i g ANDREASSON, Makt Kamp: ICrIstu~ b e f r i a r frdnondskans makt - (Kumla: ZIFa fUrlng, 1987), pp, I66,

Donald BRIDGE, Power Evangelism and t h e Word of God (Eastbourne: Kingaway, 1987), pp, 248.

D.A. CARSON, Showing t h e S p i r i t : heo loa i ca l Exposition of 1 Cor in th i ans 12-14 (Grand R a ~ i d s : Baksr Book Mouse; ~ x e t e r : ~ a t e r n o s t s k Presa , i 9 0 7 ) , pp. 228.

P i e t e r G,R, DE VTLLIERS ( sc l , ) , Healing i n t h e Name o f God ( P r e t o r i a : C,B, PaweJ.1 B ib l e Center, Universi ty of South A f r i c a , 1986), pp, 227.

Melvin E. DIGTJUI, e t a l . , Five Views on Sanc t i f i ca t ion (Grand Rapids, MI : Academie Books, 1 9 8 7 ) ~ pp. 250,

Jerry L. SANDIDGE, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue ( 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 8 2 ) : A Study in Developing Ecumenism, 2 -studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 44 (Frankfust/Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1 9 8 7 ) , pp. c + 466; v+ 467.

Alan SCHRECK, The Compact History of the Catholic Church ( ~ n n Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1 9 8 7 ) , pp. 189.

Kevin SPRINGER (ed.), Riding the Third Wave: What Comas After Renewal? (Hants : Marshall Pickering , 1987), pp. 252.

John WIMBER, Heilung in der Kraft des Geistes, (Hochheim: Projektion J Verlag, 1987), pp. 277.

V , CHRONICLE

FRANCE. T H R E E PENTECOSTAL DENOMINATIONS i n F r a n c e ( E g l i s e de Dieu , E g l i s e s Apos to l iques , E g l i s e s du ~ B v e i l ) h e l d a p a s t o r a l c o n v e n t i o n a t t h e p r o t e s t a n t convent ion c e n t r e IIPorte Ouver te l1 i n ' Chfilon-sur-Sa8ne du r ing November 19 - 20, 1987. Th i s mee t ing i s n o t e w o r t h y b e c a u s e t h e s e churches a r e ( t o g e t h e r w i th t h e Lutheran-Reformed Church and t h e B a p t i s t s ) members of t h e French P r o t e s t a n t F e d e r a t i o n , A n o t h e r m e e t i n g of t h i s k ind i s p lanned f o r 1988 t o deepen t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f f r u i t f u l ecumenical d i a logue . ( c o r r e s p o n d e n t : Huber t JURGENSEN)

NETHERLANDS. Loek O U D E M A N , t e a c h e r a t C e n t r a l e P i n k s t e r B i j b e l s c h o o l Z e i s t , has earned h i s doc to randus t i t l e a t t h e (Roman C a t h o l i c ) Univer- s i t y of Nijmegen. His t h e s i s , V h a r i s m a van o n d e r s c h e i d i n g d e r gees t en , " d e a l i n g wi th t h e g i f t o f d i s c e r n i n g s p i r i t s was a c c e p t e d by t h e F a c u l t y of Theology i n J anua ry 1980. ( c o r r e s p o n d e n t : Cees V A N D E R LAAN)