Keywords:
Ecumenism, Unity,
Lutheran, Confessionalism, Pentecostalism
Abstract:
MF, Norwegian School
of Theology, Religion and Society, has undergone an extensive development. From representing a strong
Lutheran confessionalism the new face of the faculty has changed to be a pronounced
ecumenical workshop. This article presents this story, gives insights into the
historical process and presents the current experiences of opening the school
for non-Lutheran students and teachers. On the basis of this “case study” the
article reflects on ecumenical perspectives which probably can be suitable for
the 21st century.
Introduction
Over the past
ten years, MF, Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society – hereafter
MF – has worked through a comprehensive ecumenical reorientation. From
representing a relatively exclusive Lutheran confessionalism over the majority
of its 100-year history, the faculty's ‘new face’ is ecumenically oriented and
steeped in dialogue. The theological scope and confessional diversity that
currently characterizes the institution has attracted attention in theological
research communities far beyond MF. Today, the institution may be described as
an ecumenical workshop where it is possible to study Catholic, Pentecostal and
Methodist theology, as well as Lutheran theology which still clearly
constitutes the largest component. The fact that this development has taken place
at an academic place of education is important because the fruits of the
insights that both teachers and students acquire will, in turn, affect the
climate between churches. The students who are exposed to several faith
traditions during their study gain a substantial understanding of the
denominational diversity within the worldwide church. Thus they are provided
with secure expertise, making them an ecumenical resource for future church
service.[1]
This article
presents the historical backdrop of the developments that have taken place. We
ask to what degree this institution has been able to combine having a Lutheran
identity with breaking ecumenical barriers. What has happened internally at the
faculty, and how has this affected the study environment and colleague
community? What can we learn about ecumenical strategies of the 21st
century?
A historical sketch
Changes are often
the result of a long historical process, so also here. MF was officially
formed in 1907 as a private, independent faculty for theological education and
research. Today, it has the privilege to be the largest accredited specialized university in theology in Norway, with a total of about 1,200
students.[2] In the first 60 years of its history, however, only Lutheran students
had access to its faculty. In the early 1970s, the doors were opened to
non-Lutheran students, who eventually could take their studies here. This was
done without changing the fact that MF was – and still is – an
Evangelical-Lutheran faculty, which has always been enshrined in the ground
rules of the school. For a long time, teachers solely belonged to the Norwegian
Church and the teaching was of a mono-denominational nature.[3]
One of the
external factors of the changes that came was that the Parliament in 1969
decided that the Christian teaching in primary schools should no longer be
regarded as the Lutheran church's religious education in Norway: thus ending
the requirement of Lutheranism for teachers who would teach Christianity in
Norwegian schools.[4] This eventually had consequences for MF’s
attitude to the question of denominationalism.
The strength
of the Lutheran confessional dominance at MF at this time is documented in the
book Between Church and Academia, MF 100
years 1908-2008 (Mellom kirke og akademia. Det teologiske
Menighetsfakultet 100 år 1908-2008).[5] One of the chapters is written by a professor of
church history, Ingunn Folkestad Breistein.[6] She proves that in the lead up to Parliament's
amendment, the “professor council” (consisting of the professor's staff) at MF
went against the proposal to repeal the Lutheran confessional requirement for
teachers in the public schools. The council believed that non-Lutheran
Christian teachers “would undermine the Christian upbringing.”[7]
Nevertheless,
the amendment was adopted by Parliament, in line with the cultural development
at this time, which meant greater freedom and tolerance of other church and
religious traditions than Lutheran. Furthermore, Folkestad Breistein believes
that the development at MF was influenced by both the international debate on
religious freedom and human rights, and that the Lutheran church, which was in
the majority in its region, gradually became engaged in ecumenical dialogues at
international, bilateral and national levels.[8]
Other factors
which at this time meant that MF gradually changed its position, were that most
Free churches were theologically conservative, something which – for that
matter – MF was also. Thus there was no great distance in theological and
cultural profile between some free churches and the low-church revival
movements, which had a natural place within the Lutheran Church in Norway.
Furthermore, many free churches wanted better educated pastors, but struggled
due to the limited education resources they had to offer their own young
generation. The Bible schools available gave no officially recognized
qualifications.
However, key
players at MF were highly skeptical, both of the international church
ecumenism, represented by the World Council of Churches (WCC), and of the
desire to open the faculty to non-Lutheran students. Many feared the influence
of both Catholic and liberal theology. Among the most prominent was Professor
Leiv Aalen who thought that the Lutheran confession alone was an expression of
the true Christian faith. Deviations from the Lutheran faith were tantamount to
deviation from the true Christian faith. Aalen considered therefore that the
ecumenical endeavors among Lutherans should largely entail in pointing out that
the Lutheran creeds and confessions were the genuine expression of ecumenical
faith. Other figures, for example, Professor O. G. Myklebust and Professor Ivar
Aasheim, said that Lutheranism should adopt a more humble attitude, realizing
that Lutherans had a lot to learn from other Christian denominations,
practically as well as doctrinally.[9]
In January
1969, the professor council at MF decided that the faculty should provide access
for non-Lutheran students taking examinations at MF. This was a historic
breakthrough after years of internal dissension among students, employees, and
management. The decision, however, was strategically justified, since
Parliament had removed the confession obligation for Christianity teachers in
the public schools. MF foresaw that the development of education in public
schools would go in the direction of non-denominational Christian studies. For
the faculty, it was important that prospective Free Church school-teachers
could get their education at MF in order to ensure that Lutheran school
children still would receive the best possible teaching in Christianity.
Nevertheless,
the Free Church students’ access to the MF would have its limitations. Aalen believed
they should not lead faculty morning devotions, nor have access to the
communion table, nor should they participate in the student democracy, hold
office in councils, committees nor governing bodies. In addition, Aalen didn’t
abstain from attributing these so-called “dissenters” negative theological
characteristics: He believed these were people who were not only deceived “in
their simplicity” but that they, in their belief concerning sacraments and
their church-view were “regular heretics” to a “fanatic” degree in line with
“Papists” under the time of the Lutheran Reformation. Accordingly, it was not a
natural task for MF to give heretics theological degrees.[10]
Despite this,
it was still ultimately decided that non-Lutheran students should have access
to Christianity studies at MF through the “Department of Religious Education”
by MF. It was realized in 1970. This was the first step on the way towards full
confessional equality for all MF students.
Governmental pressure
The next stage
was the question of the right to get access to and a formal theological degree (the
program of professional study in theology). Among the factors that made this
attainable for free church students, was the introduction of a law in Norway
that intended to ensure that private schools were given access to public
financial support. Among the conditions was that the relevant institutions
should treat all applicants equally, regardless of gender or denominational
affiliation.[11] Specifically, for MF this meant that
non-Lutherans had access to official studies in theology and women should have
access to the final practical-theological semester. MF had so far based its
operations on private donations, but expenses were rapidly increasing, and “the
stick behind the carrot” was that the announced government funding would be
threatened if not MF treated their students alike when it came to church
affiliation and sex. The requirement of the authorities was crystal clear: all
students must have “equal rights and duties.”[12] Here too we see that external factors were in
play and influenced MF’s internal debate.
Consideration by the same professor council at MF in the autumn of 1971 gave the necessary support to the decision to give non-Lutheran students full rights as students of theology, assuming that MF’s confessional status was safeguarded.
Consideration by the same professor council at MF in the autumn of 1971 gave the necessary support to the decision to give non-Lutheran students full rights as students of theology, assuming that MF’s confessional status was safeguarded.
But since the decision affected MF’s inner life, how should the faculty respond to Aalen's
strong warnings against the Free Church engaging in faculty sermons and
worship? Aalen even suggested that worship with communion should cease, but the
faculty rejected this. Instead, the professor council advised that the Free
Church students should actively participate in spiritual life on MF, including being
able to lead devotional times. The majority of Aalen’s colleagues did not want
to carry out his strict Lutheran confessionalism by closing the communion table
and thereby maintain an even more exclusive practice than the Lutheran Church
itself actually had in Norway. This meant that Aalen for several years stayed
away from the devotional life of the faculty.
For MF, there
was no turning back. Faculty governing bodies let history be history and passed
a line that after a few decades should accelerate. Folkestad Breistein asks in
her article about whether the ecumenical profile came to be stronger in the
future, or not. The rest of this article is an attempt to provide an answer to
that question.
Ecumenical reorientation
The two
decisions in 1969 and 1971 allowing non-Lutheran students were important
milestones. But much was still the same in regards to textbooks, dogmatic
leanings and the fact that the entire teaching staff was Lutheran. Several
major changes, however, were to come. Increasingly MF felt uncomfortable with
the fact that, by virtue of its exclusively Lutheran staff, it would be
Lutheran teachers who shaped the other churches and in their lectures presented
their theology as well. An informal survey in the early 2000s among the
students showed that up to 25 percent of them came from other ecclesial
communities than Lutheran. In addition, the Catholic Church has grown
significantly in Norway over the past two or three decades, not least because of
economic immigration from Eastern Europe. At that time also the Pentecostal movement
in Norway was in an internal process, looking at opportunities to provide
education in Pentecostal theology at High School Diploma level. [13]
The increasing
inflow of Free Church students at MF, in the transition to a new millennium,
led to the faculty council (the whole academic staff) in spring 2000 preparing
a report on how MF should take the next step and further develop the
progressive ecumenical reorientation that had started in the early 1970s. Would
it, for example, be appropriate to introduce Lutheran theology as a form of
privileged “normal theology” – the Christian
theology par excellence – and allow
other theological traditions always to be mentioned by their confessional name,
as either Catholic or Pentecostal theology? The faculty asked: is not Lutheran
theology also a confessionally characterized theology? This lack of equality
was part of the backdrop forming the situation addressed in this article.
It should not
be ignored that the situation was also related to what we might call the “zeitgeist;”
the late modern thinking which doesn’t sit comfortably with the notion that one
particular theological position should have a dominant definition of explanation
when the ecclesial reality was much more complex, not least in the universal
church. Internally amongst the MF teachers, there came forth a greater
theological diversity than had characterized MF in earlier times. The school
also offered a much broader study, which made the teaching staff more diverse.
It is
important to make clear the fact that the academic ideals that have given MF a
greater positional pluralism, in general, are the same ideals that make MF able
to reflect a far greater confessional breadth than ever before. This implies
that MF in the years ahead may provide the theological and ecumenical environment
with reflections as to how the commitment to Scripture and confession can be
secured with the help of several professional based theological voices; not
only one ecclesiastical (Lutheran) voice. Today it seems clear that what we
today may define as “the new MF” is far preferable compared to the denominational
monopolization of earlier times.
The breakthrough
A teacher council initiative in 2000 resulted in a
comprehensive report that challenged MF in several areas that had significant
ecumenical implications: how can a Lutheran institution like MF understand its
role as a promoter of Evangelical-Lutheran confessional theology today? What consequences
may it conceivably have for a given teacher’s own church’s affiliation? Must
one be Lutheran to hold an important job at a Lutheran faculty? What are the
specific ecumenical challenges for MF in the years ahead?
First, the report, written by Professor Torleiv Austad on
behalf of the faculty council, stressed that non-Lutheran students had to be
met with respect and objectivity. Both the teaching and the environment is
enriched by the student body being ecumenical, even though the institution as
such does not formally need to be cross-confessional. The horizon can indeed be
broadened. In the future, it will probably be more important to ask. ‘What is a
healthy theological worldview?’ than ‘What confessional affiliation does one
have?’ The implication being this: the most profound divisions in the church
landscape do not follow denominational lines, but can just as easily go across
these.
Second, MF endorsed what has been a generally important
ecumenical ideal: a confessional affiliation does not stand in the way of
ecumenical openness.[14] It’s better
to have an organized disagreement than an unorganized agreement, in which
positions are muddled and dogma is foggy. It is natural to refer to already
existing church agreements such as The
Leuenberg Concordance, The Porvoo
Declaration and The Joint Declaration
on the Doctrine of Justification. These assume no church merger, but are
about a kind of “unity in reconciled diversity” or “differentiated consensus,”
where important theological insights are won through processes of theological
dialogue. MF has also, for many decades, had teachers who have been deeply
involved in the ecumenical movement, which has fed MF’s expertise and insight.
Third, there
has been a breakthrough for what we might call a “professional obligation:” as
an academic education it was natural for MF’s teachers to establish a critical
dialogue with various views on Christianity and denominations presupposed they
are understood as holistic interpretations and living traditions. It should
therefore be expected that MF could have teachers who, on the basis of their
own confessional standpoint, are able to navigate many different perspectives and
approaches.
Fourth, out of
both a missional and confessional concern for the sake of the Gospel, it is important
that Christians from different confessional backgrounds come closer together. The
Evangelical-Lutheran position necessarily entails a commitment to ecumenical
responsibility. This is determined by the understanding that fundamentally
ecumenism is a matter of fidelity to Scripture. A faculty that emphasizes the
authority of Scripture and which is under the principle of “Sola Scriptura”
will be, by its very nature, ecumenical.[15] From an apostolic standpoint, the church is not
segregated into particular denominations, but is broader and crosses over the
boundaries of different church traditions. Such an attitude is not compatible
with some forms of entrenched confessionalism.
Finally, it is natural to mention the changes in the international
church scene, including the growth of the international Pentecostal movement.
These developments mean that it was natural for MF to relate more actively to
several traditions than just the Lutheran. With the change in profile MF
undertook, the institution showed that it was updated on how the universal
church actually is. The best way to take this insight seriously is by offering
studies that reflect several church traditions.
The sum of the
report was that MF was willing to formally engage non-Lutheran teachers “in a not
insignificant minority.”[16] Today – fifteen years later – this
“not insignificant minority” entails teachers with Methodist, Pentecostal and
Roman Catholic affiliation.
Experiences
The following are reflections and experiences from
those who were hired as a result of the ecumenical breakthrough that has taken
place. What experiences have we reaped so far? Let me summarize:
·
The whole ecclesial landscape in Norway has responded to the changes
that have taken place at MF, including the various governing bodies of the
institution and MF’s many ecclesial supporters and financial contributors.
·
Students see how ecumenism is demonstrated daily on their own campus.
Christian unity work is thus not only a linguistic construction but something visible
and concrete. Both faculty and staff receive training in dealing with
professional theological disagreements.
·
There is a daily interdenominational conversation, both amongst students
and between teachers and students. Ecumenical dialogue is generally done as an
academic and ecclesiastical norm and there is an increasing degree of equality
between different confessional traditions.
·
Students get to go deep into another denomination by taking one of the
confessionally oriented subjects, for example, Introduction to Catholic theology
or Pentecostal spirituality and history. The formal denominational competence
of the students is thus lifted, including their understanding of how diverse
the universal church actually is shaped today.
·
In some of the subjects, teachers from different denominations are
together, in the same room as students, to discuss key doctrinal issues. There
is thus an academic and critical conversation between teachers often giving
huge learning outcomes for students.
·
In some cases, students (and teachers) choose to move to another
church. However, this is not as a result of agitating proselytism, but are
mature considerations taken over time. An ecumenical oriented academic
environment can offer great assistance during such processes.
·
Both students and teachers acquire training in combining a confessional
closeness to their own church, whilst maintaining a professional distance to
their own background. It enables them to reflect maturely over both their own
and others’ theological strengths and weaknesses.
·
It also implies that one takes the theology of others more seriously.
One can lead academic talks and live faithfully in a college, in recognition
that no theology is complete or comprehensive. Any theological environment has
always more to learn and correspondingly always something important to give.
Insight into the others’ traditions enriches one’s own. It is possible to see “the
others face” without resulting in featureless homogenization.
·
Being ecumenically sensitive means that the church in concrete form
emerges as partners in an important alliance. A theological institution must be
informed of what needs the churches have, with regard to the fields in the
theological work it does on their behalf. It also applies to cooperation on
important research projects, in which various ecclesial communities can often
provide empirical data that are essential in church development and in studies
of more systematic-theological character.
·
A stipulation which must be brought to bear on the theological
reflection as a whole is that one cannot stand outside the highly diverse spiritual
experiences among humans. Then we may be able to understand the manifold
positions of the church, and the alternative methods of interpretation which
are potently expressed in the Christian Church, throughout its international
breadth. Thus MF has not remained indifferent to the trend towards the
empirical, or to the development of new forms of spirituality.
·
This affects a faculty such as MF. In a deep sense, we are together. Serving in the same chapel,
kneeling at the same communion table, being in the same teaching forums and sitting
in the same boardroom. When being together in the same research community and
mingle with the many international students from many parts of the world, undoubtedly
does something to all of us. Together we represent various theological
dialects, but essentially we're talking the same language.
·
An environment like this should be able to see where the positions really
diverge and where they, in fact, run together. By combining openness with clarity
we develop theological discernment skills, of which an academic theological
college can be proud. This is about far more than ecumenical courtesy.
·
When, for example, we approach a subject such as Christian baptism, it
is our experience that the deeper one digs into the Scripture, the more one
picks up insights from the church’s long history, and the more one critically
considers baptism’s own history in practice, the harder it is to maintain a
superficial and schematic difference of definitions. Thus, mutual recognition may
emerge. A classical church’s need for a thorough education on baptism is in
many ways proportional to the free churches’ need for a more profound baptismal
theology and a clarification on unbaptized children’s theological status.
·
A church may well have some of the medication to the other church's
theological infirmities. For Pentecostalism, I suppose that the academic
community may make available their reflexive resources so that the Pentecostals
can be listening, learning and in dialogue, in order to promote constructive
cultivation and deepening of a tradition that has not lacked fresh sails, but may
need a deeper keel.
·
Academic activity promotes critical reflection and increasing
self-awareness. We ask the questions we previously did not consider. We hurl
ourselves again towards the problem areas from which we previously shied away,
and we refine, improve and promote the best of our traditions, while we at the
same time strive to integrate new insights and learning from others. These are
articulated in a clear way where different confessions can live as friends and
be conscious of their specific characteristics.
An ecumenism for the 21st century?
There are signs suggesting that ecumenism itself
is changing. With MF as a “case study,” it may be appropriate to reflect on
ecumenism which probably can be suitable for the 21st century.
Believers across denominations are listening to each other and are establishing
a dialogue in which they find each other’s hearts. This is an approach which has been embraced by different ecumenists
but also by the Pentecostals. The latter has restricted experiences of being
involved in the more formal church-ecumenical processes and historically the
movement has been critical to the ecumenical movement as such, despite the
outstanding ecumenical visions that have been verified by Pentecostal scholars.[17]
One possible step is to define ecumenical engagement
as a conversation between common travelers.[18] Ecumenical theology will be the fruits of the
insights such a journey engenders. The purely theoretical model-structures fade
into the background and are not in the field of focus. Ecumenism will always
revolve around something more – I may venture to say something quite other –
than academic theological formulations consensus, agreements, and finalized
documents.[19]
For me, this is linked to my wish to ground
ecumenical processes in people's real life. The insight is that all churches,
without exception, need to borrow theology and spirituality from each other. It
is often the “foreign” experiences that renew churches. Those experiences are
not initially “ours,” but through theological reflection, they may become something
in common when people of faith across denominations go some way together in
terms of being involved in respectful dialogue and common services. Thus ecumenism
supplies a new language and gives new terminologies to our ecumenical reality
in ways that make them accessible to more than professional ecumenicists.[20]
One conclusion,
amongst others, of looking at this unified work as a common journey of faith is
that the result of such a journey is not defined in advance. The working
methods are process oriented and there is given wide space to wonder, to religious
stories and to testimonies. Church services and prayers are integral elements
that allow us not only come closer together but also closer to God. The
ecumenism that does not lead in the direction of worship where we sing “the new
song unto the Lord” is an academic exercise, far removed from life and of only
limited interest.
This corresponds well with the Pentecostal theological witness in the
world today, and is an approach by which the ecumenical movement as a whole
could be enriched. Involving Pentecostalism more in dialogues may in itself be
a contribution that strengthens the ecumenical movement. In other words, I
am advocating an approach to ecumenism that can serve
the idea of Christian unity in a more fundamental way than theological
negotiations, compromises, and consensus have so far managed to achieve. It
allows for greater practical insight, whereby using various forms of
fellowship, we see the richness of the faith of others, whilst the practice
leads toward Christ as the very heart of faith and unity, and towards a
celebration of unity through thanks, prayer, and worship.[21] It stimulates a relational network identity that
is dynamic, dialogic and linguistically mediated, based on a heartfelt interest
in others’ experiences and insights. An extension of the ecumenical
identity must take seriously the interaction between both the emotional,
empirical, spiritual, intellectual and physical dimensions of life as believers
in the world and as believers, together with fellow travelers from other
contexts of tradition.
Consequently, for the Pentecostals, the ecumenical dialogue will itself be one of the goals of
ecumenism. However, it does not replace the academic theological talks. But it
ties together the academic- tinged ecumenism and popular involvement, and it corresponds
with the faith’s koinonia dimension, materialized through various forms
of local church communities, home groups and prayer communities. Doctrinal
differences will not disappear because of this, but there is something about
the context that is different. Therefore the approach will be different: a deep
feeling that we are all one in a common Christ-life, created by the Spirit and
realized as a community by faith and baptism.
This affects the understanding of being a church. In
the development of church models, there is more at stake than ordinance questions
and the subject of correct structures. In themselves, these do not ensure the
Spirit's presence. In the Pauline presentation of the life in the body of
Christ, unity is not expressed by mechanical and formal structures but
expressed in agape (love) categories. From the historical reality of
salvation which builds on the early Christian tradition and the early church
confessions, emerges a community in the Spirit that goes beyond the
confessional and denominational boundaries.
Ecumenism may, therefore, be regarded precisely as a
journey guided by the Spirit. The road to each other’s hearts must be easily
accessible, and so must ecumenism be a topic that is not reserved for the
ecclesiastical bureaucracy.
Thus, all of us have a responsibility to provide
constructive contributions that Jesus' prayer for unity might be realized, so
that the world might believe.
[1] As the biggest theological seminary in Norway MF is an important
supplier of personnel to different ministries not only for the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of Norway and connected institutions, but also for other
churches, like the United Methodist Church in Norway and to some degree also
Pentecostal churches.
[2] Among these there are many who take studies in
other disciplines than the purely theological. As an
accredited Specialized University MF, located in Oslo, Norwegian School of
Theology (1908) focuses on Theology, Religion, and Social Studies. With three
departments (the Department of Theology, the Department of Religious Education
and Pedagogical Studies, and the Department of Religion and Society), MF
educates scholars, teachers, ministers, and other professionals at the
undergraduate and graduate level for leadership and service both nationally and
internationally. For more information, see http://www.mf.no/en
[3] Torleiv Austad, Teologi
i kirkens rom (Theology in the Room of the Church) (Oslo: Luther Forlag, 2001),
12.
[4] The Church of Norway has 3.9 million members which represent around 79
percent of the Norwegian population. On
May 21, 2012, the Norwegian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that
granted the Church of Norway increased autonomy. Article 2 in the
Norwegian Constitution stated until this historical amendment that “the
Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State.
The inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the
same.” In the new wording of the Constitution, there is no longer any reference
to an “official religion of the State.” Article 2 in the Constitution now says
that Norway's values are based on its “Christian and humanist heritage”.
But still, the public Church Law of 1996 designates the Church of Norway as “a
confessional, missional, serving, and open Folk Church” with baptism as a criterion for membership.
[5] Bernt T. and Nils Aksel Røsæg (eds.) Oftestad, Mellom kirke og akademia. Det teologiske Menighetsfakultet
100 år. 1908-2008 (Between Church and Academia: MF Norwegian School of Theology
100 Years. 1908-2008. (Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag, 2008).
[6] Ingunn
Folkestad Breistein, "Fra luthersk presteskole til økumenisk
utdanningssted (From Lutheran Priest School to an Ecumenical Place of Education)," in Mellom kirke og akademia. Det teologiske Menighetsfakultet 100 år.
1908-2008, ed. Nils Aksel Røsæg (eds.) Bernt T. Oftestad (Trondheim: Tapir
Akademisk Forlag, 2008).
[7] Uttalelse fra MF, januar 1963.
[8] Breistein,
"Fra luthersk presteskole til økumenisk utdanningssted (From Lutheran
Priest School to an Ecumenical Place of
Education)," 223.
[9] Ibid.,
225.
[10] Ibid.,
230.
[11] Ibid.,
232.
[12] The Minister of Education, Bjartmar Gjerde, in a
letter to MF, May 1971.
[13] That led to a formal agreement with MF for some years.
Today the Pentecostal movement in Norway cooperates with the Baptist Union of
Norway in the operating different programs through The Norwegian School of
Leadership and Theology (HLT). The school was established in 2008 and is located
at Stabekk, near Oslo.
[14] Austad, Teologi i
kirkens rom (Theology in the Room of the Church), 111.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid., 89.
[17] A study of the developed ecumenical
attitudes that characterized one of the Pentecostal pioneers, is given by Terje
Hegertun in his article “Thomas Ball Barratt and ‘the Spirit of Unity’” in: Journal of the European Pentecostal
Theological Association, Vol. 35, No. 1, April 2015, 34-37.
[18] For this,
see the methodology of Global Christian Forum (GCF), an initiative taken by the
ecumenical movement in order to embrace the whole spectrum of Christian
churches, including those who are not formally members of the World Council of
Churches, for ex. Pentecostal churches and the Roman Catholic Church. The
practice of sharing personal and community faith journeys is central to the
GCF, or as said by themselves: “It demystifies and bridges differences between
us, leas to mutual appreciation, encourages humility, and helps us to recognize
the work of the same Holy Spirit in each other’s life. Source: http://www.globalchristianforum.org/guidelines.html
For and introduction to GCF, see Huibert van Beek, ed., Revisioning Christian Unity: The Global Christian Forum, ed. Ruth Padilla deBortst et al., Studies in Global Christianity (Oxford: Regnum, 2009).
For and introduction to GCF, see Huibert van Beek, ed., Revisioning Christian Unity: The Global Christian Forum, ed. Ruth Padilla deBortst et al., Studies in Global Christianity (Oxford: Regnum, 2009).
[19] Terje Hegertun, Det
brodersind som pinseaanden nødvendigvis maa føde: analyse av økumeniske
posisjoner i norsk pinsebevegelse med henblikk på utviklingen av en pentekostal
økumenikk og fornyelse av økumeniske arbeidsformer (The Mind of Brotherhood to
Which the Spirit of Pentecost with Necessity Must Give Birth: An Analysis of
Ecumenical Positions in the Pentecostal Movement of Norway, Regarding
Generating a Pentecostal Ecumenism and a Renewal of Ecumenical Methods)
(Trondheim: Tapir akademisk, 2009), 253 ff.
[20] Mikhail
Bakhtin is preoccupied with the fact that the heterogeneous’ character of
language and dialogue has the potential of shaping a polyphonic meaning. The
words we are using are dialogized because they are infused in a highly different
contextual frame of references. They have been uses in earlier dialogues and
they are part of our preconception. That’s why they have a plurality of meaning
which cannot be closed for new recognitions. To a greater or lesser degree, theology
is influenced by the same processes. Every tradition should basically be
considered as open for revisions. For
this, see Mikhail
Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination:
Four Essays ed. Michael Holquist, University of Texas Press Slavic Series
(Texas: University of Texas Press, 1981), 269-277.
[21] For this, see the Catholic-ecumenical model called
receptive ecumenism in: P. D. (ed.) Murray, Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning. Exploring a Way
for Contemporary Ecumenism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
About the author:
Terje Hegertun is a professor in systematic theology at MF, Norwegian
School of Theology. He is connected to the Norwegian Pentecostal Movement, as a
former pastor and editor for the movement’s national magazine. Hegertun teaches
in Pentecostal theology, Christian spirituality, systematic theology, and
ecumenism.
Published in Dialogue, A Journal of Theology, Volume 55. Number 4, Winter 2016, 364-371