What I Don’t Like About the Charismatic Movement

1. I don’t like the super-spirituality that is constantly giving rise to new and bizarre teachings and experiences. In this super-spiritual milieu, individuals are constantly seeking some new experience or some new revelation or giving themselves and others impressive sounding titles. All the while, the simplicity and power of Jesus and the Gospel are neglected. This is exactly what was happening in the city of Colosse when Paul wrote his letter to the church in that city (see my article “The Colossian Heresy Revisited“). I think the inhabitants of heaven must weep when they observe the self-centered, religious antics in our movement today.
2. I don’t like the celebrity mentality that is promoted by so many, nor the entertainment culture that has captured so much of the movement. This culture has more in common with Hollywood than with the New Testament. In it, worship leaders have become entertainers, preachers have become performers, and church has become big business. At one time, commitment to Christ involved giving up personal fame and fortune. Today, people come to the church to seek their personal fame and fortune. Oh, for a mighty heaven-sent revival that will sweep through the churches of North America.
3. I don’t like the money-driven antics of preachers who promise blessings and gifts from God to those who will send them an offering. These are the new charismatic indulgences. Scripture is twisted and integrity is compromised as the gifts of God, purchased by the blood of Christ, are offered for a price. These are those of whom Jesus spoke in Matt. 23:14, Woe to scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. What a terrible reckoning these will have to give when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

What I Like About the Charismatic Movement

1. I love the thousands of Spirit-filled believers I have met in many parts of the world, including North America, who are sold out to Jesus Christ and the advancement of His cause.
2. I love the world-wide outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Wherever He is allowed to work in unscripted, spontaneous ways there is a melting and breaking, often resulting in tears and sometimes in laughter. These times also include healings, miracles, and conversions. These times cannot be duplicated and mass marketed, although that is attempted in our business approach to Christianity. These “times of refreshing” come as we are totally dependent on Him and humble in His presence.
3. I love the empowering of the Holy Spirit in preaching, teaching, and in the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit. The only means Jesus gave for fulfilling the Great Commission was for His people to be filled with and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit once said to me, “Life in the Spirit is a life without limitations.” Hallelujah! Keep coming Holy Spirit!

This article, used with permission, appeared on the Pneuma Foundation website on February 7, 2008. The Pneuma Foundation is the parent organization of PneumaReview.com.

June 19-22, 2016 at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Conference description from The Center for Barth Studies:

Karl Barth’s Pneumatology and the Global Pentecostal Movement

Karl Barth’s pneumatology is a contentious subject, especially when read in critical relationship to his conception of divine and human agency and his consequent understanding of the church. But how might Barth’s pneumatological contribution be interpreted in another ecclesiological context, and against another set of concerns regarding the acting of God in relation to the human? This conference sets Barth’s work within the context of world Pentecostalism and examines the potential of his pneumatology for a God wondrous and beyond all controls, and for the church as a pilgrim people gathered and send by the Spirit to witness to this God.

Speakers include: Christian T. Collins Winn, Daniela C. Augustine, Frank D. Macchia, Nimi Wariboko, and Terry L. Cross.

For more information, see the 2016 Conference webpage: http://barth.ptsem.edu/event/2016-annual-karl-barth-conference

In Richard Bustraan’s work, The Jesus People Movement, the author aims to describe and trace the Jesus People Movement within Pentecostal historiography. Although this work is a comprehensive research thesis, non-academic readers will be able to appreciate and enjoy Bustraan’s work. It’s content covers and tracks the movement from it’s inception in 1967 to the end of the 1970’s all the while exploring the historical, sociological, and theological nature of the Jesus People Movement and its eventual acceptance as another peripheral sensation among American Pentecostalism. The research is divided into six different chapters covering the emergence of Hippies, a historical overview of the Jesus People movement, a historical overview of the Pentecostal movement, the sociological identity of the movement, the theological identity of the movement and the author’s final conclusions. However, rather than summarize each of the chapters, I will look at the key strengths and weaknesses of the work as a whole.

From the beginning of the work, Bustraan successfully sets the backdrop for the Jesus People Movement by exploring the various factors and influences that gave rise to the hippies. After effectively showing how the 1960’s and the hippies were influential in setting the stage for the Jesus People movement, the author turns his attention to explore the historical, sociological, and theological nature of the Jesus People Movement, while consistently noting the lasting contributions made to Evangelicalism. Most notably, these contributions include the eventual formation of the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) industry, emerging primarily because of “Jesus Music” (34), and the establishment of church networks and movements including Hope Chapel, Calvary Chapel and the Association Vineyard of Churches (35).

Perhaps the best part of the work in my estimation is the concentration on the continuities and discontinuities between Jesus People theology and classical Pentecostal theology due to this topic’s relevance today within modern Pentecostal scholarship. The author notes that the major discontinuity comes from the issue of “subsequence and consequence” relating to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and sign gifts (159). The author notes that although classical Pentecostal denominations struggled early on in the twentieth century regarding the timing and expectations of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Jesus People Movement did not. There was no rigidness and singular demands regarding Spirit Baptism within the whole of the movement. Therefore Bustraan concludes that it allowed for theological variances regarding timing and expectations within the various segments of the movement (160). Since the issue of “subsequence and consequence” once solved within classical Pentecostal denominations has begun to resurface, I could not help but wonder if the Jesus People theology impacted this development.

There are few Christians in the West who have not heard of the revival that started around 1906 usually referred to as the Azusa Street Revival. This outpouring of the Holy Spirit on evangelical Christians, mostly from the holiness stream literally changed the history of Christianity and the world. People came from all over the world to Los Angeles, and after being baptized in the Holy Spirit took this fresh Pentecost, this Full Gospel, to the whole world.

From this sprang the many Pentecostal denominations that today boast some of the largest churches in the world, and later various movements such as the Latter Rain Revival, the Charismatic Renewal, Vineyard Movement, Third Wave, Toronto Blessing, etc. which impacted hundreds of millions all across the globe. Today, probably the vast majority of mission-related Christian organizations have their roots in this revival.

On the 100^th anniversary of the Azusa Street Revival, over 10,000 Christians gather in Los Angeles for a centennial meeting. Leading pastors and evangelists from every persuasion and stream in this great movement both shared the Word and reported on the progress, obstacles, and future vision of preaching the Full Gospel and planting churches throughout the world. Dozens of workshops covered virtually every aspect of the movement.

In 2008, the Empowered21 initiative was launched in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to focus on new generations and the power of the Holy Spirit. Today, Empowered21 spans the entire globe through twelve regional cabinets. Each regional cabinet focuses on pursuing initiatives and events in their area of the world to address the future of Spirit-empowered Christianity.

The purpose of Empowered21 is:

• To unite the global Spirit-filled movement together intergenerationally for the purpose of seeking a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the 21st century
• To focus the energy and resources of the Spirit-empowered global church on the harvest and challenges before us
• To provide a platform for addressing the crucial issues facing the 21st century Spirit-empowered church
• To discover contemporary methods, vocabulary, spiritual grace and relational favor needed for engaging every generation in Spirit-empowered living
• To witness greater convergence and collaboration of Spirit-empowered ministries around the world

The 2010 conference, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with over 10,000 participants, was exceptionally meaningful and powerful. I have been in this movement for 53 years and as a young man actually met a few who were in the original Azusa Street outpouring, but we learned so much more in Tulsa about this whole movement, its roots and impact on Christianity. The workshops also were extremely inspiring and informative.

Historian Paul King introduces us to the origins of the controversial Word of Faith movement.

Paul King speaking at the 2014 Society for Pentecostal Studies convention.

A spate of articles and books have appeared over the past two decades debating the controversial teachings of the “Word of Faith” movement. Several blistering critiques such as those of D.R. McConnell (A Different Gospel) and Hank Hanegraaff (Christianity in Crisis) have claimed the movement as heretical or cultic, originating in New Thought metaphysics.¹ Others such as William DeArteaga, Joe McIntyre, Derek Vreeland have mounted defenses or reconstructions of modern faith theology, while still others such as Geir Lie, Dale Simmons, and Robert Bowman have presented more moderate critiques and scholarly studies.²

E. W. Kenyon (1867-1948) is generally recognized as the chief originator of the modern faith movement.³ The core of the controversy is found in the purported origins of Kenyon’s teachings. McConnell’s pivotal and influential book entitled A Different Gospel made a case for extensive influence from New Thought metaphysics upon the thinking of Kenyon, detailing noticeable parallels between Kenyon’s writings and New Thought writers. He thus concluded that Kenyon’s thought, and therefore modern faith teaching, is derived from non-Christian cultic sources and thus suspect. Hanegraaff built on McConnell’s research and conclusions to avow further that the modern faith teaching is heretical and cultic. Both books have made a significant impact on the evangelical Christian community in labeling the word of faith movement as heterodox and even sacrilegious.

Church historian Eddie Hyatt comments, “These critics … display a lack of knowledge concerning the historical development of the twentieth century Pentecostal movement from its nineteenth century antecedents and its influence of the modern movement. It is in the religious mileau [sic] out of the Holiness and Healing movements of the nineteenth century that the modern “Faith Movement” finds its primary emphasis.”⁴ Similarly, Simmons’ doctoral dissertation concludes:

As for Kenyon himself, it would appear that he is best placed within the Keswickean/Higher Christian Life tradition. … This is not to say that there are not aspects of Kenyon’s teaching—specifically those centering on one’s confession—that he stresses to a point that is only comparable to that of New Thought. … It would be going too far to conclude that New Thought was the major contributing factor in the initial development of Kenyon’s thought.⁵

Taking a more scientific approach than McConnell and Hanegraaff, Bowman compared 23 standard New Thought concepts with Christian Science and Kenyon. From this statistical analysis, he concluded that while there is much in common between Christian Science and New Thought, there is “little resemblance” between Kenyon and New Thought. Further, he concluded that Kenyon is “far closer to orthodoxy than is Christian Science.” Kenyon may share some similarity with metaphysical thought, but his views are “fundamentally different.”⁶ He demonstrates that McConnell’s methodology is faulty, and thus his conclusions regarding Kenyon’s connections with metaphysical New Thought are deeply flawed. While there may have been some metaphysical influence, Kenyon’s views are more unlike such concepts than like.

In the days of Pasteur and Lister, was the Divine Healing movement out of touch with what American society believed about medicine?

Introduction

The late nineteenth century was a time of monumental change. It witnessed a cyclone of transformation and progress rivaling, at least, that of any preceding era. Not surprisingly, it was a time of key advances in medical science. This era was home to Pasteur, Röntgen, Lister, and a number of lesser known, but still significant, medical pioneers. These inventors and their discoveries radically reshaped and significantly advanced the practice of medicine. New advances seemed to be dawning with every new day. At the end of the nineteenth century, the promise of medical science seemed unlimited.

At the same time, the late nineteenth century also saw religious change. There was the emergence of the Divine Healing movement, a loosely associated group of religious teachers and practitioners who sought to promote and practice the healing power of the indwelling and resurrected Christ over that of natural means. This movement gained tens of thousands of adherents in a significantly short span of time. Key figures in this group included people from a wide-variety of denominations, men and women, ministers and physicians. Furthermore, this movement played an essential role in the birth of Pentecostalism,¹ the greatest religious movement of the twentieth century.

Therefore, there rose simultaneously on the American landscape at least two significant approaches to health and healing in the late nineteenth century, each with its own biased and ardent champions and devotees. Yet, the opinion of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing teachers did not, as one might expect, thoroughly dispense with the value and goodness of physicians, their diagnoses, and medical treatment. While they did not completely dismiss the advances, usefulness, and propriety of medical science, they did assert that it was, at best, a deficient approach to the gravity, complexity, and depth of human disease. While they believed that physicians and their medical treatments may be gifts from God, they were convinced that medical science was fundamentally unable to bring to humanity the kind of health and life intended for them by God and found solely in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ.

This chapter will explore those common and key responses—both the affirmations and the denials—of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing proponents to the growing popularity and use of medicine, remedies, and physicians.

Divine Healing Affirmations of Medical Science

Almost to a person, Divine Healing advocates readily granted that doctors and many of their treatments exist by the providence of God. A. B. Simpson, founder of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, noted that physicians and their medical treatments are “among God’s good gifts” to humanity.² Charles Cullis, the renowned Boston homeopath and father of the Divine Healing movement in the United States noted the “valuable” role that doctors and their treatments may play and continued his own homeopathic medical practice in harmony with his ministry of Divine Healing.³ Carrie Judd Montgomery, one of the Divine Healing movement’s more celebrated authors, speakers, and founder of the “Home of Peace” in Oakland, California, granted the skill of those physicians that worked with her during her own infirmity.⁴ One lesser-known figure, Kenneth McKenzie, a member of Simpson’s Christian and Missionary Alliance and author of no fewer than two significant texts on the theology and practice of Divine Healing, noted that only those with an immature theology of Divine Healing and “extremists” would deny that there is good in doctors and medicine.⁵ Furthermore, the fact that most Divine Healing proponents continued to refer to physicians as “Dr.” shows that only by caricature could one assert that Divine Healing movement saw absolutely no good or use in consulting with physicians and implementing their prescriptions.⁶

These affirmations of physicians and medical treatment by Divine Healing proponents, however, were not blanket endorsements. Rather, as we will see, they were limited to particular and specific arenas. What is particularly interesting is the seeming unanimity of the Divine Healing proponents in regard to those particular areas that they affirmed in regard to medical science. Almost universally, the Divine Healing teachers affirmed three separate but related aspects of the goodness of physicians and medical science: 1) the recent and substantial advances in medical science, 2) the physicians’ ability to diagnose the physical cause of disease, and 3) the physicians’ occasional ability to alleviate symptoms of disease.

Michael Bergunder, The South Indian Pentecostal Movement in the Twentieth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Missions (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008), 392 pages, ISBN 9780802827340.

There will be several groups who will thank Michael Bergunder, professor of history of religions and mission studies at Heidelberg, for writing this book. First, historians of the Pentecostal/charismatic movements will find this work a treasure trove of the major persons and places of South Indian Pentecostalism. The introductory chapter lays out the global/non-Western perspective that marks so much of contemporary historiography of Pentecostal/charismatic history. The first section of the book in six chapters covers the origins and development of Pentecostal churches in South India. It covers both western missionary efforts (such as the Assemblies of God and Church of God) as well as indigenous churches (such as the Indian Pentecostal Church and the Ceylon Pentecostal Mission).

Second, Bergunder’s book will be important to Pentecostal/charismatic pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. In his section, “Beliefs and Practices,” he draws on an extensive reservoir of personal interviews to portray a vibrant if often complex Indian Pentecostal spirituality and ecclesiology. Though there is a definite Asian sub-continent flavor to how Pentecostalism adapted to India, there is a core of theological and practical measures that will resonate with any Pentecostal/charismatic minister and believer anywhere in the world. In the twenty-first century, western Pentecostal/charismatics will need to turn to global Pentecostal/charismatic movements in order to define of who they are.

Third, students of Pentecostal/charismatic movements will find this book a model of careful research, clear presuppositions, and honest assessments. The book has three appendices: (1) Seventy-nine brief biographical sketches of both foreign missionaries and national leaders; (2) lists of the leaderships of the Indian Pentecostal Church, Ceylon Pentecostal Mission, Church of God, and Assemblies of God; and (3) six pages of church statistics from 1930 to 2000. There are fourteen photos inserted between the two main sections of the book. Before a thorough index, there is a ten-page list of people that Bergunder interviewed and a valuable thirty-five page bibliography.

As we progress through a second century of the Pentecostal/charismatic movements, the need for an accurate and unbiased history calls for many others to follow Bergunder’s lead.

Reviewed by Malcolm R. Brubaker

Preview The South Indian Pentecostal Movement in the Twentieth Century: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_South_Indian_Pentecostal_Movement_in.html?id=XGiv3riaunQC

Publisher’s page: http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/2734/the-south-indian-pentecostal-movement-in-the-twentieth-century.aspx

There seems to be a move by some Evangelicals to engage more effectively today’s culture and society. This has been building for some time. Neither do these appear to be isolated incidents. Several Evangelicals are moving in similar directions. “An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment” (see www.evangelicalmanifesto.com) is an especially significant example. First, several stalwart Evangelical leaders and thinkers, including Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary), Timothy George (Samford University), Dallas Willard (Southern California University), and others not only signed it but also helped shape it. Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, was one of the charter signatories. Other notable signatories include Kay Arthur, Stuart Briscoe, Leighton Ford, Justo Gonzalez, Mark Noll, and Alvin Plantinga. Pentecostals will notice names like Jack Hayford, Cheryl Bridges Johns, Mel Robeck, Amos Yong, and others. (I just now signed it myself, and I encourage others to do so too.)

Second, among other things, “An Evangelical Manifesto” enumerates concerns for political and social action, ecological awareness, and ecumenical openness and even interreligious engagement – all without sacrificing or apologizing for continuing commitment to historic Evangelical principles regarding Christ, the Bible, or the Church and its mission. Its tone is quite positive, though perhaps just a bit defensive at times, but overall well balanced. Most of all, it is an intelligent and articulate presentation of Evangelical concerns for a wider arena of issues than previously typical. Additionally, it steadfastly resists and repudiates attempts to stereotype Evangelicals, maintaining a firm grip on a moderate posture between reactionary fundamentalism and reductionist liberalism, viewing both as undesirable, avoidable extremes. These Evangelicals see themselves, though perhaps not as “mainline,” yet as moderates, that is, as members of a movement more in the middle rather than to the far left or far right. Significantly, “An Evangelical Manifesto” is biblically and theologically sound while being culturally engaged. The steering committee and participants are to be commended for courageous work of exceptional quality. (NPR also has an interview about this with Mouw that is interesting. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90252763.)

Interestingly, there appears to be an expanding and, at times, energetic move among some Pentecostals toward cultural and social engagement that gels well with “An Evangelical Manifesto”. For example, Jerry Redman has written persuasively on “A Theology of Social Action” (http://www.faithnews.cc/articles.cfm?sid=8827) designed for Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Furthermore, Fleming Rutledge, in “When God Disturbs the Peace” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/13.30.html), has connected Pentecostal and Charismatic understandings of the supernatural dimension and spiritual deliverance with social dynamics. Internationally known Charismatic speaker and writer Cindy Jacobs’s emphasis on working to achieve social transformation through intercession and prophetic ministry (The Reformation Manifesto: Your Part in God’s Plan to Change Nations Today [Bethany House, 2008]) comes to mind as well. From a sociological standpoint, the significance of the move toward Pentecostal social engagement has been studied by Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori in Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007).

“An Evangelical Manifesto” is apparently an emphatic attempt to address contemporary concerns without abdicating traditional commitments. Likeminded Pentecostals can say “Amen!” Faith in Christ and life in the Spirit propels one beyond the borders of individual experience and interest into the wider arena of a needy if sometimes nasty world. Yet one does not forsake the former in favor of the other. Personal piety and social activity are, or ought to be, partners in Christ-centered, Spirit-filled living.

Jim Purves, The Triune God and the Charismatic Movement: A Critical Appraisal of Trinitarian Theology and Charismatic Experience from a Scottish Perspective, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2004), 242 pages, ISBN 9781597527538.

Jim Purves has provided an important contribution not only to Charismatic studies but also to the specific field of Trinitarian theology. A word of caution, however, is in order: this work is not easily accessible to non-specialists. It is a publication of the author’s doctoral dissertation in systematic theology, and thus contains highly technical language and intricate distinctions among already complicated concepts in the history of theological reflection on the Trinity. In addition to this, Purves’ use of a degree of Scottish idiomatic language and coined conceptual phrases make for slow going if one wants to follow the argument carefully without missing anything. The difficulty is, however, relieved to an extent by Purves’ inclusion of a glossary of the more difficult terms (especially those that are original with him) in the back of the book.

Purves’ thesis is that Scottish theology, nurtured almost exclusively by the Reformed tradition, affords little Trinitarian or pneumatological (doctrine of the Holy Spirit) grounding to account for the direct experience of the Spirit had by participants in the Scottish Charismatic renewal. Reformed thought has primarily taken a functional view of the Holy Spirit, focusing on what the Holy Spirit does rather than who the Spirit is. Purves sees this as a fateful and false distinction based on the assumption of the Western view of the Spirit as the bond between the Father and the Son, which has notoriously depersonalized the Spirit in most of Western Christianity since the time of Augustine.

Purves spends the first chapter acquainting the reader with the history of the Charismatic renewal in the Scottish context, noting key figures and events, including tensions with the established Reformed churches. Chapter Two is devoted to an historical overview of the foundations of Trinitarian thought among the Patristics (Church Fathers). Purves notes that the earliest church theologians were primarily concerned with discussing the Trinity in terms of how the Triune God accomplishes our salvation. Historically, the Trinity as perceived in God’s relationship to the world in salvation history is designated the “economic Trinity.” Due to a spate of heresies that led to the great Christological conflicts of the fourth century, orthodox theologians came to focus much more on the “immanent Trinity,” how God exists within God’s own eternal triune self, apart from any considerations of God’s relationship to creation. In the West, with Augustine’s development of the Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son, theology in general, and Trinitarian thought in particular, became much more rationalistic, as the Spirit’s role was seen as informing us of Christ, who in turn revealed the Father. The Spirit, while acknowledged as a Person, was nonetheless almost always discussed in non-personal, functional terms and the Spirit’s mission was virtually always subsumed under that of the Son.

Introduction

The Pentecostal movement is by far the largest and most important religious movement to originate in the United States. Beginning in 1901 with only a handful of students in a Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, the number of Pentecostals increased steadily throughout the world during the Twentieth Century until by 1993 they had become the largest family of Protestants in the world. With over 200,000,000 members designated as “denominational Pentecostals,” this group surpassed the Orthodox churches as the second largest denominational family of Christians, surpassed only by the Roman Catholics. In addition to these “Classical denominational Pentecostals,” there were over 200,000,000 “Charismatic” Pentecostals in the mainline denominations and independent charismatic churches, both Catholic and Protestant, which placed the number of both Pentecostals and charismatics at well over 420,000,000 persons in 1993. This explosive growth has forced the Christian world to pay increasing attention to the entire movement and to attempt to discover the root causes of this growth.

Edward Irving, 1843.

Although the Pentecostal movement had its beginnings in the United States, it owed much of its basic theology to earlier British perfectionistic and charismatic movements. At least three of these, the Methodist/Holiness movement, the Catholic Apostolic movement of Edward Irving, and the British Keswick “Higher Life” movement prepared the way for what appeared to be a spontaneous outpouring of the Holy Spirit in America.

Perhaps the most important immediate precursor to pentecostalism was the Holiness movement which issued from the heart of Methodism at the end of the Nineteenth Century. From John Wesley, the Pentecostals inherited the idea of a subsequent crisis experience variously called “entire sanctification,” “perfect love,” “Christian perfection”, or “heart purity”. It was John Wesley who posited such a possibility in his influential tract, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (1766). It was from Wesley that the Holiness Movement developed the theology of a “second blessing.” It was Wesley’s colleague, John Fletcher, however, who first called this second blessing a “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” an experience which brought spiritual power to the recipient as well as inner cleansing. This was explained in his major work, Checks to Antinominianism (1771). During the Nineteenth Century, thousands of Methodists claimed to receive this experience, although no one at the time saw any connection with this spirituality and speaking in tongues or any of the other charisms.