Catholics and Protestants Together in Charismatic Renewal?

Perhaps nothing makes more of a laughingstock out of global Church unity in Spirit and worship than the contentious issue of Marian devotion. Some Catholics truly worship Mary as if she were the fourth person of the Trinity, in spite of official Catholic theology to the contrary. Marian devotion had a role in undermining the Catholic charismatic renewal in the 1980s. Protestants, on the other hand, have a difficult time in saying what the Bible says about Mary, that she is “blessed among women.” Here is a controversial blog on the issue from an Anglican priest and former Roman Catholic.

www.pentecostaltheology.com/marian-devotion-and-the-coming-second-wave-of-the-catholic-charismatic-renewal/

Quotes from the article selected by the Editor:

For some reason I was not comfortable about Marian devotion as a boy. … My childhood as a Catholic was lived under the cloud of the ominous “Fatima prophecies” that came from apparitions that were supposedly from Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

In fact, several prominent Catholic theologians have consistently warned of the dangers of excessive Marian devotion to the revivals of the Holy Spirit. The Jesuit priest and historian of the Catholic Charismatic renewal, Fr. Peter Hocken, warned that excessive Marian devotion is a danger to authentic revival and true reverence of Mary.

On the level of formal theology and ecumenical dialogue, much progress has been made in Catholic-Protestant communications about Mary and the honor due her. Formal Catholic theology has backed off declaring Mary as the “mediatrix” of all graces. …

My own opinion is that there is no way to dialogue into a “midpoint” that all will agree upon. Catholics will venerate Mary to a degree that Protestants feel uncomfortable with, and Catholics will not be content with the degree that Protestants consider and honor Mary.

… the Holy Spirit constantly surprises when a new revival begins, and this may be true of Marian devotion in the future. The Pentecostals of the 1960s were astounded when the Holy Spirit enlivened the mainline denomination into what became the Charismatic Renewal. They thought the mainline churches were too far gone into apostasy to be renewed. The Pentecostals were further astounded when the Catholics began experiencing Holy Spirit revival in 1967. They were sure the Catholic Church was the Biblically prophesied “whore of Babylon” and could not be redeemed from its idolatry. They were wrong about that, too. One can only wonder what the Spirit will do in the coming revival.

Editor’s Note: In part two of this excerpt from Theology with Spirit, Dr. Lederle continues his examination of the major streams of the Third Wave, what he has renamed New Independent Charismatic Churches. The Pneuma Review editorial committee hopes you will be encouraged as you read this chapter and will purchase this excellent book for yourself.

Dominion (Postmillennial)

The second major group of Independent Charismatics is also characterized by its view of the kingdom of God. The distinctive teaching is known as Dominion theology and has been described by its pre-millennialist detractors as “Kingdom Now.” The recently deceased Earl Paulk, perhaps the most significant representative of this new thrust, became the Archbishop of the International Communion of Charismatic Churches, a global network representing at its zenith some 10 million members. The ICCC, however, may not be totally identified with Dominion theology. The ICCC was formed in 1982 by Bishop John Meares of Washington, DC, and Bishop McAlister of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Later, Bishop Idahosa of Benin City, Nigeria, and Bishop Paulk of Chapel Hill Harvester Church in Atlanta, Georgia, joined. They were all part of a global Pentecostal denomination named the International Evangelical Church, which, interestingly enough, joined the Geneva-based World Council of Churches in 1972 and was the first Pentecostal denomination to participate officially in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue.

The origins of Dominion theology, however, do not lie within the Pentecostal-Charismatic arena but outside it in classically Reformed theology. (This is illustrated in the ICCC Handbook, which lists the Presbyterian Westminster Confession in its creedal statements that provide the proper interpretation of the Bible.) Dominion theology is the product of the Christian reconstructionist movement, which developed in the 1960s and ’70s around the publications of scholar Rousas John Rushdoony. In order to understand their influence on the Dominion movement some reconstructionist views will be now outlined briefly. Rushdoony, an Armenian American, established the Chalcedon Foundation in Vallecito, California, in 1965. Another center is the Institute for Christian Economics in Tyler, Texas, founded by Gary North, who has also published widely. Central to the reconstructionist vision is the acknowledgement of the all-embracing cosmic headship of Christ, who has dominion over every dimension of reality, and the ensuing ideal of transforming society in accordance with God’s divine laws. Rushdoony had studied presuppositional apologetics with Cornelius van Til, who taught for many years at Westminster Theological Seminary. It is widely believed that in his book Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Christian reconstructionist theologian Greg Bahnsen argues that the laws of Moses should be applied directly to contemporary public life. The vision is, first, to reclaim the United States as a Christian nation and then to work in a gradual postmillennial strategy to establish the kingdom rule of God over all the earth. This would, in fact, be theocratic rule, with obvious parallels to Puritan thinking. The moral decline in the Western world is seen as the direct result of forsaking the eternal laws of God.

This vision is radical and goes far beyond a mainstream Reformed understanding of the transformation of culture under the Lordship of Christ. Christian reconstructionists hold to a theonomy (law of God) which considers Old Testament laws to be normative for all times. That would entail such extremes as capital punishment for adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, and even for incorrigible children! Critics of this movement go so far as to allege that some reconstructionists condone slavery, and exhibit racist tendencies.

Editor’s Note: In this excerpt from his latest book, Professor Lederle says the “third wave” should perhaps be called the rise of the new independent charismatic churches. The Pneuma Review editorial committee hopes you will be encouraged as you read this chapter and will purchase this excellent book for yourself.

The third major movement of the Pentecostal-Charismatic segment of Protestantism distinguishes itself from the First and Second Waves in two important ways. First, as we have just seen, it led to new structures being formed. Although the word “denomination” has remained suspect in these circles, and the idea of tradition is usually also viewed rather negatively, these new Christian groups are, in fact, already new denominations in the making, rapidly forming their own traditional patterns of organization and church life. It has been estimated that over 3,000 of these new independent Charismatic groups or denominations have been established globally. Second, in the teaching of these Independent Charismatic Churches, a whole spectrum of innovative doctrinal emphases emerged. There has been much debate about some of these teachings. Usually there is some continuity to be found within the Pentecostal-Charismatic heritage with these new teachings. Some of their teachings have remained contentious, especially in the wider circles of Christianity. The fact is, however, that most of these innovations had their roots in the classic spiritual writers of the nineteenth century. This fact will be pursued later.

The term “Third Wave” will now be used as synonymous with the Independent Charismatic Churches. Here the primary slogans and metaphors were not “Hang in there,” “Be salt and light,” “Renew from within,” as in the Second Wave, but rather, “Go out from among them,” avoid “unequal yoking,” seek “new wineskins” for the new wine. The universally pervasive conviction was that “the Cloud has moved on” and God’s pilgrim people need to launch out and chart a new course. The people who make up this new move include both converts to the Christian faith and many believers who transferred from other churches. A significant number of the latter group came from both the First and the Second Waves. Classical Pentecostalism provided a large number of leaders in the Independent Charismatic movement.

Some believed that the Pentecostals had themselves fallen prey to denominationalism and had become too formal or traditional. The Latter Rain movement expressed this in a scathing critique of Pentecostal churches that led to an equally swift denouncing of the Latter Rain as a heretical movement. Although the Classical Pentecostal denominations continued to experience growth, some of their members left to join the new Independent Charismatic ministries. The same applied to the Second Wave. It has been estimated that at least 50% of mainline denominational Charismatics gave up on their program to renew their churches from within and left for what they considered to be greener pastures. They had a hunger for a church where Spirit-empowerment and Charismatic gifts and ministry could be more visible or regular. Some naturally found a home in major Pentecostal denominations, such as the Assemblies of God. A larger section of the discontented, however, pursued the pathway of the non-denominational or Independent Charismatic Churches.

First a word needs to be said about the term “Third Wave.” It was, I believe, first coined by C. Peter Wagner, at that time from the School of World Missions at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. He believed that the “Second Wave,” or denominational Charismatic movement, influenced the larger mainline Protestant churches that were of a more liberal background theologically. I disagree with this analysis and maintain that more conservative and evangelical Protestants were also deeply involved in this movement from the very beginning. Wagner further stated that the Second Wave writers, who preferred to identify themselves as Charismatics rather than as being of a Neo-Pentecostal persuasion, nevertheless still remained within the theological tradition of a theology of subsequence with a heavy emphasis on glossolalia. The more integrative understandings of Spirit-baptism, as developed in the global Charismatic awakening, especially in England and Germany, were less prominent in the United States than in Europe, and their unique contribution may have escaped his notice. As a result, the awakening of charismatic gifts—especially of healing and prophecy—among more conservative Protestant groups was heralded by Wagner as constituting a “Third Wave,” while others, like myself, still considered them as an integral part of the whole denominational Charismatic Renewal, or Second Wave.

Wonsuk Ma

The purpose of Wonsuk Ma’s article is to open further theological dialogue between classical Pentecostals (the “First Wave”) and the Third Wave movement. He does this by first giving a brief overview of the origins of the Third Wave and a definition of the movement according to its best-known proponent, C. Peter Wagner, “… a further evolution of the two earlier movements which emphasized the Holy Spirit and the contemporary manifestations of the Spirit” (page 189).

The specific focus of this article is upon the “lower-level” power encounter, or deliverance ministry for individuals, as this concept is developed and employed by missionary anthropologist Charles Kraft. He reproduces notes from a deliverance session he participated in while a doctoral student at Fuller Seminary, where Kraft is a professor in the School of Mission. From this he looks at the similarities and some of the differences between Pentecostal and Third Wave assumptions about the supernatural. He does this by comparing his own Asian, classical Pentecostalism to the theories and practices of Charles Kraft.

In the opinion of this writer, Ma’s article stuck to his intention, being “designed to challenge the Pentecostal movement to reflect upon its own current direction, and only incidentally to critique the Third Wave” (p. 193).

Wonsuk Ma discusses what Pentecostals can learn from Charles Kraft in regards to pastoral concern, deliverance ministry, and theological challenges. He then looks at some of the criticisms that have been leveled at the Third Wave. He presents the criticisms and then evaluates them from a Pentecostal perspective, showing at each point that which Pentecostals should be reminded of or challenged by.

Although this article may not be a good introduction to the Third Wave (and certainly it was not intended to be), it is an introduction to the challenge of having greater dialogue between the three waves of charismatics. Wonsuk Ma’s heart is obviously to see increased dialogue develop between Pentecostals, charismatics, and the Third Wave. “Pentecostals and Charismatic scholars, with a common experience of the Holy Spirit, have constantly enriched each other’s theological understanding. … For the same reason of sharing common ground, the Third Wave should be invited to join constructive dialogue with the First and Second Waves. The common ground for this dialogue will again be the belief and experience in the supernatural work of God” (p. 205).

Ma closes by contending that God is speaking to the Pentecostal movement through the rise of the Third Wave. If God is speaking, let us then be certain to hear His voice.

Reviewed by Raul Mock