WHY DID THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT SPREAD ACROSS DENOMINATIONS?
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCES APPEARED IN ESTABLISHED CHURCHES?
In our last study, we followed the rise of modern Pentecostalism and the disagreements that produced different Pentecostal church organizations.
But the story did not end there.
During the twentieth century, Christians in churches that were not Pentecostal began reporting experiences they understood as the work of the Holy Spirit. Some spoke in tongues. Others reported healing, prophecy, or a renewed sense of God’s presence.
Many did not want to leave their churches.
They believed they could remain Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic while also accepting what they understood to be gifts of the Spirit.
This development became known as the Charismatic movement.
It raised a question reaching far beyond one denomination:
WHEN CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED SOMETHING DESCRIBED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, HOW SHOULD THEY TEST THAT EXPERIENCE?
And what happens when their church disagrees with their interpretation?
1. WHAT DOES “CHARISMATIC” MEAN?
The word charismatic comes from the Greek word charisma, commonly translated as a gift.
Paul writes:
“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us.” — Romans 12:6, KJV
He also says:
“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.” — 1 Corinthians 12:4, KJV
In modern church history, the Charismatic movement usually refers to Christians who embraced the present-day exercise of spiritual gifts while often remaining within established denominations.
That distinguishes the movement historically from the earlier Pentecostal denominations, although there is considerable overlap.
We need to be careful with the labels.
Not every charismatic Christian believes that every Christian must speak in tongues.
Not every charismatic Christian speaks in tongues.
And charismatic Christians do not all explain baptism in the Holy Spirit in the same way.
So Pentecostal and charismatic should not automatically be treated as interchangeable words.
Before examining someone’s teaching, ask what that person or church actually believes.
2. DID THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT HAVE ONE FOUNDER?
No.
It developed among Christians in different churches, places, and prayer groups.
But one event in 1960 brought considerable public attention to what was happening.
Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal priest at St. Mark’s Church in Van Nuys, California, announced to his congregation that he had experienced what he understood as baptism in the Holy Spirit and had spoken in tongues.
Controversy followed.
Bennett resigned his position at St. Mark’s, but he did not abandon the Episcopal Church. He later served an Episcopal congregation in Seattle and became an influential figure in the developing Charismatic Renewal.
That distinction is important.
Bennett did not conclude:
I HAVE SPOKEN IN TONGUES, SO I MUST BECOME PENTECOSTAL.
He believed his experience could exist within his Episcopal faith.
That raised a new question.
Could Christians embrace practices associated with Pentecostalism while remaining within denominations that had not traditionally emphasized those practices?
3. WHY DID BENNETT’S ANNOUNCEMENT CAUSE A PROBLEM?
A minister’s public teaching affects more than his private spiritual life.
Members of a congregation have a right to ask whether what is being taught agrees with Scripture.
And a minister serving within a denomination has usually accepted some responsibility to teach within that church’s stated beliefs.
Bennett’s announcement produced disagreement. Some welcomed what he reported. Others objected to his teaching or to the controversy surrounding it.
Both the minister and congregation faced serious questions.
May a minister introduce teaching that differs from his church’s established position?
May church leaders examine and challenge that teaching?
What if the minister believes Scripture supports him?
What if the congregation believes it does not?
Those questions cannot be settled merely by saying:
“BUT I EXPERIENCED IT.”
The experience may be sincerely reported.
The interpretation of the experience still has to be examined.
4. WHY DID THE MOVEMENT SPREAD WITHOUT REQUIRING PEOPLE TO CHANGE DENOMINATIONS?
Earlier Pentecostalism had produced separate church organizations with their own statements of faith and systems of government.
The Charismatic movement often followed another path.
A person could remain Lutheran.
Another could remain Anglican.
Another could remain Catholic.
They might disagree about infant baptism, the Lord’s Supper, bishops, predestination, or church government while agreeing that spiritual gifts could still operate.
That made it much easier for charismatic teaching to cross denominational boundaries.
But it also exposed an important limitation.
Suppose two Christians agree that they have experienced the Holy Spirit.
One believes in infant baptism.
The other does not.
What did their shared experience prove about baptism?
NOTHING.
It may encourage them to study together.
It does not settle the disagreement.
An experience cannot answer a biblical question that the experience itself does not address.
5. WHAT HAPPENED AMONG ROMAN CATHOLICS IN 1967?
In February 1967, Catholic students and faculty associated with Duquesne University in Pittsburgh participated in a retreat focused on the Holy Spirit.
Some participants reported experiences they understood as baptism in the Holy Spirit.
The renewal spread through personal contacts, universities, prayer groups, conferences, and Catholic networks. What became known as the Catholic Charismatic Renewal grew rapidly from those beginnings.
This was an important development in our history.
Catholics who embraced charismatic practices did not necessarily stop being Catholic.
They did not necessarily reject Catholic teaching about bishops.
They did not necessarily reject the pope.
They did not necessarily reject the Mass or infant baptism.
They understood charismatic renewal as something that could take place within Catholicism.
That demonstrates something important.
AGREEMENT ABOUT A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE DID NOT REQUIRE AGREEMENT ABOUT CHURCH DOCTRINE.
6. DID CATHOLIC CHARISMATICS REJECT THE AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS?
Generally, no.
Catholic Charismatic Renewal developed within the Roman Catholic Church. Participants could embrace charismatic prayer and spiritual gifts while continuing to recognize Catholic bishops, sacraments, and teaching authority.
That takes us directly back to the question that began this entire larger study:
WHAT AUTHORITY DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY GIVE CHURCH LEADERS?
Paul told the Ephesian elders:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” — Acts 20:28, KJV
Peter told elders:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV
But he immediately added:
“Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” — 1 Peter 5:3, KJV
And Paul instructed Christians to evaluate prophetic speech:
“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.” — 1 Corinthians 14:29, KJV
So two questions must not be confused.
SHOULD CLAIMED SPIRITUAL GIFTS BE EXAMINED?
Yes.
The New Testament explicitly requires discernment.
But:
DOES THAT RESPONSIBILITY ESTABLISH EVERY AUTHORITY LATER CLAIMED BY A BISHOP OR OTHER CHURCH OFFICIAL?
That requires a separate biblical argument.
7. DID THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT REMOVE DENOMINATIONAL DIFFERENCES?
No.
A Catholic and a Baptist might pray together and both believe God had given them a spiritual gift.
They could still disagree about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church government, and the authority of tradition.
An Anglican and a Presbyterian might agree that God heals while continuing to disagree about bishops.
Shared experiences can encourage Christians to listen to one another.
They do not automatically settle doctrinal disagreements.
Read Ephesians 4:1–6.
Paul calls Christians to unity, but notice what that unity includes:
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” — Ephesians 4:5, KJV
Then read Ephesians 4:11–16.
Paul connects Christian maturity with teaching and truth.
He tells Christians to be:
“speaking the truth in love.” — Ephesians 4:15, KJV
Biblical unity is not created by pretending differences do not exist.
Neither is truth defended by treating everyone who disagrees with us as an enemy.
8. DID CHARISMATICS BELIEVE EVERYONE MUST SPEAK IN TONGUES?
Not all of them.
Some retained the classical Pentecostal teaching that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of a distinct baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Others believed the Spirit could empower Christians in different ways without requiring tongues from everyone.
That difference helped charismatic practices spread among Christians who did not accept an entire Pentecostal doctrinal system.
Now return to 1 Corinthians 12.
Paul says:
“But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” — 1 Corinthians 12:11, KJV
Then he asks:
“do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?” — 1 Corinthians 12:30, KJV
His argument expects the answer no.
As we saw in our previous study, classical Pentecostals who require tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism distinguish that initial sign from the public gift of tongues discussed here.
Those who reject that requirement question whether the New Testament itself makes that distinction.
Our point here is historical.
CHARISMATIC CHRISTIANS COULD AGREE THAT SPIRITUAL GIFTS CONTINUED WHILE DISAGREEING ABOUT WHAT TONGUES MEANT.
9. WHAT ABOUT HEALING AND PROPHECY?
Charismatic Christians have often emphasized prayer for healing and the possibility of prophetic speech.
But several questions need to remain separate.
Can God heal?
Does a particular Christian possess the miraculous gift of healing described in 1 Corinthians 12?
Did God actually give the message someone claims to have received?
Does receiving a message give that person authority to direct another Christian’s life?
Those are not the same questions.
Paul said:
“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.” — 1 Corinthians 14:29, KJV
He also wrote:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV
Those instructions do not permit someone to end the discussion by saying:
“THE SPIRIT TOLD ME.”
That is the claim that needs to be examined.
No claimed spiritual gift removes the Christian’s responsibility to test what is taught.
10. CAN A SINCERE EXPERIENCE BE MISUNDERSTOOD?
Yes.
Sincerity and accurate interpretation are two different questions.
Suppose someone reports an experience during prayer and believes the Holy Spirit caused it.
We do not have to accuse that person of dishonesty because we have questions.
The person may accurately describe what was heard, felt, or observed.
But another question remains.
WHAT WAS IT?
Was it the same gift described in Acts?
Was it the gift Paul describes in 1 Corinthians?
Does the experience prove the doctrine attached to it?
John wrote:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” — 1 John 4:1, KJV
Notice both sides.
John did not say:
ACCEPT EVERY SPIRITUAL CLAIM.
But neither did he say:
RIDICULE EVERY SPIRITUAL CLAIM.
He said:
TEST IT.
11. WHAT IF A MINISTER SAYS THE SPIRIT HAS GIVEN HIM A NEW MESSAGE?
Read Galatians 1:6–9.
Paul warned Christians against accepting another gospel even if the messenger seemed extraordinary:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:8, KJV
Then read 1 Corinthians 14:37.
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” — 1 Corinthians 14:37, KJV
That establishes an important boundary.
A claim to spiritual inspiration cannot be used to overturn the apostolic message.
Now suppose a minister says:
“GOD TOLD ME THAT YOU MUST GIVE THIS MONEY.”
Or:
“GOD TOLD ME YOU MUST OBEY MY DECISION.”
Or:
“GOD TOLD ME YOU MUST NOT LEAVE THIS CHURCH.”
The first question is not whether the minister sounds sincere.
Ask:
WHAT AUTHORITY HAS GOD ACTUALLY GIVEN HIM?
May the congregation examine his claim?
May another Christian disagree without being accused of resisting God?
The question is not whether God can guide His people.
The question is whether someone’s claim to guidance gives that person authority the New Testament has not given him.
12. WHY DID SOME CHARISMATIC GROUPS DEVELOP NEW FORMS OF LEADERSHIP?
A movement crossing denominational lines eventually faces practical problems.
Who teaches new Christians?
Who examines prophecy?
Who deals with disorder?
Who provides correction?
Who helps someone who has been deceived or mistreated?
During the 1970s, one influential response became known as the Shepherding or Discipleship movement.
Leaders associated with the movement emphasized submission, accountability, and personal discipleship under spiritual leaders. Critics within the charismatic movement charged that some applications produced excessive control over personal decisions. The controversy became serious enough that prominent charismatic leaders publicly challenged the system. One of its major leaders, Bob Mumford, later apologized for harmful applications of shepherding. (Christianity Today)
The desire for accountability is understandable.
Christians need one another.
But:
A GOOD PURPOSE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFY EVERY METHOD USED TO ACCOMPLISH IT.
The question remains:
What authority did those leaders claim?
And where does the New Testament give it?
13. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMAND CHRISTIANS TO SUBMIT TO LEADERS?
Yes, the New Testament teaches Christians to respect and respond appropriately to those who watch for their souls.
Hebrews says:
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.” — Hebrews 13:17, KJV
That is serious.
But it is not the only passage about leadership.
Peter told elders:
“Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” — 1 Peter 5:3, KJV
And Paul warned the Ephesian elders:
“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” — Acts 20:30, KJV
Notice that warning.
THE DANGER COULD COME FROM THE ELDERS THEMSELVES.
The New Testament does not present church leaders as people whose decisions are beyond examination.
But neither does it present Christians as isolated individuals with no responsibility toward their leaders.
Both truths belong in the discussion.
RESPECT FOR LEADERSHIP DOES NOT MAKE A LEADER THE OWNER OF ANOTHER CHRISTIAN’S CONSCIENCE.
14. DOES ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIRE PERMISSION FOR EVERY PERSONAL DECISION?
Christians should seek wise counsel.
They should encourage one another.
They should correct one another.
They should help carry one another’s burdens.
Read Galatians 6:1–2 and Hebrews 3:12–13.
But suppose a church leader requires a Christian to obtain his permission before accepting a job.
Or moving.
Or marrying.
Or deciding how to spend ordinary household income.
Now ask a simple question:
WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT GIVE THAT LEADER THAT AUTHORITY?
A Christian may wisely ask an elder for advice about marriage.
That does not mean the elder becomes the person who decides whom the Christian may marry.
Advice is not law.
Counsel is not command.
A leader must not turn his personal judgment into a command from God when God has not made it one.
15. DOES A SPIRITUAL GIFT GIVE SOMEONE AUTHORITY OVER A CONGREGATION?
Not by itself.
In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul describes different gifts distributed for the benefit of the body.
In chapter 14, he regulates how those gifts are exercised when Christians assemble.
Having a gift does not place someone above those instructions.
Nor does Paul say that a person who speaks in tongues automatically becomes an elder.
The New Testament gives qualifications for elders.
Read 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9.
Those qualifications concern character, family life, teaching, self-control, reputation, and the ability to care for God’s people.
A dramatic spiritual experience is not a substitute for those qualifications.
And when someone today takes the title prophet or apostle, the title itself does not establish the authority being claimed.
Ask:
What does he mean by the title?
What authority does he claim?
And where does the New Testament give him that authority?
16. WHAT WAS THE “THIRD WAVE”?
During the late twentieth century another stream developed among Christians who were open to healing, prophecy, and other spiritual gifts but did not necessarily identify themselves with classical Pentecostalism or the earlier Charismatic Renewal.
It became known as the Third Wave.
John Wimber became one of its best-known figures.
Wimber planted a Calvary Chapel congregation in Yorba Linda, California, in 1977. As his emphasis on spiritual gifts increasingly differed from some Calvary Chapel leaders, his congregation left Calvary Chapel in 1982 and joined the developing Vineyard movement. Wimber then became a major leader in the Association of Vineyard Churches. (Vineyard USA)
The term Third Wave is a historical label.
The New Testament does not predict three twentieth-century waves of the Holy Spirit.
The label simply helps historians distinguish related developments.
And again we find Christians who believed spiritual gifts continued but did not necessarily agree about tongues, Spirit baptism, or church organization.
17. DID THE THIRD WAVE CREATE NEW CHURCH NETWORKS?
Yes.
The Vineyard is one important example.
Interestingly, the first Vineyard churches existed before Wimber became their leader. Kenn Gulliksen began the early Vineyard association in the 1970s. By 1982 at least seven Vineyard churches were loosely associated. Wimber’s congregation then joined them, and Wimber became the principal leader of the developing Association of Vineyard Churches. (Vineyard USA)
Notice what happened.
The earlier Charismatic Renewal often emphasized remaining within existing denominations.
But new congregations and networks eventually appeared.
And once a network exists, familiar questions return.
Who recognizes ministers?
Who may remove them?
Who decides what the network teaches?
What happens when a congregation disagrees?
How much authority does the network have over a local church?
A movement may begin by crossing denominational boundaries.
Eventually it may create boundaries of its own.
18. DID CHARISMATIC WORSHIP ALWAYS FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN?
No.
Some charismatic Christians continued worshiping according to the established forms of their denominations.
Others developed informal prayer meetings with spontaneous prayer, singing, testimonies, and opportunities for participants to report spiritual experiences.
Still others developed new styles of congregational worship.
But we must distinguish:
A WORSHIP STYLE
from:
A BIBLICAL REQUIREMENT.
Read 1 Corinthians 14:26–40.
Paul asks whether what occurs builds up the congregation.
He requires understandable communication.
He regulates speakers.
He requires order.
He concludes:
“Let all things be done decently and in order.” — 1 Corinthians 14:40, KJV
Those questions apply to everyone.
A quiet, formal service can fail to teach and encourage Christians.
A highly emotional service can also ignore Paul’s instructions.
The standard is not:
WHICH ATMOSPHERE DO I LIKE?
The question is:
WHAT DID CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES TEACH?
19. DOES THE SPIRIT’S WORK DEPEND ON A PARTICULAR ATMOSPHERE?
Read Galatians 5:16–26.
Paul describes:
“the fruit of the Spirit” — Galatians 5:22, KJV
as:
“love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance.” — Galatians 5:22–23, KJV
He does not say these things require a particular musical style.
Or a particular volume.
Or a particular emotional atmosphere.
Now read Romans 8:9–17.
Paul describes the Spirit’s presence and work in those who belong to Christ.
He does not make one emotional reaction during a church service the test of whether someone belongs to Christ.
Emotion itself is not wrong.
Christians may experience joy.
Sorrow.
Gratitude.
Conviction.
But an atmosphere capable of producing powerful emotions does not prove that everything taught or practiced there comes from God.
THE EXPERIENCE OF THE GATHERING AND THE TRUTH OF THE TEACHING BOTH NEED TO BE EXAMINED.
20. CAN CHRISTIANS FROM DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS PRAY TOGETHER?
The Charismatic movement brought Christians from different traditions together for prayer and Bible study even while they continued to disagree about church authority and doctrine.
That raises a larger question than the Charismatic movement itself.
Read John 17:20–23.
Jesus prayed for those who would believe through the apostles’ word:
“That they all may be one.” — John 17:21, KJV
Read Ephesians 4:1–6.
Paul calls Christians to humility, patience, love, and unity.
But praying together does not automatically settle every question about doctrine, worship, baptism, or church membership.
And acknowledging that a disagreement still exists does not require hostility.
We can listen carefully.
We can speak respectfully.
We can open the Bible together.
Christian unity cannot be built by pretending truth does not matter.
Neither should concern for truth become an excuse for treating other people without love.
21. DID THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT PROVE THAT DENOMINATIONAL BOUNDARIES DO NOT MATTER?
Its history demonstrated that Christians could share certain beliefs and practices across denominational boundaries.
It did not demonstrate that every disagreement between their churches was unimportant.
Suppose two Christians agree that God hears prayer and can heal.
One believes a bishop has authority over congregations.
The other believes no regional bishop possesses that authority.
Their agreement about healing does not answer the church-government question.
Suppose two Christians both report speaking in tongues.
One practices infant baptism.
The other believes baptism follows the individual’s response to the gospel.
Their shared experience does not answer the baptism question.
This is simple, but important:
AGREEMENT ABOUT ONE THING DOES NOT PROVE AGREEMENT ABOUT EVERYTHING.
At the same time:
DISAGREEMENT ABOUT ONE THING DOES NOT PREVENT US FROM LISTENING TO ONE ANOTHER AND STUDYING SCRIPTURE TOGETHER.
22. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT?
The Charismatic movement spread because Christians within established denominations began embracing experiences and practices they associated with the New Testament teaching about the Holy Spirit.
Many remained within their existing churches rather than joining Pentecostal denominations.
That allowed charismatic practices to cross denominational boundaries.
But it did not remove doctrinal differences.
Catholics could remain Catholic.
Anglicans could remain Anglican.
Lutherans could remain Lutheran.
And Christians from those traditions could pray together while continuing to disagree about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church government, tradition, and other matters.
The movement also raised serious questions about prophecy, spiritual authority, accountability, and church leadership.
The Shepherding controversy demonstrated how a desire for discipleship and accountability could develop into systems criticized for excessive personal control. Some of the movement’s own leaders later acknowledged harmful applications. (Christianity Today)
The same principle has followed us through this entire study:
A PERSON’S EXPERIENCE MAY EXPLAIN WHY THAT PERSON BELIEVES SOMETHING.
But:
THE EXPERIENCE DOES NOT MAKE THE INTERPRETATION TRUE.
Scripture still has to be examined.
No preacher is exempt.
No prophet is exempt.
No bishop is exempt.
No council is exempt.
No denomination is exempt.
And neither are we.
23. WHERE DOES OUR HISTORY GO NEXT?
We have followed a movement that crossed denominational boundaries and, in some cases, eventually produced new congregations and church networks.
But another development had been taking shape among Protestants long before the Charismatic Renewal.
Some Christians concluded that the Reformation had not gone far enough.
They did not merely want to reform existing denominations.
They wanted to go behind the denominations.
Behind the creeds.
Behind centuries of church traditions.
They wanted to ask:
WHAT IF WE SIMPLY RETURN TO THE NEW TESTAMENT AND TRY TO RESTORE THE CHURCH WE FIND THERE?
But that raised another problem.
Christians who wanted to restore New Testament Christianity did not always agree about what should be restored.
And movements that rejected denominational traditions sometimes developed traditions of their own.
That brings the question especially close to the purpose of our entire study:
CAN CHRISTIANS REJECT DENOMINATIONAL NAMES AND TRADITIONS WITHOUT CREATING NEW TRADITIONS OF THEIR OWN?
That takes us to our next study:
WHY DID CHRISTIANS BEGIN CALLING FOR A RESTORATION OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: WHY DID JOSEPH SMITH CLAIM THAT CHRISTIANITY NEEDED TO BE RESTORED?