Management of the Miraculous.

You’ve read the Blog – Now buy the book


Some old divine is quoted as saying, “Never go to the Bible for a sermon. But by His grace, if you read it properly you will come away with one.”  Well! I did not go looking for a blog, a thought, a book or a film – all I wanted was more of Him. I saw the direction of encapsulating what Acts 19 and 20 was all about and started blogging.  It had something like 30,000 hits while it was on blogger (now deleted), and has had just short of 18,000 hits on WordPress.

No delusions of grandeur there! After all just short of 50,000 hits all told in a world where literally billions of people surfing the net is hardly anything to write home about.  However, the fascinating comments, mostly by email (why folks don’t make comments more on the blog itself I have no idea) led to suggestions of friends to make it more solid in book form.

So! When you see it in the shops, or on Amazon it will look like this picture attached! As I am hardly a name de force in the book world, you might need to ask your book store for the following item, or Google “Management of the Miraculous” on Amazon.

Management of the Miraculous. Author: Keith Lannon

ISBN  9781498450157.

Published by Xulon Press.

It’s on Kindle now and stated as a 397 page turner. Can’t be bad.

Find it on: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Management-Miraculous-Ephesus-Keith-Lannon-ebook/dp/B017ABSA9Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446208845&sr=8-1&keywords=management+of+the+miraculous

Kindle’s blurb is below:

An insightful read of Paul’s mission to Ephesus, together with a band of 12 disciples who finished up taking an entire subcontinent for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Surely this was the peak of apostolic ministry, and the epitome of God designed evangelism. The power, character and grace of God harnessed in the heart of the apostle reveals his skilful management of the miraculous.

“An eminently readable and well researched perspective on the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts seen through the lens of practical example and personal anecdotes.”         John Glass, General Superintendent of the Elim Pentecostal Church

“Laced with personal experience and well researched, this book will challenge those who are looking for healing, or are puzzled by the very word miracle.”  Adrian Hawkes Author and Director Phoenix Community Care (A charity working with very vulnerable refugees)

“Keith Lannon is a very good friend and a member of our church at Opengate, and they are not the reasons why I warmly commend his latest book ‘Management of the Miraculous.’ In fact here is a book that will be really helpful to anyone that wishes to learn about the early church, written in a clear and engaging style! A great read indeed!”  Rev. Graham Banks. Minister of Opengate Church, Bognor Regis, UK.

Ordained into ministry in 1973, Keith is married to Amanda and lives on the South Coast of England in West Sussex. They are both active members of the thriving Opengate Church in Bognor Regis. His expertise comes from extensive travelling and ministering across cultures.

The Differences between the Charismatic New Churches and the Classical Pentecostals in the UK


Rua Azusa, 312The following is a series of my strongly held opinions concerning the Classical Pentecostals and the Charismatic New Churches in the United Kingdom.  People who disagree with me will shout “Generalisation!” And, of course, they will be absolutely correct. Some on the inside will say, “I’m a New Church Charismatic and it isn’t true of me or my church!” They might even say, “I’ve been a member of a Classical Pentecostal Church and I have never heard of some of this stuff that Lannon is talking about!” OK! OK! OK! All I can say is that in my travels and mixing with both Classical Pentecostals and Charismatics (That is both the New Church Charismatics and the Traditional denominational Charismatics), and then after reading, study and contemplation, this is how I see it. And I believe I see the reasons why things are how they are. All generalisations have lots of exceptions contained within them. Please give this writer grace on that issue.

Just as human traits, foibles and habits can often be seen by experiences or occurrences from birth, or through easy or difficult childhood, the birth and the early years of both the Classical Pentecostals and the New Church Charismatics is crucial I believe to the understanding of them both and their stances on issues and practices.

11111110

I declare myself to be an out and out Pentecostal. I was saved and nurtured as a Classical Pentecostal and I was trained and ordained as a Classical Pentecostal. That is who and what I am. I have worshipped and been a member in one of the New Church Charismatic groups, and I am now greatly enjoying life in a traditional denominational Charismatic church that is by name, title and property deeds a Baptist Church. But I am acutely aware of the difference between my personal outlook and the church I am in. I do not think that where I am is better or worse – just different.

So getting straight to the chase, and this is by no means an exhaustive summary, here is my understanding of how and why the New Church Charismatics (pioneer, Icthus, Covenant Life, New Frontiers and the like) are different beyond a cursory similarity.

  1. Pentecostalism was birthed out of one main truth. The Charismatics were birthed from a whole raft of truths.

11111111This is a fact that is plainly seen from the archives of their mutual histories. Pentecostalism was birthed out of the teaching and experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Pentecostalism was and is normal, orthodox Christianity integrated with the Acts 2 enduement of power. Period!  Nothing more and nothing else!  It is true that the emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit as listed in 1 Corinthians 12 came out of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, because it includes tongues and prophecy, and it thus gave impetus also to Healing (another item in the list of Spiritual Gifts). So healing was  quite naturally seen as a “Pentecostal” truth. It is also true that the inner revolution that the Baptism in the Spirit created in the hearts of many, caused an upsurge in belief that Pentecostalism was initiated by God Himself to usher in Christ’s Second Advent. So Christ’s Return and a whole Eschatology in general was also added to the Pentecostal agenda. But these were packaged in the teaching of the Holy Spirit Baptism, and the accompanying qualifications.   I myself remember hearing some of my own elderly and senior “heroes of the faith” in Pentecostal circles preach about the imminent return of Christ – an imminency, they said, that was precipitated by the rise of the Pentecostal movement worldwide.  However, Eschatology in itself did not differentiate them from what was mainstream Christianity in the early 1900’s.  It was the all round emphasis on the supernatural and the miraculous that caused them to be rejected.

The Elim Pentecostal Churches in particular were birthed on four major planks of truth; Jesus the Saviour, Jesus the Healer, Jesus the baptiser in the Holy Spirit, and Jesus the Coming King – the so called: Four Square Gospel. But it was the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a standalone truth that saw the first generation of Pentecostals literally, physically thrown out of mainstream churches. It was a cost charged to their account by mainstream denominational Christianity of the day, a price they gladly paid  that a century later we are so very thankful for.

 

Today both Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movements are accepted generally as part and parcel of mainline Christianity and true orthodoxy. That fact is probably true simply because there are many (probably thousands) of mainline churches that are enjoying the Pentecostal blessing nowadays without anybody as much as raising an eyebrow.

 

11111113On the other hand, the Charismatic movement of the sixties was birthed from the platform of many distinctive truths.

  1. Doctrine to do with the fivefold ministry of Ephesians 4 was a take off point. Why do we not have apostles and Prophets, seeing Pastors, Teachers and Evangelists were so commonly ordained, utilised and recognised?
  2. Human relationships and how they were to be conducted was another major plank upon which the charismatics strutted their stuff.  When I asked one of their leaders (who was, in the eighties, at the cutting edge of their “revolution”) to define in one word what the Charismatic burden was, he answered in a split second reflex response; “Relationships!”  The complexity of life that spiralled with the IT generation was reflected in the complexity of truths that brought the original charismatic house churches into being.
  3. Covenantal relationship was one of their platforms.
  4. Issues of teams in leadership were emphasized.  Team ministry and covenant relationships were major themes in those early days of the charismatics.  It may or may not be so now, but these were the issues that caused them to stand apart from mainstream Christianity – including the Pentecostals.
  5. Issues of a biblical modus operandi for pastoring the flock were also part of the grounds for the restoration movement. “Shepherding” was an “in phrase” at the birth of the Charismatic movement. So called “Heavy Shepherding” brought a few Charismatic independent churches into serious disrepute.
  6. There was an emphasis on prophecy, and …
  7. … an almost cultic drive on the plain issue of ”Leadership.”
  8. There was also a strong “anti-denominational” emphasis in their preaching and teaching. The Charismatic movement originally decided to break out of the traditional denominations to express this broad raft of new “Restorationist” convictions, and rebuild the broken walls of denominational Christianity. There were others, but what I have listed will suffice.
  9. A few corners of the New Churches (New Frontiers in particular) had a stance against women in leadership and even women preachers. (I am given to understand there is a change in their stance on this issue made only recently in 2014).

The truth is that I don’t hear much of the 9 emphases listed above these days at all. Things have changed. Many of the new churches, though they would say their stance is the same, simply don’t “soapbox” or “Grandstand”  these issues as they did at their birth.

The truth is that at the first their leaders were authoritative and direct enough to cause envy amongst the Classical Pentecostals. I remember a senior leader in the Classic Pentecostal denomination I was part of travelling around the southern counties of the UK warning us that one certain “New Church” organisation was openly and publicly seeking to “steal” Pentecostal members from their churches. To this day I have no evidence whether his charges were true or false but we listened intently to what our denominational leaders told us. Months later some of the leaders he referred to were in our church by invite, and no such attitude of “stealing” was seen or heard amongst us.

11111114

I have absolutely no idea at all of the statistics, but to my own knowledge and experience very few, if any of the charismatic house church personne, especially their leadersl were out of Classical Pentecostal churches. I would like to hear if there were any. Of those that I spoke to independently, and that was quite a few, nearly all claimed to have come out of the “Brethren.”

 

What difference does this make between the Classical Pentecostals and the charismatics?

 

It means that the fire of evangelism under the auspices of going further than winning souls for Christ, but also leading converts into the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the experience of healing was all part of the very DNA of the Pentecostal movement.  It was generally a full frontal targeting of the individual person. Huge campaigns lasting many weeks of meetings in so called “virgin territory” were the very life blood of the birth and growth of the Pentecostals. Pentecostal denominations were birthed out of raw evangelism holding missions where nothing previously existed. Normal Pentecostal church programmes mainly consisted of Sunday morning communion, Sunday evening evangelistic meeting, and then during the week there were youth meetings, Prayer meetings and Bible studies that were programmed to increase depth of knowledge about the things of God.

 

When the early Pentecostals (and some of the contemporary one’s too) talked of church planting, they were thinking in terms of sending out evangelists to plough the field and win new converts. When charismatics talk of church planting, they are generally referring to a large group of strong mature Christians all agreeing to move house into an appointed area and commencing meetings together. I wouldn’t dare accuse the charismatic streams of not being evangelistic, that just would not be true, but the charismatic mentality is less intrusive and direct than the Pentecostal manner, and has very much in mind the structure and general form of church management and the general modus operandi of church, rather than the pressure of Christ’s great commission. These differences are all to do with the birthing process of both groups.  I do not mean by these remarks that Pentecostals are thoughtless of the way they do church, nor do I mean that the Charismatics are thoughtless of evangelistic zeal. It is, however, a deep and subtle difference that separates the two movements fifty years into having lived in the same playing field. Charismatic New Churches rarely have “Evangelistic Campaigns” as the Pentecostals once did in abundance. Since the Charismatic renewal of the mid twentieth century, within their ranks I have only ever heard of one single campaign of nightly gospel meetings.

  1. Pentecostals generally were expelled from churches. Charismatics generally chose to leave.

11111115Pentecostals did not want to start new movements or denominations, but were forced to. Most Pentecostals were asked to refrain from using their spiritual gifts in the contexts of where they were worshipping before they were baptised in the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals did not experiment with their teaching. No question was being researched apart from the questions concerning  the enduement of power from on high, and a personal experience of life in the Holy Spirit.  Teaching on “The Anointing” commenced with the early Pentecostals. They came out of orderly churches, and so, once they were exorcised from the body of traditional denominations, they thought nothing of regrouping and simply becoming another denomination that was different solely because of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In their zeal they believed that the Acts 2 experience was all that was required to effectively prepare the church for rapture and the second coming.  The revelation of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was perceived as the ultimate church fixing gift of grace. Pentecostal truth changed the world so much at the beginning of the century that is seemed to be the answer to all ills within Christianity. A century or so of classical Pentecost may seem to suggest to some, that the outpouring was misunderstood.

 

On the other hand, 60 years later, Charismatics left traditional denominations because of dissatisfaction with the human set up of church. I am sure there must have been exceptions, but to my knowledge starting and joining the House Church movement was a free choice made by many Christians who decided that they hungered for the restoration of New Testament Christianity more than the fellowship they were committed to. And thus the charismatic streams were conceived and gestating towards what they were later to become.  It was, according to the reports, what seemed like many thousands of people across the nation meeting in small – mostly not so small – meetings in homes, and building church families. For this reason, as growth was extreme and sudden, large homes were required.  It did not take long, of course, before the home meetings were so large that church centres and large auditoriums were required. And so the thing had gone full circle. Restoration Christianity was back in a building called a “church centre.” I do not make this remark as a demeaning one to the Charismatic streams. They were victims of their own radical success in those early days.

 

Recalling quite clearly where I personally was at in the early seventies, I remember that as a Pentecostal, I felt that the new Charismatics had not only assumed the Pentecostal characteristic emphasis, but they had demeaned the teaching of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost by equating its importance as being on par with issues of apostles, prophets, relationships and shepherding.  On top of that, and I say with clear memory, many of the New Church leaders slated the Pentecostals for having become part of the mainstream and having lost their impetus. I clearly recollect being affronted by those kind of remarks at the time.

 

11111116The main outcome of these differences is that the Pentecostals are today still standing firmly on those issues that their forefathers in the faith fought for.  As far as this writer perceives things, Charismatics having chosen to assertively walk out on Christianity that was too settled, do not seem to have run with the issues and the fire that brought themselves into being. Some of the new Charismatic streams today have hardly any outward difference between themselves and the “mainstream” including Pentecostal churches that surround them.  It’s all one organism nowadays with surface similarities, but inwardly great differences.

On the grounds that criticism and persecution puts iron into personal convictions and vision for the future, it was the birth of the Pentecostal movement that placed the iron vertebrae in the Pentecostal stance.  That iron has never left them. The free choice and the wilful choice to move out and start something radically new – something so radical in intellectual rationale that it could not be maintained – is what, in the end, I believe has caused the Charismatic streams to blend into the background of traditional denominations in the UK. Such is the opinion of this writer.

Pentecostals were expelled because of a hunger for a new brand of New Testament Christianity that was so practically and experientially so far reaching that their traditional contemporary Christian generation could not cope with them.  Charismatics left for a radical form of Christianity that seemed to the traditionalists to be so much “too good to be true pie in the sky,” that they didn’t care and were glad to see them go. Pentecostals made white water where they were because of a God given experience. Charismatics could not make white water in their churches in the 60’s, and so went where they believed they could make a new pond and stir the waters there.

Although the Pentecostal experience has radically changed the face of Christianity worldwide, it clearly did not take Christianity in general, nor in their churches, to the expected heights that burned as a vision in the hearts of the early Pentecostal fathers. The Charismatic renewal and the New Churches believed they also had made an incredible breakthrough, and for a while they were indeed the cutting edge of all things spiritual  in the UK, but they too plainly plateaued and blended into the mainstream wallpaper that is Christianity in Britain.

The ultimate remark, which may disenfranchise me with many, is that the Pentecostal movement was birthed in a glorious heavenly reality that birthed dreams, while the Charismatic movement was birthed in theologically created dreams that, in the end did not bring the expected reality. Apostles, Prophets, Restorationism, Definitions of Church life, Parameters of ministry and its modus operandi are still seemingly on the back burners of the church world-wide. These issues must be noted to be unresolved cases that have been filed and simply archived and left – possibly for another generation to open and stand up for.  It is true that we now see more prophets around the world and more men that are referred to as apostles, but generally speaking the dream of restorationism is nowhere but in the quiet meditations and the secret notebooks of a few.

To be real, the New Churches have altered their stance on some of the characteristics they were born with. The Pentecostals have valiantly trekked on with the plumbline of holiness together with the anointing that comes with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The changes in Pentecostal circles are the  individual church structures that vary greatly from one to another. One senior Classical Pentecostal church leader shared with me recently how that today, three Elim churches, each in the same London district  each have a totally different feel to them, though all in unison with a legitimate Pentecostal focus and style. That same senior personality assured me that although what I am saying here in brush strokes may have been absolutely true 30 years ago concerning the New Church Charismatics, they have like us all moved on greatly.

  1. Pentecostalism was at first a Movement within the working class. The Charismatic movement was at first a Movement within the Middle Classes.

11111117No! I am not a “Leftie” trying to make a political point. This is just a fact. The working class, such as it was in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century was a major part of the British population who had to fight to get out of their misfortune.  To be “working class” in those days was misfortune. They fought for equality and rights and without doubt, if it wasn’t for the early Labour Party philosophy they might have forever remained in their dreadful circumstance. The situation of poverty and lack was the very reason that the political left came into being.

 

When the Pentecostal blessing was first preached, taught and exposed to the masses in the early 1900’s it was the “common folk” that heard it gladly. Pentecostalism in the UK was received and enjoyed by vast numbers of working class people.

 

The House Church movement in the 1960’s had a more affluent and professional clientele, as it were, in its birth process. Professionals and academics were more numerous in the Charismatic roots than ever the Pentecostals had at their entrance into the world. The fact that the Restorationists were followed by people who were used to making executive decisions rather than allowing the world to knock them down and dictate the terms of their existence is probably the reason they chose to move out and “start again!” It was a choice thing with the Charismatics. It was an expedient thing with the Pentecostals, forced on them by the hostility of their Christian brothers. Hence the New Churches found themselves writing, videoing and publishing material that clarified to the world what they were about. Whether one agreed with the Charismatic cause or not, loved them or hated them, if a person really wanted to know what the Charismatic New Churches were all about, one could buy materials that would elucidate and educate about the substance of what they were about. And those materials were out on the street almost from the word go.

The Pentecostals were slow to be so academic, although they are putting that right in this present generation. The early Pentecostals put their PR material where their demonstration was. George Jeffreys books, “Healing Rays,” and “Pentecostal Rays,” though earth shakingly radical when they were first published (Healing Rays was first published in 1932) now seem quaint, yet they are hailed as classics only because of their enormous historical significance in this generation. Jeffreys’ differentiation between the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ would greatly disenfranchise him from the vast majority of Christians today (Pentecostals and Charismatics included). The teaching was warmly received amongst the vast working classes of the time firstly because of the gargantuan character that was George Jeffreys, but also quite definitely because of the lack of theological as well as the intellectual academics amongst the Pentecostal population.

The miracles, the healings, the church founding was what kept the Pentecostal movement high in the public forum of any religious debate.  And to be sincere, what else was required. The proper Pentecostal authors and writers were few and far between at first, but the writing about the manifestations of the Holy Spirit when following the likes of George Jeffreys, Stephen Jeffreys, Smith Wigglesworth and others, when authored by unsaved secular reporters made for gripping reading.

All this meant, of course, that right from the start the financial resources to set up properties and facilities were much more readily available for New Church Charismatics simply because their people had more resources to contribute. New Church charismatic leaders seemed to operate more like the accepted norms of a Christian businessman than the perceived norms of Christian ministers. They were sharp and astute at raising money and organisation of their respective causes. In one sense, the New Church Charismatics seemed “modern.”  Everything else, including the Pentecostals, for a brief period during the birth of the new Churches seemed “old hat” and “traditional.” But it is different today. The high spike in the graph of the New Church Charismatics has in the twenty-first century levelled down along with everybody else. The continued growth amongst the Classical Pentecostal denominations is a consistent graph showing a slow and steady rise.

  1. The Pentecostals were fed on expectancy of Christ’s return, while the Charismatics were fed on whatever the opposite was to the Pentecostal expectancy.

11111118The Pentecostals taught and seriously emphasized the Second Coming of Christ. They linked the Pentecostal outpouring at the turn of the twentieth century with Joel’s prophecy of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on “all flesh” just prior to the Day of the Lord. It seemed clear to them, and who could argue with their conclusion, that the Pentecostal revival (and revival is what it was) with thousands upon thousands receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was a sign that the end was near. Because of the incredible thrust of power and zeal that was experienced by many, it seemed to Pentecostal high profile leaders in those first years, that the persecution that was thrown at them by the traditional denominational leaders, and the contrasting zeal that motivated the Pentecostal membership, that God had raised up the Pentecostal movement to usher in the second coming of the Saviour. Many preachers believed that Christ would return before their generation had passed away. It was heady stuff!  I have interacted with some New Church Charismatic leaders who laugh at the early Pentecostal outlook on the second coming, and even that they have an Eschatology at all.

For leaders that launched into existence a New Church revolution with so many seemingly “radical biblical” rediscovered truths, the fact that the New Church Charismatics ignore such a huge section of scripture that refers to end times, Christ’s advent, Israel’s return and the millennial reign of Christ, I find the omission an absolute phenomena. It seems to this writer as if it was neglecting well worn truths for the sake of so called “new truths.”  With myself, at least, it leaves a huge credibility problem. This difference is not just a little bit of theology, or a different interpretation of scripture. It is an entirely different approach to the Christian life and church.

It seems almost humourous to us, seeing that we are still here a century later and the Lord has not returned, but it was earnestly and quite rationally believed in those early days in the midst of the revival fires of early Pentecostalism. Some may snigger, but there are often circumstances in life that lead Christian ministers to conclusions that generations later seem childishly premature. There were thousands of bible believing ministers in the 1930’s and early 40’s that were absolutely convinced Adolf Hitler was the antichrist as predicted in scripture. We can smile at that, yet the intensity of the moment made the concept a possible stark and horrible reality for many.  It is probably because of this conviction concerning the end times and the coming of Christ that was deep and certain in the tenets of their faith, that very few of those early giants of the Pentecostal faith had any “Elisha” to pass the baton on to when they died.  It is a historical fact that most of the Pentecostal pioneers died without a successor to their anointing, message or churches. Just as a “By the way,” none of the early Pentecostal pioneers ever predicted a date. It is Pentecostal staple diet that “nobody knows!”

In response to this, the New Church Charismatics strongly criticised the early Pentecostals for stressing the second coming in the manner they did, and I personally heard it from the mouth of several leaders in the late seventies and through the eighties that they would “not be so unwise and foolish” to make the same mistake. The result was that the Charismatic New Churches in all my relationships and discussions with some of their people through the years do not have any Eschatology at all. To be more pointed, one New Church leader in answer to a remark I made about John 14:3, told me that he thought the world would just end with a “big bang.” When I began to quote other verses concerning Christ’s return, he flatly told me I was “heretical and in error.” The Second Advent was a foreign language to him altogether. As doctrines go it was an untouchable idea to him.

The biblical teaching of Christ’s return was therefore omitted from the raft of truths that caused the New Church Charismatics to leave the denominations on the grounds that it was considered part and parcel of “the reprobate denominational church.”

11111119

We could prolong these notes and continue into more and more detail which might not be so edifying. My point is to say that the ambience, inner culture and general character of the Classical Pentecostals was, at the time of the birth of the Charismatic New Churches a long way away from the nature and attitude of each other. They are both changing animals as would be expected, yet huge differences do still remain.

30 -35 years ago in the UK several of the Charismatic New Church top leaders utterly castigated and derided the Classical Pentecostals as having to rigid a structure and omitted the better truths of relationship amongst leaders and members. At time the New Churches were enjoying a period of aggressive growth and increasing influence. I stand to be corrected, but to my knowledge no Pentecostal leader responded publicly.  However here we are, almost a generation later and not only have some of the New Churches split and fractured, but in house fighting has shown itself to be a continual source of contention.

 

My point in this is not to deride the New Churches, or point the finger at the Classical Pentecostals, but to make the statement that just as a lack of the manifestation of the supernatural in the Classical Pentecostal churches has diluted the secular unsaved perception of what Pentecostalism is all about, so the practice of 50 years in the Charismatic New Churches has diluted the very “doctrines” and emphases that were the very reasons for which they separated from the traditional denominations. It has, sadly, merely left us, a generation later with a few more “denominations” that refuse to call themselves “denominations” but “Streams”. And the New Churches as a whole now are clearly as alike to the live traditional denominations as they claimed to be radically unlike them at their birth.  From the media, and the general Christian press, the Pentecostals still have a clear and pronounced distinctive, yet I query whether the blade of their doctrinal distinctive is as sharp as it was a century ago.

Are we expecting a new wave of revivalism in the UK? What form will it take when it comes?

111111110

What is the Difference Between the Classical Pentecostals and the Charismatics in the UK? (Pt 1)


aaa1Before continuing further with the history of Pentecostal truth in the nineteenth century up to the present day, I digress on the basis of being asked three times in recent days, in the church where God has led me to, “What is the difference between a Pentecostal and a Charismatic?” and “Is there any difference at all between Pentecostals and Charismatics?”  I cannot answer in one line.  The two movements are completely different. I need two papers.  Today I will begin to explain why.  The next time I write I will complete my statement with a list of practical differences between the two movements.

 

Many Christians use the terms Pentecostal and Charismatic interchangeably. They are terribly wrong. I know there is an organisation in the United States called the PCCNA or “The Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of North America” but all I can surmise is that the significance of the terms in the States must be different when they are used here in the UK. For instance I am aware that Kenneth Copeland is referred to as one of the leading charismatics in the USA. Here in the UK, love him or hate him, there is no way that this particular man of God could be referred to as one of the charismatics.

 

It is an easy error to make, and on the surface they look like identical twins, but they certainly are not. They might worship in the same manner, and these days even sing the same songs. It must also be noted that most of the contemporary new worship songs emanate from the charismatic quarter. But good, sound Christian worship songs have been sung across all denominations for centuries. They may both teach the fact of the baptism in the Spirit, prayer for sick people and cast out demons – but there is  a vast difference once a person enquires beyond those prime requirements of similarity.

 

As the parameters of what is referred to as the Charismatic movement expands (and in that respect it has always been a moving animal) there is also an expanding discrepancy between what defines a charismatic and what differentiates one from an authentic “Pentecostal.”

 

The Pentecostals burst upon the planet around the calendar date of 1900. There were lots of things that led up to that bursting. After fifty or sixty years of the Pentecostals teaching the relevancy of the Holy Spirit, and especially the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, the church in general began to get the message, The “Restorationist,” “House Church,” “Neo-pentecostal,” “Charismatic” movement (They are all epithet’s that have been used for the same people at various points of time over the last half century) walked out of mainstream denominations and thus started the new “streams.” It was several years before people within the traditional denominations started to be baptised in the Holy Spirit and saw no need to leave and join the charismatics or the Pentecostals. And so a second kind of Charismatic renewal took place where Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and everyother denomination in mainstream Christianity were in receipt of members receiving their own personal Baptism in the Holy Spirit who chose to stay where they were. So we now have churches that should be referred to as Charismatic Baptists,  Charismatic Methodists, Anglicans and everything else. In fact, for what seems to me like the majority of the body of Christ, nobody seems to give to hoots about the struggle that precipitated the Pentecostal denominations being accepted into mainstream Christianity a hundred years ago, or even the assertiveness of the Charismatic streams that appeared half a century ago and had the appearance of straightening a lot of things out in issues to do with the manifestation of the church in the world. The dust has truly settled. We live in a generation that is wondering what on earth all the fuss was about!

aaa2

312 Asuza Street, Los Angeles. Photo taken circa 1920.

But nothing has changed really. We still have men of God and movements that are stretching the borders of where the life of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit can lead them, and, just as Charles Parham and William Seymour discovered, there is always the minority that love the new pioneers while the majority of those that live in the plains  hate them and demonise them for all they are worth. God have mercy on us all.

 

Getting back to the beginning of our monologue today . . .

 

In the UK the Pentecostal movement vaguely got their act together in the early 1900’s. It was a varied group of men that were hungry for God, and set alight once they received their baptism in the Holy Spirit. They were all from different denominations and different types of orthodox protestant churches.  They gave their respective groups the titles that have become the denominations that we know today.

 

The Charismatic movement did not appear until somewhere around the late 1950’s and into the 1960’s. There is a huge difference between the intrinsic nature of these two groups.  On paper, their tenets of the faith may seem similar, but it is not the criteria from which to judge their overall similarities.

 

The major Pentecostal streams were quick to declare where they stood and became movements/denominations, whatever term one wishes to use, with “i’s” dotted and “t’s” crossed defining their differences. Perhaps if the “i’s” and the “t’s” were attended to a little later, there may have been less fragmentation among those early pioneers. Many men stayed independant believing that the “new thing” that God wanted to do with the Pentecostal move was being blunted by them quickly melding into nothing but a series of new denominations. Some believed “tongues” was the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit having been received, some believed that it was tongues or prophecy.  On those grounds they separated. Brothers separated on theological issues like these that today are considered minimal, yet in those early days of fervency and revival mentality dots on “i’s” and crosses on “t’s” were considered major.  In the States, men like John G Lake and EW Kenyon stayed away from the new born Pentecostal movements simply because of the hurry that drove many to create new denominations.  Kenyon actually applied to join the AoG in the States but on after enquiry and deep discussion never pursued the application. Whichever side of that theological debate they stood, most of the leaders of those early days are hailed today as amongst the great saints of recent church history. We thank God for them. They came together shoulder to shoulder on the major issues of Pentecostal truth.

aaa3

Old style advertising for Pentecostal Missions

As a generalisation, from what I understand of the history of Pentecost in Britain there are three mainstream Classical Pentecostal movements in the UK, Elim, Assemblies of God, and the Apostolic Church. There are many more, but numerically the former two are by far the largest. There are of course other Pentecostal denominations making inroads as with the New Testament Church of God, generally and wrongly  perceived as a West Indian black movement.

 

Elim Pentecostal Churches were birthed around 1915 and were initially known as being the churches that came out of the Elim Evangelistic Band’s efforts led by George Jeffreys, thus they were referred to as the Elim Pentecostal Churches. The deed poll that actually recognised Elim as a denominational force was not actually registered until April 1934 however.

 

The Assemblies of God came into being in 1924. The Apostolic Church which claims to have had its conception in the 1904-5 welsh revival came into reality as a denomination round about 1916 when the churches which comprised what is now known as the Apostolic Church, broke away from what was known then as the Apostolic Faith Church. The Apostolic Church was originally headquartered in Pen-y-groes, South Wales while the Apostolic Faith Church was led from Bournemouth. Those early 1900’s were heady days. Pentecostal people were finding their feet and their group  and denominational identity. They were not wanted in the majority of churches, and were widely persecuted and hailed as heretics by their erstwhile church brothers and sisters in the traditional denominations.

 

Pentecostals generally insisted that what had happened to them, and what they were teaching was truths that were evident from Acts 2 onwards. This is still the true Pentecostal birthmark. The biblical tap root of Acts chapter 2 is the source of all Pentecostal tenacity. They were here to stay and many authors seem to believe that until half way through the 1950’s Pentecostals were understood to be a minority sect and nothing to do with mainstream Christianity. aaa9

 

However, beginning in the late 50’s and early 60’s there was a groundswell of interest and hunger within the traditional denominations concerning the Biblical concept of “spiritual gifts,” including “speaking in tongues.”  I choose to believe from all my study that even though many church leaders tended to look down on the Pentecostals they were secretly intently listening to what they preached. Interest in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the 60’s was high in deepest traditional British churches. As the Greek word for gifts is “Charismata” so the term “Charismatic Renewal within the church” was used quite widely. My limited firsthand experience of this renewal leads me to say that it actually started within the ranks of the Church of England.  Wikipedia actually refers to him as one of the charismatic leaders from the 60’s through to the 80’s.  He was actually very brave within the Anglican set up of those days. I heard him speak several times, and even as an immature new Pentecostal convert he taught me nothing that I hadn’t already heard from my died in the wool Pentecostal pastor.  From Harper It trickled down to the wider shop floor of Protestantism. Many church leaders were loathed to leave their traditional scenario’s and so resisted those with charismatic interests. So the cycle was completed when they that thought their spiritual convictions were not being catered for walked out to form their own groups. The Charismatic “engagement” was afoot.

aaa4

312 Asuza Stree again

The bits that Harper added onto his message were considerable however. I remember him questioning how all Christian denominations “do church.” Structures within churches, the five fold ministry gifts of Ephesians 4, and even team ministry were several of his issues that he included in his “Charismatic Renewal Manifesto.” I have no notes or books to confirm what I say here, only a memory of him speaking in Westminster Central Hall London in the late sixties. I was guilty of ignoring that kind of perspective – to “advanced” for my early days..

 

The entire proceedings of the Holy Spirit were of course totally in His divine order, but they left many pastor’s and churches behind wondering in their long maintained status quo what the fuss was all about. There was even (and there still is) a very sizeable Catholic Charismatic swathe. There are millions still who haven’t a clue what to do with this phenomena. But – looking into that story is for another time.

 

Rather than align themselves with the Pentecostal groups which had been around for fifty years or more, the new Charismatics left their traditional denominations on a quest to restore all things biblical to the church.  It was widely referred to, for a short period, as the “Restorationist movement”.  The emphasis was on the form and structure of the church rather than the personal experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit of individual believers. (If any reader can find a copy, “Restoring the Kingdom” by Andrew Walker is a must to read. I believe it is still in print after several reprints, It is subtitles as “The Radical Christianity of the House Church Movement.” It’s a very juicy read.).

aaa6 william Seymour 46837_256

William Seymour. The man pastoring 312 Asuza street at the Apostolic Faith Church when the fire fell.

It was all change within all Christian denominations and movements. It was glorious and wonderful order growing out of chaos. I think the majority of Christians still chose to ignore what was going on, but those who were hungry for more of God had all sorts of issues being highlighted, questioned and thoroughly debated. My personal memories of Christianity in the seventies, eighties and nineties are rich and varied.

 

Today, the charismatics are generally of two general moulds. There are the charismatic streams. These are the movements, streams, or fellowships of churches, whatever frame of reference each group chose to refer to themselves as, who left the mainstream denominations and felt the Classic Pentecostalism was not compatible to their tenets of faith.  At the beginning of their journey, the Pentecostals were too “old school”  for the charismatic “Restorationist” philosophies. This initial mould is what became a cluster of Streams (that was the new word which kept people safely distant from thoughts of new denominations). They were given names such as New Frontiers, Pioneer, Salt and Light, Grape Vine, and others. To the outside Christian World they were all identical. At first they were known as “Restorationists,” then the “House church.” There were some that then referred to them as the “Neo-Pentecostals” (as opposed to the Classical Pentecostals), and finally they were labelled the “Charismatics.” In those early days, the leaders of some of these movements that I met refused to refer to themselves by any of these epithets. That latter label seems to have stuck howver. Later when the Pentecostal experience broke out in the grass root membership of Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, and all the main historical denominations people less and less felt the need  or desire to leave their denominational roots.  We have thankfully arrived at the point of church development in the UK where whatever is written on the church signage is absolutely no indication of what goes on behind its doors. aaa6

 

The whys and wherefores of their difference is the point of this and the next paper.

 

I am aware that both movements stand for total commitment to Christ and to grow in the grace of God through the impetus of the Holy Spirit and the use of the gifts of the Spirit in the Christian life.  In this they are the same. The differences are subtle, and very much brought about through the experiences and decisions made in the days of the birth of both movements. Next time I shall bullet point several practical and very noticeable results of the differences between Pentecostals and Charismatics.

%d bloggers like this: