Post-Charismatic?
30 Jun 2005
Just got off the phone after talking with Matt Rees, and we had a great chat about how from our limited perspective much of the emerging church seems either post-charistmatic, or formed by people who were never charistmatic in the first place.
Not a bad thing, just the way it is. But for people like Matt and I, who who might be post-evangelical in our theology (and even using that term is asking for trouble), but we aren’t post-charismatic. By that I think we mean, that we still value and practice, laying on of hands, expecting people to experience God, and hear from him, using the gifts of the spirit, etc.
So what does it mean to engage in our emerging culture, and be charismatic? Answers on a pneumatological postcard please.
Anyhow Matt and I wondered who else was asking this and if any of you wanted to get together early autumn to ask that questions, to share what we are learning and doing? Some of us vineyard pastors are making a go of this over at http://vineyard.emergent-uk.org/.
26 comments
Trackback
Comment by dh
5.47 pm on 30 Jun 2005
What is so wrong with Reformed? While I may disagree with some, much of it seems like good theology to me. I also feel that much of Emergent is anti-Reformed which I do not understand. I feel that we can have 50/50 modern/post-modern but the balance always seem to go overboard to one side or the other. Help, Jason as someone who has a strong Faith in God as a post-post modern. (the only name I could come up with for someone with my position) I think true theology is post-post-modern Christianity, taking out the mistakes of Emergent and the mistakes (which are the attitudes not the foundational beliefs) of modern Christianity. To me both have fallen trap to overreactions.
Comment by jim
6.36 pm on 30 Jun 2005
Interesting…!
As it happens I think I may be one of the people Matt is talking about. Over the past 12 months or so I’ve been really reflecting on this stuff, and, having left the Charismatic movement some 18 years ago, found myself in community with a bunch of Charismatics (ie hOME).
I think, as is often the case, it’s easy to confuse the message with the medium, or in the case of the Charismatic the medium with the message. I have come to really feel that the experience of God provided/facilitated by the Charismatic is of profound importance. But really, really stuggle when it’s done in a place of open worship. I think the most effective and touching place for this stuff is with the small group.
I know many will disagree with me, but I fail to see any real or lasting effect that something like the Toronto Blessing has on peoples lives, or what benefit (fruit) it has bought. But I know many people, myself included, who have been transformed by a well placed and sensitively delivered prophesy.
In essence I rejected the sweeping ‘movement of God’ from the front of a large group of people shouting, and have welcomed the still small quite voice.
On that note I’ll sit back and prepare myself for the response.. but thanks to you and Matt for having this conversation..!
Comment by Jason Clark
7.19 pm on 30 Jun 2005
doug, I am not, not making a value judgement of reformed or pentecostal, it just happens that for some of us it is not where we want to go with our charistmatic theoloogy and expression. There is a lot to learn from both streams, but I think we are asking, what does charismatic mean in the emgerging context?
Comment by dh
7.26 pm on 30 Jun 2005
Why not? I know that it has gone into the extremes but can’t we remove the extremes and wrong attitudes thus keeping the wonderful theology that is very Scriptural?
One of my lines I love is sometimes we overreact to the mistakes of the past in such a way that the overractions are just as bad as what we are reacting from.
Comment by Mike Morrell
8.13 pm on 30 Jun 2005
I am post-charismatic in the sense that I’m not into name-it claim it theology, or “if you’re not healed you’re in sin” thelogy, or (here in the States) “if you don’t vote for Bush you’re in sin” politics, but I’m still quite comfortable with being a charismatic in the Vineyard (or Morningstar or IHOP) sense.
It is a very ambivalent thing, though. Because I do anticipate the felt presence of God being manifest in our lives, communities, and meetings, but I don’t “major” on the thigns that many charismatics do.
Practically speaking, I try to track with the very best charismatics whenever I see them, and compare notes with my life and church, and what I think I’m hearing from God.
Comment by Dana Ames
11.13 pm on 30 Jun 2005
Hi Jason.
Rob McAlpine, Canadian with a strong Vineyard history, has been doing a lot of reading and talking in preparation for a paper he has in mind to write on just this topic. Check in at http://www.robbymac.org. Don’t know when he’ll be ready to publish, but it sounds really interesting.
Dana
Comment by brad
12.09 am on 1 Jul 2005
I agree with your general idea. The issues that defined “charismatic” no longer really apply. Also, the issues defining evangelical and non-evangelical still apply but do not need to be the battle cry so what is the new defining elements. I think a serious priority on praxis is vital. A worldview that sees the kingdom as a heavenly quality of life in all its aspects including community life and victory over the core human problems of ego and mate4rialism etc. So we become an emerging community which is seeking to learn the kingdom life together. Those who join us seek this life with us.
Comment by Matt
12.48 am on 1 Jul 2005
Jason -
I, too, am post-evangelical (I think… depending on what “post” means and “evangelical” means), and (still) charismatic. For me, the combination of “emergent” (with its missional focus) and “charismatic” is logical and natural. The Spirit is, by necessity and nature, inherently involved in the process of mission, part of which involves, of course, “healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demons, cleansing lepers” (Mt. 10).
Built into this is a belief in the miraculous. Unless we truly believe that the success of mission in the world is an act of the Spirit, we’re going to run into trouble. And if that Spirit can do something as powerful as transformation of the will, certainly that Spirit can perform these other miracles. And, as God leads, we should “join with God” in doing those things, too.
So I guess this means I’m a charismatic who is so quietly – not out of fear or trying to hide, but because it fits my personality that way. I’m missional and “emergent” in my theology and practice, but I still expect God to do the kinds of things the “charismatics” expect God to do, if not always in the way they expect. :)
Comment by Sivin
2.52 am on 1 Jul 2005
I’ve used the term “post-charismatic” to describe myself sometimes … but more so meaning to quote Matt, “I still expect God to do the kinds of things the “charismatics” expect God to do, if not always in the way they expect. :)” But it’s a hard journey especially after being “burnt” in difference misuse situations.
A friend commented that Emergent tends to be very Christ-focused (Christology) … I agree, so I wonder how much attention is put on the Spirit (Pneumatology). I think those from the Vineyard have much to contribute here.
I guess .. all of us are seeking to move into a more integrated, holistic, missional – and all the best possible stuff we could embody and express – etc. kind of faith, life and ministry. What a journey … at least we’re not alone.
Comment by Mike Morrell
3.19 am on 1 Jul 2005
Hmm…so who gets to contribute on the character and action of God as Father(Paternology?)? My guess is those who will vie for this are either Reformed folk, or George MacDonald/Robert Farrar Capon types.
(Incidentally, I have some friends from my church who will occasionally read some “emerging” writings and would disagree about their being Christocentric; “where is Jesus Christ even in this?” they ask. Of course, they might be defining “Christ” too narrowly, who knows…)
Comment by Sivin
8.11 am on 1 Jul 2005
hi Mike … BTW, Robert Farrar Capon is a fun and stimulating author .. I’ve read ALL his stuff (except the last one on GENESIS the movie! started but haven’t finished yet)
Comment by imagine!
10.47 am on 1 Jul 2005
This is a valuable discussion as there is a tendency to feel that much of emerging church stuff is actually a way of working out in catharsis hurt from the charismatic movement. I think an emerging church charismatic contribution would be prepared to laugh at the banal elements of much of charismania, be levelheaded and wise as it counters an overly experiential spirituality and be wary of triumphalism in prayer, preaching and worship. Taking these balances, it would still seek healing, give space to the prophetic etc etc.
Comment by Hils
11.12 am on 1 Jul 2005
This is a very interesting topic. I guess i would call myself post-charismatic now, but i still have lot of friends who are very much charismatic so i find it interesting (actually quite difficult) relating & conversing with them. I found Graham McFarlane’s book “why do I believe what i believe about the Holy Spirit” really informative & helpful but i’m still trying to figure out practically the place of the Spirit and His work in emerging life & community.
Comment by Jason Clark
11.54 am on 1 Jul 2005
thanks everyone for your comments. I guess I am post-charismatic, in terms of some of the culture of charismania, and some of the theology or lack of it.
There is much I want to hold on to, so when I use post-charistmatic, maybe neo-charistmatic is a better word.
In all my reading there has been so little on pneumatology, and almost nothing in emegring church literature on the subject. An area some of us need to think and write about perhaps.
Comment by andy gr
12.41 pm on 1 Jul 2005
Some time back we had a conversation, now recorded on http://thedeepend.squarespace.com/prayer-beyond-words/ , about whether we can know God “directly”; and a surprising number of people commented that they had left (what they called) the charismatic movement and joined (what they called) the emerging church precisely because “direct contact with God” was not expected/claimed in the latter. It reminds me of the teenagers here in Galleywood who are positive about a new youth service we’re trying to get together because they won’t be expected to sing; I sympathise, but this doesn’t seem in itself much of a basis for a healthy church….
Comment by TimButt
1.53 pm on 1 Jul 2005
I think we’re displaying a very interesting and slightly worrying disconnect here. The charismatic movement as we know it today (and I say this as an English Charismatic, so that means I differentiate significantly between Charismatic and Pentecostal – where Pentecostalism is understood to have its own theological distinctives) has a whole load of history going back through the second half of the 20th century. On the whole, those who took on the identity of being ‘charismatic’ did so as charismatic evangelicals. The significance of that was that they didn’t reject evangelical theology but rather found a refreshing new fullness to it. Sadly, it has all become rather too frothy and style-focussed. But as evangelicalism began to be critiqued towards the end of the 20th century and the need for a practically outworked spirituality was identified and pursued, the term ‘radical charismatic’ was coined and owned by some. I think that’s where I would want to be identified – as a radical charismatic evangelical. Within that there is a kind of ‘post-evangelical’ element but also a desire to see the supernatural working of God (charismatic) in the context of the natural working of my faith in practical action. Perhaps some of the Eden projects in Manchester and the general ethos behind them are a good example of this (http://www.message.org.uk/projects.cfm?id=3).
The charismatic movement is essentially about pointing to eschatology and saying ‘the life Jesus promised us (John 10:10), it’s for tasting and starting to see in increasing measure now as much as for expecting the completeness of in eternity.’ Well there’s the basis for a practical and meaningful outworking of orthodox Christianity (the best of what was twisted and watered down and … to become evangelicalism).
Isn’t the point of Emergent that we’re not rejecting what we were (as post-evangelicals or other such ‘post’ groups might in a rather angry and hurt way) but rather that we’re reimagining what we are and will be drawing on the best of our Christian heritage from a number of ‘traditions’?
Comment by dh
2.39 pm on 1 Jul 2005
I think the sad thing about many Evangelicals is the lack of the gifts of the Spirit. Many in my Reformed camp are this and that is where I seperate. Foundationally I agree with the Evangelical except in the area of a lack of focus on the poor.
I just don’t understand how we can divide on this. Just because Evangelicals don’t focus as much on the poor doesn’t mean the other theology is wrong or not “Christ-like” or not Biblical. Quite the opposite.
I believe that Evangelicalism is practical in that Faith in Christ is the focus but the problem is that we need to focus on two things equally and not just one. If this could be combined equally with the same equal focus with the poor and needy then I believe we would see a major impact of Christ in the world through us. The same goes for Emergent. I also feel that Emergent needs to focus more on Salvation through our Faith in Christ alone, “…no one comes to the Father but through Me”, to go along with their focus on the poor and needy. I believe that we can focus on both equally and both camps are stuck thinking they are mutually-exclusive and thus the rut the Body of Christ is in.
Comment by Randy
5.00 pm on 1 Jul 2005
I guess I’m pre-post-pentecostal. Not willing to give up the ship yet….;)
Interesting side bar. I’m in a disucssion with a group pentecostal leaders (most over 50) right now about this very topic. They are thinktanking and coming out and sending an email to younger leader every couple of hours. Here’s a thought:
Pentecostal/Charismatic NT experssion seem to flow out of early church getting in trouble. God had to heal them, break them out of prison, etc. Maybe we are moving into a post-charistimatic period because we aren’t getting in enough trouble? I’m being convicted by this. Am I falling into the same trap with emerging culture that the seeker people did in the 80’s. Am I turning into a younger, cooler dressed Bill Hybles, because I’m not willing to stand counterculture and need the Holy Spirit’s action. My justification for the lack of “Spirit activity” has me missing the forest for the trees?
I see all kinds of problems for what I just wrote, but it kind of spilled out. Sorry.
-r
Comment by dh
7.13 pm on 1 Jul 2005
Randy, I liked what you said and really can relate to what you wrote. Love in Christ, DH :)
Comment by graham
10.49 am on 2 Jul 2005
Jase,
Stuart Murray Williams also touched on this briefly at the Round Table. It seems that there’s plenty of us aware of this problem (which is perhaps part of the whole issue with the emerging church being a predominantly white, intellectual, middle-class phenomenon) – but I guess no one’s sure what we do about it.
For me, I turned my back on the Charismatic movement because of all of the, er, idiocy. And if I then end up in a movement that is – at least, in part – defined by being “post” (evang or charis) then I guess the last thing I’m gonna wanna do is go back to that. Related to all of that, is the cynicism of being “post.” I fear that I’ve gone from sucker-to-discerning-to-sceptic.
And then there’s the whole issue of integrity and avoiding emotional manipulation… So, I guess there’s quite a natural and healthy “breather” from these things that one hopes leads to a more discerning embrace of the helpful aspects of charismaticism.
Comment by len
5.25 pm on 2 Jul 2005
A great conversation, timely, with potential benefit :) When we stood back from the renewal movement in 1999 I wrote a lengthy article.. for me it holds much truth still. At that time I found 12 points of disconnect. Like the posts above, they point in a direction that mirrors some of the stuff of emergent. Too long to post, I summarize them on my website this morning.
Comment by Paul
8.53 am on 3 Jul 2005
Hello Jase
One of the things that makes for me some of these conversations overlap is that it seems to me that we all old slightly different definitions of terms but then maybe that’s just a me bug bear :)
On your post from my journey where I have been raised in strict evangelical background which had many great points but also as with many movements also had all the answers and didn’t broke conversation. Which was fine when experience/reality was answered by those Qs but the internal contridictions of why the Holy Spirit worked in 1st century AD in some ways and still is there today but only on internal character issues was a point of tension. Especially when I encountered the HS in action doing things external to the inner me – like healing of the body.
So I ended up in the vineyard which seemed to be a good half way house at the time, not to extreme/over the top about the holy spirit – but also of evangelical tradition as well which pushed all my buttons as well.
It has been great experience for me and I liken it to God growing my head and my heart through both traditions.
I think where I come to now is the point where I am where a lot of what the vineyard which is good and great, intimacy with God, laying on hands, prophecy/prayer seems to be about the personal. It’s as much about my relationship with a triune God [expansion of the divine heaven view] as evengelism is about having a personal relationship with God through Jesus. In other words its me, myself, I and God, Father,Spirit, Son all hanging out together…
At that I am finding for me isn’t enough, it’s great and I have grown but the focus on just “I” seems for me to the next point of engagement. I like emergent for the missional focus as well as the freedom to converse. It’s not just an I dialogue but an us/we. Just as mission gets bolted on as an extra when it is about I – I guess I better go and do something and gather some like minded “I’s” to join me which turn out to be fewer in the flesh then nodded their heads during the notice. When it’s about us – all of us [pagan and protesteant] that is our focus than maybe we need all of the triune in God in play…
Comment by Marc
4.02 pm on 3 Jul 2005
Maybe the term Charasmatic should be applied to all Christians and not be a ’style’ of Christianity.
There are after all numerous accounts through the centuries of various people using gifts from God to heal, prophecy etc. from all denominations.
It seems natural that to me the gifts from God will/should be part of every Christians life…this I feel would be in many different and varied ways and not just how one church says it should be done.
Therefore I believe gifting will be seen in emergent members as it is part of the Christian life flowing supernaturally from God.
Maybe problems can arise when it becomes the sole focus of your church?
Comment by Marc
4.03 pm on 3 Jul 2005
Maybe the term Charasmatic should be applied to all Christians and not be a ’style’ of Christianity.
There are after all numerous accounts through the centuries of various people using gifts from God to heal, prophecy etc. from all denominations.
It seems natural that to me the gifts from God will/should be part of every Christians life…this I feel would be in many different and varied ways and not just how one church says it should be done.
Therefore I believe gifting will be seen in emergent members as it is part of the Christian life flowing supernaturally from God.
Maybe problems can arise when it becomes the sole focus of your church?
Comment by robbymac
1.37 pm on 4 Jul 2005
Thank you, Dana, for the encouraging words here! I’m still in the midst of writing and getting some friends to critique/beat the snot out of it, so that it will be as good as I can get it when it goes online, which will hopefully be in just a few weeks.
To me, reading all the discussion here and on other blogs about post-charismatic, is simply a God-given confirmation that the months of research and writing that I’ve invested is worth it.
Suffice it to say, by “post-charismatic”, I do NOT mean non-charismatic, and certainly not anti-charismatic. I’m just wanting to delve into the roots of our movement, and try to understand the “why” behind so many “what’s” that are turning people off.
And as I love to say, “we only deconstruct in order to reconstruct” — the goal of deconstructing the charis-mania elements is towards reconstructing a Spirit-led praxis that I believe is absolutely necessary in the emerging context.
Even if Gary Best (National Director of Vineyard Canada) was the one who originally tagged me with the “ecclesiastical anarchist” label, during one of the plenary sessions at the 2002 Regional gathering in Regina!
Comment by mark
9.52 am on 6 Jul 2005
As Graham said, I was very interested to read this after it came up at the organic church roundtable event with Stuart Murray. Stuart said that we need to distinguish between charismatic theology and charismatic culture, so we don’t dispense with the former. Not exactly sure what he meant – but certainly got my mind thinking as someone brought up in the midst of the charismatic movement and very much still in it – and finding in my journey things i am no longer happy with. I very much appreciate the desire you expressed here, to stay in some sense ‘charismatic’ in the midst of ‘emerging’. I would be interested in being involved in a conversation on this at some point…
Comments are now closed.