Post Charismatic?
22 Apr 2008
I’m a card carrying charismatic. My conversion involved a dramatic experience of the Holy Spirit, the baptist church I was in practiced the gifts of the spirit, and soon after I got involved in Vineyard Churches, and the whole Third Wave movement.
An understanding of The Kingdom of God, and the power and ministry of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, with an expectation of that continuing today in my life and that of my church community, is still very much part of my faith.
Most of the international emerging church comes from non charismatic backgrounds, or those that do often describe themselves as post-charismatic, seeing most of what happened in their church experiences as cultural and sociological manifestations rather than the Spirit at work. (That is a loaded paragraph that I don’t have space here to detail you’d need to dig into the archives of my blog).
In my emerging church journey, I have questioned many of the charismatic ministry practices I inherited, but haven’t wanted to throw the baby out with the bath-water. I hope my understanding of the Spirit has deepened, that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is something that I see and experience in so may other ways.
But theologically and in terms of praxis, I still believe we need the dynamic encounters of the Kingdom of God, by and through the Holy Spirit, for conviction, conversion, formation, empowerment, and the enabling of mission.
So to the book recommendation to-day by Robby Mac, ‘Post-Charismatic?’
It represents a small selection on my book shelf, and emerging church books, that explore the charismatic and holy spirit. In fact it’s the only book of it’s kind on my shelf, and if you know of any more please let me know.
My immediate question was about the title, ‘post’ implies after, and beyond, and often ex, but Robby clarifies carefully that he is not an ex charismatic, and why he uses that term. He then proposes the term ‘charismissional’, which I have read on his blog before and love.
It might be a more accurate title for the book, but I guess it would attract less attention :-)
It is a comprehensive book by a wonderful and gracious man. It’s not a hatchet job of charismatic church life, but a kind yet deeply reflective and critical look, at some of the many streams of charismatic church, their history and antecedents, and what they were about at their best, and where they have left many of us asking questions when they were at their worst.
In fact, I located so much of my own journey and my questions in the book, thanks for giving voice and articulation so much better than I could Robby.
At the end of the book it felt like a clearing of the decks, and setting of the stage, a prolegomena for the ‘Charismissional’. It left me wanting to see what Robby writes next, to articulate and describe a move into the ‘Charismissional’.
So if you are wondering what the Charismatic is all about and how it might connect with emerging contexts, if you are someone who gave up hope on the charismatic, this book might be just what your looking for.
Tagged: Books, Charismatic, Resources
15 comments
Trackback
Comment by GMD
9.34 am on 22 Apr 2008
With some charismatic streams of church seemingly increasing in numbers thus going against the tide of leavers overall it’s great to have such books to think over where we are and where we’ve come from and of course where we’re going. Great review – Added to my wish list for next order and looking forward to reading it.
Comment by Rick
12.14 pm on 22 Apr 2008
My journey through US Souther Baptist to Charismatic had it’s own dramatic flairs and highlights, and I think I’m like you, working through it in a post- mentality while still wanting to hold onto the deepening parts. One of books that helped me in the process were Word and Power Church by Doug Bannister – good balance for my conservative to out-there transition.
Comment by Jamie Arpin-Ricci
2.49 pm on 22 Apr 2008
I highly affirm both the book and its author. For those outside of the Charismatic experience, this book is also important, as that tradition is under-recognized for its impact on global missiology. Great review.
Peace,
Jamie
Comment by Bryan Riley
4.17 pm on 22 Apr 2008
I hope to get a copy soon – whether on loan or by finding it. It’s hard to come by where I am just because I’m in the middle of rural England without a car, but perhaps soon. I’ve been from a non-charismatic background, but always believed in the move and gifting of the Holy Spirit, and only in the past two years have been exposed to more charismatic practices. I’m interested in reading Robby’s book. He’s a fellow YWAMer!
Comment by Paul
1.33 pm on 23 Apr 2008
thanks jase, charismissional sound to me like 00’s short hand for those 80s heh days of naturally supernatural folk?? (which i guess given Robbie’s, mine and yours shared connected with the vineyard is not too surprising). Is this just a rearticulation of the vineyard/wimber 3rd wave root or do you see it as a further development/movement?
Comment by Jason
8.08 am on 24 Apr 2008
Hi Paul,
I think Wimber was clearly very conservative theologically and ecclesiologically, despite the HS ministry. And I heard him express publicly his lament that the missional experience he had of the spirit with new christians was not what the vineyard had been about, that it had not resulted in evangelism, but rather renewal.
Despite how it might sound, charismissional, the idea of holy spirit empowered mission, sounds exciting to me. How is the hope for mission going to see people convicted and converted to kingdom living? We need an understanding and experience of the spirit for mission, imho.
Comment by Paul
9.05 am on 25 Apr 2008
Thanks Jase, i don’t doubt the idea sounds exciting to us in the 00’s as power evangelism sounded in the 80s – it’s an idea of its time…
My lament about the vineyard is what started as a way to reach californians at the start of the 80s became set in stone as the template for ever – altho that is a side issue to here.
I wonder whether the fact that we had renewal was because of the way Wimber showcased the HS – all those conferences where christians came and got prayed for… of course maybe we miss the point, look at all those people who were touched by the holy spirit that have continued to touch others…
i guess making the link between spirit empowered ecclesiology and mission, the cycle of going and gathering is as old as God’s interaction with Abram…
Comment by Adam Moore
7.49 pm on 23 Apr 2008
Sounds like a really great voice to add to the conversation. I’m not from a charismatic background, but I’m really interested in this “charismissional” concept. I’ll be adding it to the ole wish list. thanks.
Comment by ASD
7.37 pm on 25 Apr 2008
I, too, like the term charismissional. It also made me think of the term reformissional used by Mark Driscoll.
However, it’s the missional suffix that I get excited about. Wherever people’s own theological journey starts from, it where we can go together that interests me.
Regarding the Vineyard, when I joined it was arguably doing mission in a relatively small and gentle way, which I always found strange when hearing John Wimber speaking about the lost and ‘power evangelism’ Ever so often someone would talk about ‘evangelistic worship’, i.e. Kevin Prosch, but it still had a ‘come to us’ mentality about it. Yet probably one the most encouraging things of the last few years has been the rediscovery of doing missional church.
Being in the countryside where church attendance has declined by one third in the last ten years I find myself constantly challenged with relevancy. Like you Jason, I can’t deny the charismata, experientially or theologically, so I will take all I can from anyone giving it the time to help us think it all through. And, as rightly observed, the emerging church is primarily from a non-charismatic stable, so maybe it is timely a book like this comes out to give the other side’s story. Good stuff! Look forward to reading it. Thanks for the heads up.
Pingback by Random Acts of Linkage #58 : Subversive Influence
2.13 pm on 26 Apr 2008
[...] Clark has the first review of Rob McAlpine’s new book, Post-charismatic? (Available in the UK only so far). This is an [...]
Comment by Charlie Boyd
2.29 pm on 26 Apr 2008
In my teenage years I came into Christianity through the early charismatic movement in Northern Ireland.Legalism quickly came into the radical shepherding group I was a founding member of but then along came John Wimber and his cool Californian teams.I liked their laid back approach to Holy Spirit ministry which was probably more Californian cool than Holy Spirit!I left full time ministry with my Fellowship and spent some time with Vineyards in California – they were an odd mix of groups that seemed to reflect the character of their pastor more than some theolgical norm.I received the cold shoulder (bad manners really) from one group of Vineyardites and open arms of love from another.
On my return to Ireland I eventually took time out from organised religion to try and get my sanity back after years of spiritual abuse within the American Discipleship form of shepherding.
Many many years later I came back into a direct experience of Holy Spirit and my charismatic fires burnt freely again but with a completely different theological outlook – I suppose I am now a kind of liberal charismatic Calvinist – honestly – I know it sounds impossible!
I was shocked to find on my return to the Christian subculture that the New Churches had institutionalised and were trying to outdo each other as to who could have the biggest shiniest buildings and the largest staffs.It makes me sick – charismatic christianity has become a commodity for sale by a lot of ‘used car salesmen’ posing as Senior Pastors or Prophets.It must grieve the heart of God – American Entertainment Christianity has won the day.It’s time for a reformation not more sugar sweet charismatic conferences.Let’s hope emerging church doesn’t go the same way!!
Charlie
Comment by Adrian Roberts
12.40 am on 28 Apr 2008
As Charlie Boyd has pointed out, whatever the truth of the charismatic experiences, the real problem for many was the way the Charismatic “New Churches” developed “heavy shepherding”, i.e. controlling, practices over their members, as well as acrimonious splits and rivalries. For some reason, being radical and anti-establishment in terms of church tradition and worship styles does not translate into being liberal in terms of church governance or theology.
I got off relatively lightly. I was a member of one of the leading charismatic fellowships for four years in the 1980’s, which to be fair was not as heavy in terms of discipleship as some of the others, and I left for other reasons. But once I had left, I saw just how controlling it had been, and when a friend of mine in that fellowship admitted to being gay, the leadership really had no idea how handle that, and they ended up driving him away from Christianity altogether. Then for nineteen years I was in a “New Church” that was admittedly not driven primarily by being charismatic, though we were certainly linked to that scene and got very excited by the so-called Toronto Blessing of 1994. Eventually I left at least partly because I found it too claustrophobic, though there was much about it that I still value.
All these churches believed that leaders were leaders because they were anointed by God. Well maybe they were, but in practice those leaders would have been leaders because they had those qualities and would have led wherever they were – in business or politics. The Emerging church needs to learn that lesson: if a leader has a tendency to become controlling, then it will become an institionalised denomination like all that has gone before. All human organisations in the end reflect their leadership, whether for good or bad.
I now go to an Anglican church. Of course some Anglican churches have dictatorial leaders, and empire-builders, and some of the members are even more conservative evangelical than those I left. But I feel a part of something bigger, part of a wider tradition, with room to breath and where a broader section of views are expected. Ironically, given my attractinon to the Emerging Church, I like it here, and I don’t think the CofE is the opposite end of the spectrum of theology or practice to the emerging church. Ultimately in the CofE, no one man can exercise control. It has been said that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the Pope: he has too many constraints on him to be a dictator. The downside of that is that often nothing gets done or decided. But that is the British (and American) way of democracy: we bumble along and compromise, but that is the price we pay for not having a dictatorship.
Which brings me to the liturgy, a favourite subject on this site. For most of my life the concept of liturgy has at best left me cold. As a dyed-in-the-wool Non-Comformist (I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren), I had a postively Cromwellian attitude to liturgies, stained-glass windows, oak pews etc. Of course the Brethren and the Charismatics had their liturgies, they just didn’t call them that. But now, I value the Anglican Order of Service because it takes us right back to the basics of Christianity, without all the trappings of the last thirty years. As we use it, we are a part of something timeless, that transcends all the empire-building and the spiritual trendiness and theological disputes, and it will be around when very few of the current worship songs are still being sung.
Or, am I just getting old?
Comment by Adrian Roberts
12.41 am on 28 Apr 2008
As Charlie Boyd has pointed out, whatever the truth of the charismatic experiences, the real problem for many was the way the Charismatic “New Churches” developed “heavy shepherding”, i.e. controlling, practices over their members, as well as acrimonious splits and rivalries. For some reason, being radical and anti-establishment in terms of church tradition and worship styles does not translate into being liberal in terms of church governance or theology.
I got off relatively lightly. I was a member of one of the leading charismatic fellowships for four years in the 1980’s, which to be fair was not as heavy in terms of discipleship as some of the others, and I left for other reasons. But once I had left, I saw just how controlling it had been, and when a friend of mine in that fellowship admitted to being gay, the leadership really had no idea how handle that, and they ended up driving him away from Christianity altogether. Then for nineteen years I was in a “New Church” that was admittedly not driven primarily by being charismatic, though we were certainly linked to that scene and got very excited by the so-called Toronto Blessing of 1994. Eventually I left at least partly because I found it too claustrophobic, though there was much about it that I still value.
All these churches believed that leaders were leaders because they were anointed by God. Well maybe they were, but in practice those leaders would have been leaders because they had those qualities and would have led wherever they were – in business or politics. The Emerging church needs to learn that lesson: if a leader has a tendency to become controlling, then it will become an institionalised denomination like all that has gone before. All human organisations in the end reflect their leadership, whether for good or bad.
I now go to an Anglican church. Of course some Anglican churches have dictatorial leaders, and empire-builders, and some of the members are even more conservative evangelical than those I left. But I feel a part of something bigger, part of a wider tradition, with room to breath and where a broader section of views are expected. Ironically, given my attractinon to the Emerging Church, I like it here, and I don’t think the CofE is the opposite end of the spectrum of theology or practice to the emerging church. Ultimately in the CofE, no one man can exercise control. It has been said that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the Pope: he has too many constraints on him to be a dictator. The downside of that is that often nothing gets done or decided. But that is the British (and American) way of democracy: we bumble along and compromise, but that is the price we pay for not having a dictatorship.
Which brings me to the liturgy, a favourite subject on this site. For most of my life the concept of liturgy has at best left me cold. As a dyed-in-the-wool Non-Comformist (I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren), I had a postively Cromwellian attitude to liturgies, stained-glass windows, oak pews etc. Of course the Brethren and the Charismatics had their liturgies, they just didn’t call them that. But now, I value the Anglican Order of Service because it takes us right back to the basics of Christianity, without all the trappings of the last thirty years. As we use it, we are a part of something timeless, that transcends all the empire-building and the spiritual trendiness and theological disputes, and it will be around when very few of the current worship songs are still being sung.
Or, am I just getting old?
Comment by Adrian Roberts
12.42 am on 28 Apr 2008
sorry, clicked the Add Comment button twice
Comment by Phil Wyman
4.02 am on 29 Apr 2008
Thanks Jason,
Nice to see the subject up and about, and a book actually on a shelf on the subject. I’ve written about and considered the uncomfortable connection between the worlds of Charismatics (or even more uncomfortable – Pentecostals – I am an ex-Foursquare pastor myself), and had discussions along these lines with guys like Tony Jones recently.
I suppose I gotta get a book now.
Comments are now closed.