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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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…

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.