Friday, February 17, 2006

Post-charismatic

The Heresy has a link to this post by Robby Mac about people who have left the charismatic movement. He gives a good overview of the history and background to today's "full Spirit" groups and some of the excesses and problems which are causing people to leave. A good read, it links to a series of pages.

<idle musing>
I never had a name for it before, but it does summarize where I am at. "Saved" in the Jesus Movement, I got disillusioned by the charismatic movement in the late 1970s as a result of the "name it, claim it, stomp on it and frame it" mentality. That coupled with the shepherding movement's excesses caused me to walk away. I never went back, but never was "anti-Spirit" or gifts, just the excesses and mis-uses. Consequently, I missed quite a few of the excesses that came along later.

I do have a few disagreements with the article:
1. John Wesley never taught free will, he taught free grace. A subtle, but very significant (actually huge) distinction. He believed in the bondage of the will, but believed that prevenient grace was able to raise a person's awareness of their state to the point where they saw the need for God. But, it was all God from beginning to end. This is a huge point that needs to be taught to all Wesleyan-Arminians, it is not a free will thing, but a free grace thing.

<Update after walking to work>
Wesley taught assurance of salvation, something quite uncommon at his time. This was a result of the influence of the Moravians, and became a Wesleyan distinctive. Perhaps this is where Robby gets his theory for the need for outward signs that one is saved? I really don't think it is a result of the Wesleyan belief that one can lose one's salvation, but I might be wrong. Anyway, its 8:00, time to work.
</Update after walking to work>

2. He fails to mention that a goodly number of Keswick people were Calvinists. It was truly an ecumenical movement, initiated by God. But, he needs to have it be Wesleyan-Arminian to fit his thesis of why the outward manifestations were so important.

Other than those quibbles, it is very good.
</idle musing>

4 comments:

Dr. Joseph Ray Cathey said...

James,

Very good point on Wesley! I too believe that this needs to be brought to the forefront of Wesleyian theology.

Rob said...

Hey,

I didn't realize that Keswick had Calvinists in it; thanks for the heads-up.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear about the combined contributions of Wesley and Arminius (and others as time went on); I agree completely with your thoughts on prevenient grace and it being "all God from beginning to end". I was just trying to keep an already-lengthy project from getting even larger. :)

And for Pentecostals, it was very important to have "proof", and most Pentecostal historians point to Wesley as a huge influence on their second-blessing theology.

For what it's worth, the Latter Rain, some of the more prominent leaders of the Shepherding Movement, and the Vineyard are all Calvinist as well.

How, specifically, would you see the recognition that some of Keswick was Calvinist change what I wrote?

Thanks for your thoughts!

jps said...

Thanks for the chance to interact with you a bit more.

I definitely understand that your undertaking was huge. Considering what you had to cover, you did very well, far better than I would/could have :) There is no doubt that Wesley and his entire sanctification/second blessing theology had and has a huge impact on Pentecostal and Charismatic theology and to a lesser extent Third Wave theology.

Specifically, here is what I was reacting to:
"Still, despite many people on two continents (and those who traveled from afar to attend the Keswick conferences) being significantly impacted, with many claiming to have received the baptism of the Spirit, there was still the unanswered question of knowing whether or not they'd continued to walk in the Spirit's baptism; their Arminian understanding taught them that they could lose their salvation, so the need to feel assurance ran high."

Since that wasn't as large a concern for the Calvinists, there must be some other reason for the desire for outward manifestations. I would argue that it wasn't even that large a concern for the Wesleyan/Arminians. Perhaps it was more an expectation than a desire? As you read Wesley's journal and Finney's writings, you see that God manifested Himself in those meetings/gatherings in unique ways Consequently, I would argue that they came expecting God to manifest Himself, but they had no idea what to expect. Sort of similar to today when revivals breakout. The problem then and now is the same—what emphasis do you put on the manifestations. That, I think is where the emphasis had changed in the 20-21st centuries. Wesley noted the manifestations, but to him the only thing that counted was a changed life. It was similar with Finney. Now, with our entertainment addiction, we are more interested in the next high than we are in a changed life.

Does that make sense, or are my musings too rambling? Am I too harsh?

James

Rob said...

Too harsh? Not at all! I see where you're coming from, and you've got a good point that those who were more calvinistic in their theology had different motivations for seeking "more" (however they may have conceptualized what "more" would look like).

Your quote: "Now, with our entertainment addiction, we are more interested in the next high than we are in a changed life."

You're beginning to sound like a post-charismatic. :)