How the charismatic movement took on the characteristics of its social surroundings.
Last week we looked at the social and cultural characteristics of pop culture as it developed through the 20th Century. This week we move on to see how this shaped the Church.
Youth-Dominated
Many of the founding fathers of the charismatic movement in Britain were men of deep spirituality, personal commitment to the Lord Jesus and with a passion to share Christ with others. Many of them, such as Denis Clark, Arthur Wallis, David Lillie, Campbell McAlpine, Michael Harper and Tom Smail - to mention just a few - were steeped in the Word of God and utterly committed to the promotion of New Testament Christianity. This, indeed, was their major objective, namely the restoration of authentic New Testament principles to the life of the Church.
There were many other men from conservative evangelical or Brethren backgrounds whose study of the Word of God led them to believe that the 20th Century Church had strayed woefully from the New Testament pattern. They longed to see the restoration of the five-fold ministries, of the recognition of baptism in the Holy Spirit and of the exercise of spiritual gifts within the Church. Their witness within their denominational institutions often stirred heated opposition and many were ejected from their fellowships.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s a few house church groups began to be formed, although this was never the intention of those who longed to see the restoration of New Testament teaching and practice in the Church. In the early days there were men in leadership of these new fellowships who were of sound biblical scholarship and considerable spiritual maturity. But, as so often happens in a new movement, it is not the thinkers who prevail but those who are the most convincing 'charismatic' personalities, popular speakers and natural leaders.
Young men rapidly took the initiative, both in forming new fellowships and in taking leadership. This was fully in line with the prevailing mood in Western society. These young men owed no allegiance to traditional Church or denominational institutions. They were untrained for leadership and most of them had no theological education. They rapidly developed new styles of worship using guitars, which were ideal for home groups, and new styles of meetings and leadership.
As so often happens in a new movement, it is not the thinkers who prevail, but those who are the most convincing ‘charismatic’ personalities.
Anti-Tradition
The new house fellowships soon attracted those who were discontented with their traditional denominational churches. This, of course, is inevitable with any new movement. When David was outlawed by King Saul and took refuge in the hills, it is recorded that, “All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered round him, and he became their leader” (1 Sam 22:2).
Something like this happened in the early days of the house church movement. Many who were dissatisfied with the lifelessness of the denominational churches were attracted by the informality and freshness of the house church fellowships. The early days saw many groups split away from a parent group and form new fellowships. These splits often occurred on the grounds of teaching or practice, but in reality new young leaders were arising to challenge an established leader and form their own fellowships.
The emphasis was upon all things new in response to the new experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was a new day. God was doing a new thing. Old established practices in the denominational churches were considered stumbling-blocks to what God wanted to do among his people. The Holy Spirit was sweeping away the dead wood in the Church and there were many calls for people to come out of the mainline churches because God had finished with the denominations.
These calls did not come from mature Bible teachers such as Denis Clark and Campbell McAlpine, who never formed new fellowships and whose ministries were trans-denominational. They came from the young men who eagerly seized the opportunities for leadership presented by new teaching and the impatience of many within the traditional churches to move faster than their pastors deemed to be wise.
In Brighton, for example, when Terry Virgo founded the Clarendon Fellowship he was joined by a large proportion of the congregation from St Luke's, Brighton and Hangelton Baptist as well as individual members from churches in the surrounding area.
Young leaders eagerly seized opportunities for leadership presented by new teaching and the impatience of many within traditional churches.
Similar things happened in many other parts of the country, where house fellowships sprang up and rapidly attracted members of the mainline churches. These congregants were longing to experience new life in the Spirit and felt constricted by the traditions which bound them in the churches they had attended for many years.
It was a time of splits, of fission and fusion, as house fellowships multiplied, outgrew their drawing-room bases and began worshipping in scout huts and school halls. There were many cries of sheep-stealing and counter-charges of being blocks to the Holy Spirit. There were many hurts, but it is now a long time ago and most wounds have healed. The new fellowships are an established part of the Church scene. Their leaders are prominent in the charismatic movement alongside those in the mainline churches.
Most of the new fellowships planted in the 1970s or early 1980s have now aligned themselves with one or other of half a dozen streams such as Pioneer, New Frontiers, New Covenant or Ichthus, each of which is now an independent sect or a mini-denomination.
At the time these new fellowships were being formed, a significant renewal movement was taking place within the mainline churches themselves. Many ordained ministers quite independently experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and began to lead their congregations into renewal in the Holy Spirit. Many suffered considerably in doing so while others saw quite spectacular results. Colin Urquhart in Luton, Trevor Dearing in Hainault, David Watson in York, David Pawson in Guildford and many others each attracted large congregations and saw the renewing of the spiritual life in the churches they led and the exercise of spiritual gifts among the people.
It is questionable in hindsight whether it was ever right to fragment the Church by the formation of numerous new fellowships, or whether it was God's intention to renew the existing structures. The new eager young leaders reflected the spirit of the age, both in their impatience to get on with the new thing, and with their anti-traditionalism which regarded all things of the past as only being fit for ridicule and rejection.
Certainly the Church was in need of a radical shake-up and spiritual renewal, but was it really necessary to tear apart the Body of Christ so wantonly and create such division? Would a little more love and patience have enabled renewal and a new unity to run right across the denominations? Was this God's intention for his Church?
It is questionable in hindsight whether it was ever right to fragment the Church by the formation of numerous new fellowships, or whether it was God's intention to renew the existing structures.
We shall never know the answers to these questions, but it is a fact that the decade of the 1970s which saw the greatest fragmentation of the Church was also the decade of the greatest social unrest, the height of the social revolution.
A spirit of rebellion was running right through the nation with numerous strikes in industry and a vast increase in marriage breakdown and sexual promiscuity, with all the accompanying evidence of the rejection of tradition and the eager pursuit of new social and moral values.
It is perhaps a strange quirk that the young rebel leaders who caused great division in the 1970s and who became the leading 'apostles' of the charismatic movement are now the very ones condemning as 'divisive' those who question the biblical validity of their teaching and practices.
Individualism
20th Century evangelicalism has tended towards individualism due to its emphasis upon the personal nature of salvation. The seeds of individualism have been there since the Reformation, but 20th Century Western culture has greatly encouraged this. By the time the charismatic movement was born, individualism in Western society was rampant and the new renewal movement embraced it wholeheartedly.
Unlike the corporate experience of the disciples on the Day of Pentecost, the renewal movement was entirely personal. Its emphasis was upon the personal relationship of each believer with the Father. This, of course, is perfectly biblical and in line with the promise of the Lord, but the Hebraic background to Jesus' teaching has been lost over the centuries and with it the understanding of the place of each believer within the corporate community the Body of Christ.
Charismatic renewal is highly 'me-centred'. Each individual is encouraged to discover their spiritual gifting. Indeed, the gifts are regarded as personal possessions rather than together making up the spiritual attributes of the community of believers.
This individualistic concept of the gifts has led to some erroneous teaching, highly dangerous for the health of the Church, such as the 'positive confession' or 'faith movement' which has emphasised physical and materialistic values such as health and wealth. Its proponents have taught that God wants all his people to prosper, to be healthy and wealthy and that through faith or 'positive confession' these things can be obtained.
This teaching is fully in line with the desires and ambitions of Western acquisitive materialistic society which no doubt accounts for its popularity among charismatics, despite it being the very opposite of the teaching of Jesus!
Much of the preoccupation of charismatics with the exercise of spiritual gifts has been me-centred: me and my health, my wealth, my family and my personal relationship with God. The exercise of spiritual gifts thereby tends to meet the personal needs within the fellowship. The servant nature of discipleship - saved to serve - tends to become lost.
Much of the charismatic renewal movement has been me-centred: me and my health, my wealth, my family and my personal relationship with God.
Charismatic worship has both reflected this me-centredness and helped to reinforce it. A very large number of worship songs and choruses use the first person singular rather than plural. One of the great benefits of the renewal movement has been to heighten each believer's awareness of the presence of God and thereby to heighten each individual's active participation in worship and deepen their spiritual apprehension of God. This is wholly good, but the danger of an overemphasis on individualism is a loss of the corporate and thereby a loss of the essential nature of the New Testament Church as the Body of Christ.
Personal Involvement
If you walk into a strange church, you can usually know instantly whether it is charismatic or traditional. If it is traditional, the congregation will fill up the back pews first; if it is charismatic they will fill up from the front. In the traditional church the congregation is passive, the people are there to be ministered to by choir, readers and preacher; in the charismatic church the people are there for active participation. They want to be fully involved in worship with the freedom to wave their arms, clap, dance and give physical expression to their emotions.
This DIY worship is very much in line with the spirit of pop culture. Amateur musicians, worship leaders and singers give a performance at the front which is enthusiastically supplemented by the active participation of the congregation.
In the new sects which arose out of the house church fellowships, the preachers and pastors were also untrained. Hardly any of them had any formal theological training in a theological college or university theology faculty. A few had been to a Bible school although many of the younger leaders had received some sort of training from schools set up within their own sects. These were non-academic and simply pass on the limited teaching of the leadership.
This represents one of the greatest dangers of the charismatic movement, where the emphasis has been increasingly on experience-centred or revelationary-centred leadership with increasingly less emphasis upon biblical scholarship.
One of the greatest dangers of the charismatic movement is its emphasis on experience-centred leadership over and above biblical scholarship.
As the charismatic movement has tended to become increasingly driven by the leaders of new sects in concert with a handful of leaders from the mainline churches, few of whom are men of outstanding scholarship, the gap between biblical truth and current charismatic practice has widened.
The anti-professionalism of pop culture has been present in the charismatic movement from the beginning although leaders have been quick to assert their own authority. The excesses of heavy shepherding, which scarred many people's lives during the 1980s, have largely disappeared, although the authoritarianism of sectarian leadership has left its mark. Individual believers are encouraged to be fully involved in worship and the exercise of spiritual gifts, with the exception of the gift of prophecy, which is permitted as long as it is supportive of the leadership.
Next week: The final three characteristics of pop culture are compared to the Church: sensuousness, lawlessness and power.
First published 1995. Revised and serialised November 2017. You can find previous instalments in this series here.
