|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Rev. Colin Urquhart and the Charismatic Renewal
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the issue of what 'kills' revivals ...
I'm sorry, but the older I get, the more I'm of the view that these things tend to fizzle out when the participants exhaust themselves. There's been all sorts of speculation - some of it very silly indeed - as to why the Welsh Revival of 1904/05 apparently fizzled out after 18 months ...
Well, for a kick-off poor old Evan Roberts wore himself out through constant touring/preaching and also, sooner or later, you have to get on with your normal life rather than standing through late-night chapel meetings singing 'Here is love, vast as the ocean ...' over and over and over again ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Also, religious heat and enthusiasm does tend to boil over and is naturally fissaporous ... so you get tensions between leaders, people pulling in different directions ...
It can all boil over very quickly.
In the case of Azusa Street there was the added issue of racism and opposition to Seymour's integrated approach - which, as I've said, was perfectly in keeping with the statute-books and the polity of most - if not all - churches in LA at that time ... but which didn't necessarily mean that everyone was happy about that. Parham certainly wasn't. The press might not have been either - the way they describe the meetings at Azusa Street is very racist and politically-incorrect by today's standards ...
Whilst I'd applaud what Seymour and the revivalists were trying to do - although they were also under the misapprehension that the end of the world was imminent - hence the fuss when Seymour married ... there's only so long you can sustain that level of revivalist fervour.
That's not to say that revivalist forms of Christianity need lack longevity - the Pentecostal thing has been going for 110 years now after all - but what you find are periods of relative quiet - as it were - punctuated by times of fire and fervour.
All revivalist groups experience some kind of cyclical process ... the Wesley and other figures of the 18th century Awakening noticed that.
So, I'm afraid I don't buy this, 'If only they'd left Seymour alone then the revival would have continued ...' or 'If only if so-and-so hadn't bad-mouthed Evan Roberts then the fire would not have gone out ...'
And so on and so forth ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
[QUOTE]Well, it made me smile. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Dear God, no. I thought we'd seen the last of his chicanery.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Whatever revival you look at, there's always hype around it. The question is simply one of fruit - is it lasting, did it impact/change people to the extent that it changed communities?
As for the Welsh Revival, you also have to see it alongside Azuza Street in its historical context (non church, non religious). It was a time of uncertainty across the world - in Wales the mines were on short time. What else to do apart from to look for God? In a couple of years the economy turns and hey presto, the revival peters out.
Like Gamaliel I don't go for the "if only you'd left it alone ..." idea.
Sad to see Azuza Street being treated like it was with the Bethel Programme. Lou Engle (?) is definitely challenging Toronto c. 1995 and as for Paul Cain well .. words fail me.
Do we never ever learn?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, and with Azusa Street it was the aftermath of the Californian earthquake and a time of social change - the western USA was a seething hot-bed of millenarian expectations, fervent Holiness religion and snake-oil quackery ...
In Wales, the language was under threat, the old non-conformist chapel certainties were being eroded, there were rising tides of nationalism and also radical politics. The revival was largely a young people's movenent among people experiencing a crisis of identity and already - if only nominally - connected with church and chapel.
It's not insignificant that many of the fervent converts later channelled their energies into the Eisteddfod or Labour Party politics ...
Some of the early participants at Azusa Street felt that the movement very quickly 'apostosised'. One wonders what they'd have made of the shenanigans in Californian stadia - raining or otherwise.
Whatever we think of the early Pentecostal movement they deserve a better legacy than Bethel ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
It seems, judging from the tone of the discussion (correct me if I'm wrong), that there's disagreement over what extent the social/economic/demographic/etc factors play in any kind of new expression or shift in emphasis.
At one extreme, one might argue that all external factors are a distraction and that it is a community responding to God. At the other extreme, one could something akin to a social-deterministic viewpoint and try to identify the particular factors at play and then (hey presto!) there's no need to consider the possibility of God actually acting in the world.
With several shades of beige in between.
I wouldn't deny the value and use of a good sociological understanding in the history of different church movements, though it does seem that it's overstated sometimes (particularly by sociologists! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ), effectively, if not explicitly, denying the je ne sais quoi of the work of the Holy Spirit.
If I may venture a hypothesis: movements like Asuza Street, Toronto, Pentecost, Quakerism, John Wesley's strange warming, etc. may often start with a spark from God, but that the direction they subsequently take is heavily influenced, though not dictated, by the situation in which they may be found.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Any comments on Lou Engle and Bill Johnson/Bethel's attempt to capitalise on this last Saturday at the LA Coliseum? (another link).
As a simple matter of curiosity, are these two men being interviewed on that link (or at least the first few minutes of the twelve hours, famous people that I'm supposed to have heard of and would have done if I lived in the US? Are they names I ought to know? Do I reveal that I am theologically uncultured by not doing? Or are they just preachers who are well known in the area where they work?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
]As a simple matter of curiosity, are these two men being interviewed on that link (or at least the first few minutes of the twelve hours, famous people that I'm supposed to have heard of and would have done if I lived in the US? Are they names I ought to know?
They are well known enough in the circles they move, Lou Engle is a 'movement leader' and Bill Johnson is the leader of Bethel which has a lot of influence in most parts of UK/US charismaticism.
Johnson has managed to appeal to the much more middle-class 'don't scare the horses' New Wine types, even as he flirts with the edges of the extremes of the signs and wonders movement.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't have the time these questions deserve right now, but I think they are both exceedingly scary and even dangerous.
Lou Engle's hyping of his event ("a bigger outpouring than Azusa Street"), weird prophecies and visions, and nationalism I find scary and manipulative. Having a charismatic knees-up on the anniversary date is one thing. Prophesying it will usher in a foretold revival on the one hundredth anniversary (well, give or take ten years...) of the original revival and encouraging people to hand over cash on this basis is another.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Sipech, of course.
You can say the same thing for Christianity in general - or Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or any other religion - or any ideology ...
All of these take place in particular contexts. It stands to reason that how they subsequently shaped up is going to depend on all sorts of factors.
If Christianity had emerged in Central America or the Cameroon rather than the 1st century Middle East it'd look very different to what we are familiar with now.
Acknowledging socio-economic and demographic factors doesn't obviate the God-factor as it were.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Also, religious heat and enthusiasm does tend to boil over and is naturally fissaporous ... so you get tensions between leaders, people pulling in different directions ...
It can all boil over very quickly ...
Whilst I'd applaud what Seymour and the revivalists were trying to do - although they were also under the misapprehension that the end of the world was imminent - hence the fuss when Seymour married ... there's only so long you can sustain that level of revivalist fervour.
So, I'm afraid I don't buy this, 'If only they'd left Seymour alone then the revival would have continued ...' or 'If only if so-and-so hadn't bad-mouthed Evan Roberts then the fire would not have gone out ...'
I would agree, but Azusa didn't "fizzle out"-- it was ended abruptly due to Parham's racist interventions. I'm sure it would have, indeed, fizzled out eventually, but Parham hastened the demise. otoh, the impact of Azusa St is very much a part of modern Pentecostalism, and arguably we wouldn't have the movement we have today w/o it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the case of Azusa Street there was the added issue of racism and opposition to Seymour's integrated approach - which, as I've said, was perfectly in keeping with the statute-books and the polity of most - if not all - churches in LA at that time ... but which didn't necessarily mean that everyone was happy about that. Parham certainly wasn't. The press might not have been either - the way they describe the meetings at Azusa Street is very racist and politically-incorrect by today's standards ...
It is true that integration was not illegal in California (which is considered "North" for purposes of slavery/civil war)-- in contrast with the South, where Billy Graham was actually breaking Mississippi state law when he broke down the barriers between white & black worshippers at his 1952 revival. But it's not true that interracial worship was common in L.A. in 1906. It wasn't even common when I was growing up here in 1960s and 70s. Even today, sadly, multi-racial churches even here in this "melting pot" are the exception (tho far more common) rather than the rule.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I didn't say integration was common in 1906, Cliffdweller - I made that clear in my postings on the subject - references to Paeham's racisn, the racist coverage in the press ...
I suspect we are posting at cross-purposes to an extent.
The multi-racial aspect was a significant feature at Azusa Street, but it wasn't the only one. Overall, sadly, Pentecostal and charismatic congregatulions these days seem to be no more demographically diverse than any other form of church. Pentecostal and charismatic churches can be relatively diverse in my experience - but certainly not as much as some would like to make out.
The reason Azusa Street left a legacy and influenced other revivalists worldwide - initially across the US but also Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and various Protestant mission stations in India, Africa and the Far East - was because of the telegraph, mass media and the steam ship.
There's a fascinating history of transatlantic influences in both directions throughout 18th and 19th century revivalism.
Near here, for instance,the Primitive Methodist 'camp meetings' on Mow Cop from 1806 were consciously modelled on US frontier revivalist practices.
Azusa Street was a grass-roots thing but early adopters elsewhere - at least initially - were missionaries and full-time Christian workers of various kinds. The main thing they seemed to take from Azusa Street was a particular understanding of 'tongues' - Parham and the original Topeka tongues-speakers had understood it differently - in terms of 'xenoglossy' and this -alongside racism - was one of the bones of contention.
The 'shape' that Pentecostalism took - at least initially - was determined by the existing forms and structures of Wesleyan Holiness, Nazarene and Methodist revivalism.
Here in the UK, as Baptist Trainfan notes, early adopters included the Anglican cleric Akexander Boddy and the very well-heeled Cecil Polhill, one of the 'Cambridge Seven'. However, they were soon side-lined by working-class revivalists.
It's interesting to reflect that Pentecostalism as a movement made little impact on broader public consciousness in the US until the 1950s - by which time it was using TV and radio ... although there had been higher profile proponents much earlier such as Aimee Semple MacPherson in the LA of the 1920s and 30s.
Here in the UK the Jeffries Brothers had considerable impact in the 1930s but Pentecostal revivalism would still largely be regarded as a marginal, exotic, suspiciously US-influenced import to some extent. On continental Europe even more so.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Here in the UK, as Baptist Trainfan notes, early adopters included the Anglican cleric Akexander Boddy and the very well-heeled Cecil Polhill, one of the 'Cambridge Seven'. However, they were soon side-lined by working-class revivalists.
Re. Boddy et al, I yesterday came across this interesting thesis. I don't claim to have read it all, just skimmed bits of it!
[ 13. April 2016, 07:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Martin60
I don't have the right to contribute much to this discussion (though I find it interesting for various reasons) but I must jump in here. You seem to be implying that people who speak in tongues don't do enough loving, or aren't sufficiently interested in 'universal justice with peace', to use your earlier phrase.
quote:
SvitlanaV2, you have EVERY right, as much as anyone, we don't own it. I'd have to say that you have understated my position! As a helplessly privileged hypocrite. Me.
However, one of the reasons why the Azusa Street revival fascinates me is that in its earliest days (and I accept that things changed) it incorporated social and racial equality in a way that few of the sensible, moderate churches were doing at the time.
quote:
That I find moving and chastening. The impulse was there. Charismania was obviously a vehicle, a handmaiden of that.
My related concern about condemning tongues-speakers as uncaring, or somehow irrational, is that it feeds into rather problematic racial attitudes about very many of the world's Pentecostals and charismatics, the majority of whom are not white. When we argue that this form of Christianity is unbiblical we're actually marginalising a spirituality which, it has been argued, is strongly influenced by non-Western impulses and perspectives. If we're keen on 'peace' and 'justice' we need to think carefully before we do that.
quote:
Having devoured Brian McLaren and Ryszard Kapuściński, I am again smote.
Of course, I accept that most commentators here are speaking from a long experience of charismaticism in its mostly indigenous British and mostly middle class form.
quote:
Exactly, whew, a let out, I'm talking from my parochial experience.
Finally, as someone who has mostly belonged to moderate, MOTR, non-tongues churches, let me tell you that despite official enthusiasm for social justice, etc., the MOTR faction, even here in the UK, has had its own internal problems with the issues that you deem to be important. Some of these, for example regarding racism in churches, have now been fairly well documented. Turning one's own congregation into a beacon of justice and equality is often more difficult than promoting 'social justice' far away, if I may put it like that. But I suppose we have to live in hope.
quote:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whatever we think of the early Pentecostal movement they deserve a better legacy than Bethel ...
I'm with you there.
As for Johnson not frightening the horses, isn't Bethel where they try and teach people how to raise the dead?
He's hardly mainstream (even mainstream charismatic) IMHO and I rather feel that New Wine are gradually edging away from him.
As for Lou Engle or whatever his name is, that whole jerking thing is a sign of some deeper issues - perhaps spiritual, perhaps psychological. Anyone tuning in for the first time would be either alarmed or burst our laughing. What do theses people think they look like?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
Lots to catch up on.
My own take on tongues is that in fulness the gift is speaking in unknown human languages. That this gift has been recorded through church history in the lives of the saints, but it is relatively rare. The problem with many of the overviews of historic charismatic experience is that they refuse to engage with Roman Catholicism.
The gift of tongues as popularly practiced is something that human beings seem to be innately capable of, but can be quickend by the Spirit. It is the spiritual benefit rather than the sounds themselves that constitutes the charismata. I see no difference between tongues, the Jesus Prayer or the Hail Mary in this regard and in prayer I will often use the three together.
In regards to charismatic experience in general I went very anti charismatic at one point for all the reasons discussed here. Although I continued to have profound experiences of God. I re-engaged with the charismatic after experiencing it out of context of the big meetings. And that remains a mark of my experience. It is one thing to be suspicious of toronto like 'hysteria' in a big hyped meeting. It is another when someone you pray for with no knowledge of that experience after a very 'normal' liturgical service falls to the floor and weeps.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I suppose that's pretty much where I'd be at, Edward Green, except that my local parish church is exceedingly 'low' ... and the nearest relatively 'High' parish is probably be more liberal theologically than I would be happy to be ...
I do find myself doubting the 'efficacy' of 'tongues', as you've described it, alongside things like the Jesus Prayer - or Hail Mary's or whatever else we might adopt in a more formally liturgical fashion ... but then, that also begs a few questions.
I use the Jesus Prayer from time to time and yes, when nobody's looking, I will engage in more avowedly 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox' style practices - invoking Mary and the Saints and so on.
The thing is, I have absolutely no idea how we go about evaluating the efficacy or otherwise of any of these practices ...
I mean, the first time I used more Orthodox formularies in prayer or used RC or Anglo-Catholic prayers in my devotional times, I thought the ceiling would open and I'd be struck by lightning ...
When that didn't happen, I continued ...
But does how we 'feel' about particular practices determine how beneficial, efficacious or otherwise they are?
I used to feel pretty comfortable about 'speaking in tongues'. I don't feel particularly comfortable about it any more so don't do it. I can do it if I want to but don't particular 'feel' or experience any 'benefit' from the practice.
The conservative evangelical answer would obviously be that the invocation of Mary and the Saints or praying the rosary (I've not done that ... yet ... ) doesn't have any NT warrant whereas praying in tongues - however it's understood - does. So therefore, if you are going to do either, it'd better be the tongues as they are more 'biblical' ...
All that is still work in progress for me ...
I'm prepared to accept the 'validity' of tongues and so on - particularly in those instances where it appears to happen spontaneously and without priming or particular coaching, instruction, hype or suggestibility ...
But in terms of my own day-to-day devotions I must admit, I'd struggle to find a 'place' for it these days ...
Perhaps that will change. Who knows?
Or perhaps I'll continue on a trajectory into high-octane bells and smells or to a gentler, more contemplative approach ... or a more quietist, Quaker-like one ... I dunno.
I'm not 'against' traditional hymn-prayer-sandwich type non-conformist worship but it is no longer my 'bag' - I quite like the sermons you get in such settings and some of the hymns but it can feel like a lecture with a few hymns and prayers attached ...
I don't particularly object to lively, 'contemporary' style worship either - provided it's going on somewhere else and I no longer have to feel under pressure to be involved ...
Some ultra-'High' stuff would send me rushing for the door and down to the nearest Brethren assembly shouting, 'Let me in ... let me in ... all is forgiven ...'
I don't really know where that leaves me ... but then, that's not the focus of this thread ... it's supposed to be about Colin Urquhart and the charismatic renewal in general ...
About which I'd say:
- Some of it good, some of it bad, some of it indifferent.
And ...
- Been, there, done that, no longer feel the need to get involved personally.
And finally ...
- Yes, I do believe in the vatic, the numinous and in the charismatic dimension in its broad sense. How I work that out in terms of my current position ... I don't know. Answers on a postcard please.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
My own take on tongues is that in fulness the gift is speaking in unknown human languages. That this gift has been recorded through church history in the lives of the saints, but it is relatively rare. The problem with many of the overviews of historic charismatic experience is that they refuse to engage with Roman Catholicism.
The gift of tongues as popularly practiced is something that human beings seem to be innately capable of, but can be quickend by the Spirit. It is the spiritual benefit rather than the sounds themselves that constitutes the charismata.
I would in general agree with what you say above in that the fullness of this gift is relatively rare (which is certainly bourne out by the relatively small numbers of genuine examples of the gift manifesting itself in terms of actual languages).
Would also mostly agree with your second paragraph, with the caveat that as a natural ability of sorts it can be abused as well as used, and a lot of the ways in which it is used seem to me to destroy the purpose of language in the way that a mantra would.
quote:
It is one thing to be suspicious of toronto like 'hysteria' in a big hyped meeting. It is another when someone you pray for with no knowledge of that experience after a very 'normal' liturgical service falls to the floor and weeps.
Yes, would agree with this too.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't say integration was common in 1906, Cliffdweller - I made that clear in my postings on the subject - references to Paeham's racisn, the racist coverage in the press ...
I suspect we are posting at cross-purposes to an extent.
The multi-racial aspect was a significant feature at Azusa Street, but it wasn't the only one.
We are definitely talking at cross-purposes, but I don't think your postings on this point are as clear as you think they are-- I've been aware of struggling to understand what you're saying. Even now as you're clarifying I'm not sure what you mean by Azusa St. "wasn't the only one"-- do you mean there were other multi-racial churches? Probably true, but again, very much not the norm even in Los Angeles up until the turn of THIS century (rather than the last).
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Overall, sadly, Pentecostal and charismatic congregatulions these days seem to be no more demographically diverse than any other form of church. Pentecostal and charismatic churches can be relatively diverse in my experience - but certainly not as much as some would like to make out.
Today I would say, at least here in L.A., Pentecostal & charismatic churches do tend to be more diverse-- and the relatively few truly multi-racial churches are almost always charismatic or charismatic lite. Barna's research seems to bear that out. But that may have as much to do with appealing to younger people than it does anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The reason Azusa Street left a legacy and influenced other revivalists worldwide - initially across the US but also Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and various Protestant mission stations in India, Africa and the Far East - was because of the telegraph, mass media and the steam ship.
There's a fascinating history of transatlantic influences in both directions throughout 18th and 19th century revivalism.
Agreed. Hearst in particular took a great interest in the revival (for reasons know only to him) and directly ordered reporters to give it significant coverage.
The revival coming at a fortuitous time for mass communication might be compared to Pentecost happening at a time when you had thousands of the faithful Jewish diaspora present in Jerusalem... a similar factor.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...The 'shape' that Pentecostalism took - at least initially - was determined by the existing forms and structures of Wesleyan Holiness, Nazarene and Methodist revivalism.
Yes. In fact, much of our work (husband's and mine) is about trying to return to a more Wesleyan understanding/framework in American Pentecostalism (which has drifted strongly toward Calvinist paradigms in the last few decades).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
My own take on tongues is that in fulness the gift is speaking in unknown human languages. That this gift has been recorded through church history in the lives of the saints, but it is relatively rare.
Interesting. I'm gonna chew on that one...
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
The problem with many of the overviews of historic charismatic experience is that they refuse to engage with Roman Catholicism.
Slowly changing on this side of the pond, but very true, sadly.
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
The gift of tongues as popularly practiced is something that human beings seem to be innately capable of, but can be quickend by the Spirit. It is the spiritual benefit rather than the sounds themselves that constitutes the charismata. I see no difference between tongues, the Jesus Prayer or the Hail Mary in this regard and in prayer I will often use the three together.
Totally agree. The Hail Mary has never been a part of my prayer practice (see para 2!) but Jesus Prayer, Ignatian Prayer, and tongues have. They all seem to have a similar sort of function/purpose in my own prayer life. And the framework you've outlined-- thinking of it as a broadly available human ability, given particular intent and purpose within the context of faith, makes a lot of sense, and fits with our experience of tongues happening outside a Christian context. Interestingly, yesterday I heard a radio DJ raving on and on about a facebook meme he'd found that combined some imagery with repetitive, controlled deep breathing that sounded exactly like the Jesus prayer-- only without the core content. Which I think fits with your point.
For a believer, the fact that these experiences can occur outside of a Christian context only reinforces that we are "hard-wired" for these sort of experiences-- it's part of the human DNA. But the way these experiences are played out in a Christian context is made distinct by the content/meaning we give to them. But of course, it also means the practices can be misunderstood/ misused for those very same reasons.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Whatever revival you look at, there's always hype around it. The question is simply one of fruit - is it lasting, did it impact/change people to the extent that it changed communities?
Well, Pentecostalism is still a globally growing and influential movement, so any implication that it might be an over-hyped flash in the pan, that 'revivalism' has petered out, and that speaking in tongues has had its day would be rather problematic.
Even in the UK its influence is still showing signs of growth, although less so among the indigenous population (bar certain hotspots). Demographics are obviously an issue. As I say, I think there's also a somewhat different spiritual and cultural inheritance at play for non-white Christians, even among those in the traditional churches.
It appears that the spiritual and intellectual culture in the UK has made speaking in tongues somewhat inappropriate and inauthentic for the average British person who might have some interest in Christianity. Fair enough. Non-tongues-speaking churches are widely available. There isn't only one way.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The reason Azusa Street left a legacy and influenced other revivalists worldwide - initially across the US but also Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and various Protestant mission stations in India, Africa and the Far East - was because of the telegraph, mass media and the steam ship.
Agreed. Hearst in particular took a great interest in the revival (for reasons know only to him) and directly ordered reporters to give it significant coverage.
The revival coming at a fortuitous time for mass communication might be compared to Pentecost happening at a time when you had thousands of the faithful Jewish diaspora present in Jerusalem... a similar factor.
True of Toronto too, which was aided by cheap transatlantic flights, phone calls and the ease of making videos. If it had been a few years later it would have been predicated on email, Skype and social media.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
If it had been a few years later it would have been predicated on email, Skype and social media.
Like Todd Bentley?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Quite possibly ... I'm out of the loop so don't know him, I'm afraid.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Overall, sadly, Pentecostal and charismatic congregatulions these days seem to be no more demographically diverse than any other form of church. Pentecostal and charismatic churches can be relatively diverse in my experience - but certainly not as much as some would like to make out.
The Pew Forum's research indicates that in the USA it's the historical Protestant denominations that are the least racially diverse. (This obviously includes the historically black denominations.)
In the UK my sense is that the most 'traditionally formal' Protestant congregations, which are usually part of mainstream denominations, are often not very diverse. The Methodist Church is one of the least racially diverse mainstream denominations.
The so-called African-Caribbean Pentecostal churches are frequently a part of largely white American denominations, and therefore remain under white American international oversight. They also have a degree of internal diversity that isn't often recognised: the Caribbean itself is a hybrid space, and many 'black' children in the community are in fact mixed race.
Among the African Pentecostal churches in the UK these days there seems to be much talk of the challenges of 'reverse mission' and of how the gospel might be shared with white working class inhabitants rather than keeping the congregations as 'migrant sanctuaries'.
London's formerly majority white charismatic churches are now increasingly multi-racial, so I understand, as is the case for all kinds of churches in towns and regions where diversity is a growing reality. Where it isn't a significant growing reality, I expect that most of the local churches will be largely white, charismatic and traditional congregations alike.
[ 13. April 2016, 15:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I can understand why you might not have followed the point/s I was trying to make, Cliffdweller. My fault, not yours.
What I am trying to say was this:
- Azusa's 'melting-pot' approach to integration was certainly radical, but, welcome though this was we should be careful not to overstate the case. There were moves - at an official level - towards making segregation illegal so sooner or later someone was going to put integration into practice. It happened to be Seymour, so yes, he is to be applauded for that.
- Nevertheless, for whatever reason, the initial integration aspect wasn't sustained. But yes, by and large, charismatic and evangelical churches can show signs of greater diversity than many 'traditional' churches.
- Comparisons with the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) can only be analogous - we have no idea whether the same phenomena occurred in each case.
As for the continuing growth of Pentecostalism, sure, that's hardly surprising - the whole movement is vibrant and outward looking and very actively evangelistic. However, the 'revolving door' syndrome is very apparent in charismatic and Pentecostal churches and many new converts lapse very quickly or people often move on ... either to other forms of church or to a kind of churchless faith - or to unbelief ...
It's been estimated that there are almost as many - if not as many - former Pentecostals and charismatics in Latin America than there are practising ones.
As for how things will develop from here on in ... I suspect the various charismatic and Pentecostal groups may have the capacity to surprise us yet ... but I do foresee a growth in syncretism and in shallowness, I'm afraid - and I do fear for 'charismaniac' groups like Bethel (there, I've named names) because I think they could easily spin off into cloud-cuckoo land territory - if they haven't done so already.
Cliffdweller's mentioned the Calvinistic influence on US Pentecostalism before and I was sceptical at first -- like Baptist Trainfan, I'm somewhat out of the loop. However, looking into it a bit more -through friends and contacts and from online searches, I concur with what she's observed.
Whether the Calvinistic influence on some of these groups is a good thing or a bad thing depends on one's theological stance of course -- my guess, I'm afraid, would be that few of them are theologically 'mature' enough to handle the more nuanced aspects of the Reformed tradition and are simply picking up on some of the more strident aspects of the more fundamentalist end of Calvinism ... effectively merging the worst features of both the Wesleyan and Calvinistic traditions and coming up with a hybrid monster.
That said, some may be able to manage some kind of equilibrium.
Overall, though, I'm afraid that my view of the charismatic thing in general is that it is largely dumbing-down into feel-good factor triumphalism with minimal theological content.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Azusa's 'melting-pot' approach to integration was certainly radical, but, welcome though this was we should be careful not to overstate the case. There were moves - at an official level - towards making segregation illegal so sooner or later someone was going to put integration into practice. It happened to be Seymour, so yes, he is to be applauded for that.
Do you have a source for these official moves toward desegregation? I'm not sure what it is you're thinking of. Given that it was 60 years before segregation was legally abolished on the government level, and more like 100 years before it even begins to functionally decline (still not eliminated) on the ecclesiological or social level, I gotta think whatever conversations may have been going on, they weren't very successful. Even in the North (including California) there existed all sorts of legal segregation (e.g. housing "covenants") as well as social segregation well thru the end of the 20th c. And of course, in the South it was even more dire.
I think saying it was "inevitable" is a pretty bold statement given how long it was before we see much of anything resembling the integration at Azusa St.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Overall, though, I'm afraid that my view of the charismatic thing in general is that it is largely dumbing-down into feel-good factor triumphalism with minimal theological content.
Isn't that almost inevitable in a postmodern society that regards "experience" as the ultimate validation of any idea or hypothesis or values the experiential over the rational? And in a media-centred popular culture which tends to prize the sound-bite and the Tweet over a coherent but complex discussion?
And may this not be a good thing (up to a point) in a situation where many churches have tended to appeal to the educated middle-classes rather than the "masses"? (I find it amazing that I should be suggesting this, as I greatly value an intelligent and thoughtful approach to the complexities of our Faith!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'revolving door' syndrome is very apparent in charismatic and Pentecostal churches and many new converts lapse very quickly or people often move on ... either to other forms of church or to a kind of churchless faith - or to unbelief ...
It's been estimated that there are almost as many - if not as many - former Pentecostals and charismatics in Latin America than there are practising ones.
If people are leaving Pentecostalism for traditional churches/spirituality, where's the problem? Surely that's a great deal for the traditional churches - the Pentecostals can get people in, or at least hold and 'process' them through the difficult years of adolescence and young adulthood; then when they're more mature, better read, want a quieter life, etc., they can move to churches that specialise in providing an environment suitable for all of that.
As for revolving doors, better that than a one way stampede to the exit!
quote:
I'm afraid that my view of the charismatic thing in general is that it is largely dumbing-down into feel-good factor triumphalism with minimal theological content.
We all have a different role to play, though.
We all have a theology, and contextual theology is something that anyone can participate in, but the job of generating professional mainstream theological content largely belongs to the traditional Church, which has the money, the theological colleges, the centuries of scholarship, and the rational cultural mindset to buttress this work.
However, Christianity needs evangelists as well as theologians. It needs churches and theologies that can reach out to the poor or simply the ordinary, untutored, struggling people around the globe. Theologians often have (so I'm told) little interest in this role. So be it, but someone has to be trying to do this, though, however much you may hate their methods, or else ours is just a religion for a tiny, western(ised), middle class, over-educated elite. The rest might as well convert to Islam rather than hanging around waiting for crumbs to fall from table of prestigious Christian theologians.
So although I'm very fond of the serious-minded MOTR Christianity that fed me, I'm glad the rest of the world isn't all like that. If it were, Christianity would be something of a busted-flush, unable to generate much energy, excitement, conversions, growth, cultural diversity, or anything really beyond theological papers that hardly anyone would read....
Whether Christianity needs to be a much smaller but more theologically highbrow movement is an interesting question that perhaps belongs on another thread.
(BTW, I'm also interested in the answer to cliffdweller's question about the churches in LA in the early 1900s.)
[ 13. April 2016, 17:43: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
London's formerly majority white charismatic churches are now increasingly multi-racial, so I understand, as is the case for all kinds of churches in towns and regions where diversity is a growing reality. Where it isn't a significant growing reality, I expect that most of the local churches will be largely white, charismatic and traditional congregations alike.
That seems to be simply a case of 'churches are diverse when they are in areas that are diverse, and less so when they aren't'. Which is presumably a good thing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
quote:
And may this not be a good thing (up to a point) in a situation where many churches have tended to appeal to the educated middle-classes rather than the "masses"? (I find it amazing that I should be suggesting this, as I greatly value an intelligent and thoughtful approach to the complexities of our Faith!)
I really agree here. I think theology is good and being thought through is better than being ignorant but I think that having doctrine nailed down (or alternatively understanding all the different views of doctrine without ever coming to a conclusion) is a poor substitute for experience of God and with God, loving community, a solid belief in his goodness and a desire to serve him.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
quote:
I'm prepared to accept the 'validity' of tongues and so on - particularly in those instances where it appears to happen spontaneously and without priming or particular coaching, instruction, hype or suggestibility ...
This makes sense if tongues is a purely supernatural gift. It makes less sense if it is more as Edward Green describes (and which I I believe) that it is a mixture of the natural and supernatural - a natural ability (just making sounds) in and of itself but which the Holy Spirit uses to help us connect with God. In which case I can't see if there is any problem with encouraging people to break the sound barrier as it were and enter into it.
Having said that I do find instances that I have heard recounted of people who were against tongues or were not familiar with the gift finding themselves praying in tongues in a dream or an emergency for example as a first experience of it interesting.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Sojourner
Apprentice
# 17776
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, whilst agreeing with most of what you say, my reading is that this was a form of "folk religion" practice which has a long pedigree. The fact that records are hard to come by or confirm just shows what the attitude of established (in both senses) religious authorities had to this kind of thing.
But I'm not really willing to get into a detailed historical argument with you; if you think the phenomena of "speaking in tongues" was invented last week, that's fine. I just don't think that this view has much to support it.
Though it is worth saying that the recorders of these phenomenon might actually have been seeing acts of folk religion through the lens of established Christian thinking. I.e. the acts of folk religion had nothing to do with speaking in tongues as in scripture but were interperted it that way by the churchmen commenting on them.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
London's formerly majority white charismatic churches are now increasingly multi-racial, so I understand, as is the case for all kinds of churches in towns and regions where diversity is a growing reality. Where it isn't a significant growing reality, I expect that most of the local churches will be largely white, charismatic and traditional congregations alike.
That seems to be simply a case of 'churches are diverse when they are in areas that are diverse, and less so when they aren't'. Which is presumably a good thing.
Yes. I think things have changed somewhat with regard to the mainstream churches. Back in the 50s/60s+, many of them didn't want non-white members. This has surely had an ongoing effect, but these days, most churches just want members, full stop.
However, problems may still arise where churches want to broaden their membership but don't realise that they have to reflect on their attitudes, or develop their worship style. Or else they don't really think about the culture-bound assumptions and prejudices that fail to engage the BME or non-British members that they already have.
Of course, it's apparent that newcomers now have a choice of churches to attend, and may not doggedly attend a sedate traditional church just because it's part of the denomination they belonged to at home or in their youth; it has to gel with them. Those churches that are ready and facing up to new realities are those that will grow, and growing churches are frequently multi-racial; a recent CofE report (which was not looking at 'black churches') noted that growth was easier to find in areas with 'younger, urban, ethnic minority attenders'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, problems may still arise where churches want to broaden their membership but don't realise that they have to reflect on their attitudes, or develop their worship style.
You are painting with a rather broad brush. It tends to depend where the church is. In city centres, younger people - from whereever the world they are and of whatever generation - tend to have similar attitudes anyway. Plus you get cultural mixes of other sorts (first generation immigrants attending churches of a more middle of the road sort, because it fits what they are used to).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - backing up a bit. I don't want to under-play the integration element which was certainly a significant element of Azusa Street.
My point was that I was surprised to hear - from a Pentecostal source - that racial segregation was actually illegal in Methodist churches in LA at the time. I'd assumed it would have been otherwise.
That doesn't diminish or undermine Seymour's achievement - he was probably one of the few people to be actually doing something to make that a reality.
I don't know whether it was 'illegal' on a denominational level or on a Californian statute-book level.
I wasn't suggesting what Seymour did was unimportant.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My point was that I was surprised to hear - from a Pentecostal source - that racial segregation was actually illegal in Methodist churches in LA at the time. I'd assumed it would have been otherwise.
...I don't know whether it was 'illegal' on a denominational level or on a Californian statute-book level.
I'm still struggling to figure out what this means and what the source for this info is.
If you mean that Methodist polity said you can't bar someone from church for their race, that was probably the case. But if your source is suggesting that Methodist churches in the early 1900s in LA were racially integrated, I'm quite certain that was not the case. That wasn't even the case in the 1960s and 70s when I was growing up in LA. It's not the case for the majority of Methodist or mainline churches in LA today.
To some degree it may depend on what you mean by "Methodist". I'm assuming in my above paragraph that your source was talking about the United Methodist church or the Free Methodist churches. I suppose they could have been talking about the AME churches, which were primarily mono-racial (black) as well, but may have had a greater openness to diversity than the UMC and free Methodist churches.
In terms of government regulations-- we never had the sorts of Jim Crow laws that you had in the south, but we still had all sorts of legal "housing covenants" and other ways of enforcing segregation on a local level well into the middle of the 20th c, even if it wasn't sanctioned on the state level. De facto segregation was present in most parts of L.A. up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
I'm not sure what point your Pentecostal source was trying to make, but unless I'm totally misunderstanding what s/he was saying, or they were talking about the AME, I think the historical record does not support his/her assertion.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not saying that churches were integrated in LA in 1906. I'm not even suggesting they are integrated now, although I am sure the situation has markedly improved in some quarters.
The source I was quoting wasn't trying to make any particular point other than to say that even though racial segregation was officially illegal in the Methodist churches in LA at that time, there had been little attempt to work that out on the ground.
That's all. It was an observation and simply an attempt to bring in some context.
As far as the Azusa Street Mission goes, the congregation Seymour gathered came from a variety of Methodist and Holiness backgrounds and they met in a private dwelling initially until such time as they acquired a redundant African Methodist church building. So, there was a denomination that had segregation embedded in its title - this is a church for African-Americans. I daresay it had aspirations to be more diverse, but given the barriers to that at the time, that was always going to be difficult.
At any rate, my point was a minor aside and not intended to be a big deal.
One might argue that the integration element was a far more positive development than the perceived ability to 'speak in tongues' - and that the focus and legacy shifted onto the wrong things ...
I wouldn't go that far - I'm not a cessationist. But I do think that Seymour and the others deserve a better memorial than a bunch of self-indulgent Californians gathering in a stadium in the rain to quake abd jerk and strut their stuff ...
But then, similar things could be said of any movement in Christian history or the Christian Church as a whole in all its facets.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Had a quick gander through this. Reckon CE was influential in bringing some good literature to charismatics. His "Listen and Live"' was my first intro to any kind of lectio divina. Roffey Place gave us John Mackay's excellent Way of the Spirit Bible reading course which is basically a simplified version of his university lecture notes.
Noticeable that each stage of CE's spiritual journey has been connected with founding communities with their stress on living with integrity. He's always had a very strong emphasis on personal spirituality and morality and has been much more effective working across denominational boundaries than some other movements and leaders I could mention.
Overall, last time I looked, I'd say the boyz done good.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Depends on your perspective.
I've always associated the later Colin Urquhart with some untenable and extreme positions but your mileage may vary.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
Trueman White:- I found "listen and live" helpful to.
I also appreciated the way CE seemed to anchor his way of seeing the gospel with John (gospel and letters) more than Paul's letters as his starting point. Not that this is better but I appreciated it because it is different (to the norm that I had been exposed to) and provides an alternative viewpoint than viewing the NT through the lens of Paul's letters.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Had a quick gander through this. Reckon CE was influential in bringing some good literature to charismatics. His "Listen and Live"' was my first intro to any kind of lectio divina. Roffey Place gave us John Mackay's excellent Way of the Spirit Bible reading course which is basically a simplified version of his university lecture notes.
Noticeable that each stage of CE's spiritual journey has been connected with founding communities with their stress on living with integrity. He's always had a very strong emphasis on personal spirituality and morality and has been much more effective working across denominational boundaries than some other movements and leaders I could mention.
Overall, last time I looked, I'd say the boyz done good.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Depends on your perspective ...
...an extreme case of dittography... (!)
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Roffey Place gave us John Mackay's excellent Way of the Spirit Bible reading course which is basically a simplified version of his university lecture notes.
I'd forgotten about those. Must still have them somewhere.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
As for Johnson not frightening the horses, isn't Bethel where they try and teach people how to raise the dead?
I'm just catching up here...it struck me that as far as s.m.a.rt. objectives go, this has s. and m. in spades. Which is often a problem if you're finding a, r and t more tricky.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I'm just catching up here...it struck me that as far as s.m.a.rt. objectives go, this has s. and m. in spades.
I completely disagree. It was in the context of neocharismatics that I first heard the expression "creative redefinition".
Something as specific and measurable as a resurrection will doubtless be redefined, after failure to achieve the original stated aim, as "a resurrection of the person through their anointing being released into the lives of those who share the same heart and passion" or some such.
I'm sure statements along these lines could be found to explain away the absence of the promised revival in the wake of the Lou Engle event at the LA Coliseum a couple of weeks ago. Or would be, if charismatics could remember that far back.
In a final aside, I've just been rereading Eileen Vincent's biography of CT Studd and note that "baptism in the Holy Spirit" was being sought as a second distinct experience before the Azusa resurgence of tongues. The Irvingites seem to have been into tongues from the 1830s, but the Keswick Spirit baptism would have nothing to do with glossolalia.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The phrase 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' in reference to a 'second blessing' or work of sanctifying grace subsequent to conversion predates Azusa Street by a long chalk. It was only linked to 'tongues' at Parham's Bible College in Topeka and then popularised by Seymour and the Azusa Street revivalists.
The Wesleyan Holiness and Keswick 'higher life' types expected an experience of 'entire sanctification' but didn't link it to tongues.
Arguably, though, glossolalia was on the tip of revivalists tongues for much of the 19th century. The Mormons went in for it as did the Shakers.
The Irvingites came at it from a different direction - a Reformed Presbyterian one. They soon settled into a rather elaborate liturgy rather than going for a free-for-all holy-roller approach.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
