Over the past century, the renewed emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian believer has gone through many phases, been called by quite a few names, endured the attempts of church leadership to organize and control it, and has suffered much misinterpretation and criticism from outsiders.  My own journey within the various streams of this renewal has afforded me an insider’s perspective that may at several points diverge from the things written by historians and critics, but still hopefully reflect the observations of many others who were also involved.  This is a personal story, not an objective history.

            It is also not my purpose here to give a detailed study, for there are many other sources of impact on the movement than those I will name here.  To try to list them all would be to merely repeat what has already been said by more qualified writers, the most prominent of which is Dr. Vinson Synan (refer to the article The Bookshelf linked below).  This is a story of effects rather than just facts, of influences more than events; yet the experiences expressed here are no doubt common among many of us who have some years under our belts and have taken similar turns on this path of faith.

            For purposes of clarification, I will use the term renewalist as a general, “catch-all” word that includes the pentecostals, charismatics, and post- or neo-charismatics.  The pentecostals are those who identify with the movement that flowed primarily from the Azusa Street revival and spawned many denominations and churches throughout the first half of the Twentieth century.  The charismatic movement was the group which concerned itself mainly at first with restoring pentecostal theology to the larger, more established churches, and the streams that flowed from its influence which I shall detail below.  There are many ideas concerning the current condition of this movement, but for our purposes we shall say that it ran its course and was effectively finished by the early 1990’s.  Neo-charismatic or post-charismatic will refer to those churches and networks, mostly independent and including the “Third Wave,” which continue today as still distinctively charismatic in theology but are a unique extension of preceding influences.

Theological roots of the renewalists

            For the renewalist who knows something about Church history in general, the story of the Church may be described as a story of loss and retrieval; of the things of God first given, then squandered through neglect or human interference, then restored by God to those who are open to something which for them is fresh.  Certainly this has been the case in the many instances when revival affected the Church in great measure, with some notable examples being the recovery of the theology of justification by faith by Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, or the resurgence of apostolic church-planting activity by Jesuit Francis Xavier in the Far East and Baptist William Carey.  Much of England received a theology of personal holiness through John and Charles Wesley and the Methodists, and the United States saw not just one but two (possibly three?) Great Awakenings with their emphasis on evangelism and repentance.  Not only did these events return important ideas to the forefront of our theology, but each brought with it a revival of blessing and refreshing to the Church in general.

            Although there had been many scattered occurrences of the operation of pentecostal gifts in the nineteenth century, the Revival at Azusa Street (1906-1909) follows the same pattern as many of the other great revival movements.  What began with a small Bible study group in Kansas rediscovering the nine “gifts of the Holy Spirit” at the turn of the century, soon spilled out into the streets of Los Angeles as Rev. William J. Seymour propagated the message that these gifts had not in fact ceased but were available for today’s believer.  From this revival came the modern pentecostal movement in its many forms, and along with it came a re-emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the everyday Christian’s life and ministry.

            But a  problem arose in that the pentecostals brought with them so much controversy and division from within their ranks that, coupled with the criticism and harassment from outside the movement, this re-emphasis could not be received or taken seriously in the milieu for which it was intended.  The rest of the Church saw the many flamboyant (and often grotesque) manifestations in their meetings as cultish signs and false wonders.  The narrow theological insistence that a believer could attain salvation but would not obtain the indwelling Holy Spirit unless they were “baptized in the Spirit” with the accompanying sign of speaking in tongues, was to most people in the mainline churches downright insulting as well as theologically suspect.  Thus the Pentecostals remained outsiders for decades, having little, if any, effect on the Church at large.

            Despite the lack of a cogent development of a presentable theology which could convince the rest of the Church that the idea of cessation was now archaic, they were in essence on the right track.  But things had too easily gotten out of hand, and charges of fanaticism came at them more quickly than they could muster a response.  It would take another two generations before many of the barriers could be broken down.

First charismatic stream: the mainstream

            Throughout the 1950’s, God began to allow pentecostal phenomena to show up in some unusual places.  With what seemed like very little warning, the experience of the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” began to come to people within the denominational mainline churches despite the failure of the early pentecostals to advance their message.  Clergy and laity alike were beginning to manifest gifts such as speaking in tongues and words of knowledge for which their standard church theologies had no explanation.  The term charismatic was applied to people who had these experiences, a term taken from the Greek charismata (meaning “gifts,” as in the gifts of the Holy Spirit as described in First Corinthians 12:8-10).

            One of the first places where the early charismatics began to find each other and have fellowship was the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International, which was started by Demos Shakarian in 1951 and soon became an important platform for the renewed believers to work through.  This story is given by Shakarian in an excellent book “The Happiest People on Earth” (listed in The Bookshelf).

            In the 1960’s various clergy from the mainline churches began to emerge as vanguards of renewal within their own denominations.  One of the most visible was Dennis Bennett, an Episcopalian pastor in Van Nuys, California and later in Seattle, who set the tone for much of the movement through his writings, which include his testimony Nine O’Clock in the Morning and the basic charismatic theology of The Holy Spirit and You (both are also listed in The Bookshelf).  Other prominent early leaders included Gerald Derstine of the Mennonite Church, Lutheran pastor Larry Christenson, and Southern Baptist writer Jamie Buckingham.  In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, charismatic renewal erupted in the Catholic Church in America first at the “Duquesne weekend” and then in such diverse places as Pittsburgh, Notre Dame University, and also even in Bogota, Colombia.  These and other important participants found each other through the various conferences which sprang up, and found a voice in periodicals such as Logos magazine and the later Charisma.

            Some of the characteristics of this first stream included a very careful attention to matters of theology, essential for the reconciling of this newfound experience with the established theologies of the various denominations.  An emphasis on evangelism was present, but most often tended to be eclipsed by the strong drive to introduce existing believers to the concepts of the renewal, which was understandable since there were so many Americans who were already church-goers and in need of a time of refreshing.  Even though there was still much disdain from many within the various denominations, eventually the charismatics won over enough leaders in their churches to be heard even if not fully received.

Second stream: the Jesus Revolution

            Just as there was a radical movement among the “baby boomers” of the 1960’s who came to be known as “hippies,” so the more radical expressions of Christian faith found their footing in what was called the “Jesus Movement” or the “Jesus Revolution.”  There were many persons involved in the Jesus Movement from the mainline churches, but the majority of us had been accepted by, and mostly followed the teachings of, the charismatics (this author identifies primarily with this movement even though I had also attended Pentecostal churches, therefore the shift to first person).

            Although there were important expressions of the Jesus Movement on the East Coast in cities such as Atlanta and New York, the most influential hub was in Southern California, and found its leadership in Pastor Chuck Smith of the Calvary Chapel Church in Costa Mesa.  His genuine care for the youth he came across in the counter-culture led him to not only evangelize them, but to develop them into disciples and ministers.  At its peak, Calvary Chapel is reported to have had an average of 900 conversions per month; and rather than putting all those that were rescued from the drug culture into suits and ties and having them get shaves and haircuts, he encouraged them to express their faith to those they had left behind using some of the methods of their own generation.

            The emphasis on contemporary outreach allowed Larry Norman to ask the same question that Martin Luther had asked some 350 years earlier: “Why should the devil have all the good music?”  Contemporary Christian music (also called simply “Jesus music”) began to flow from its California roots across the United States, which accounted for much of the movement’s impact on a national scale.  Musicians and bands began touring the country, other local Jesus music bands began forming, and festivals sprang up to give these new artists platforms for their ministries.  The numbers of “Jesus people” began to grow in much the same manner nationally as they had in California, and many local churches began to see that it was preferable to accept this move of God and accommodate the growth rather than spurn the movement as a whole.

            There were many could find no supportive local church, so some began to form communes, a few of which are still in existence today.  The best example still going at this writing is Jesus People USA (JPUSA) in uptown Chicago.  Despite the many bumps along the road, this is one of the very few groups who have developed along with the times and yet have remained true to their roots.

            Some of the characteristics of this second stream included very little attention to matters of theology, which was very often damaging in that it set the stage for several groups to drift away and become cults.  However, the groups who remained true to the Word were eventually absorbed into the mainstream churches, as did most of those who were already in a church body, and they went on to become supportive members and leaders there.  Evangelism in any form, but most importantly relational evangelism, was another key activity and central theme of most of their efforts.  Also of utmost importance to this movement was the music, which was key to their propagation; the Jesus people produced some of the freshest, most creative and most energetic music of any age, and the drive behind it was to enhance the evangelistic thrust.

Third stream: shepherding

            Rising to national prominence in the early seventies were five men: Don Basham, Ern Baxter, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince and Charles Simpson, who became known collectively as the Florida Five (or the Fort Lauderdale Five).  The association of these men grew into a nondenominational movement which was established at about the time that Baxter joined the other four in 1974.  They had gained popularity among the early charismatics as Bible teachers and had by this time grown in influence to a point where they were recognized leaders among the movement.  Independent churches began to spring up which emphasized their systematic teachings, as did campus ministries and smaller home groups.

            Some of the characteristics of this third renewal stream included a very careful attention to matters of theology; however, much of the emphasis of the doctrines of these men centered on the two controversial stands they took which were in the areas of discipleship (also called shepherding) and deliverance from evil spirits.  Critics from within the charismatic movement and also from outside it cited that that often the elders who were called to pray for those who sought freedom from various things tended to attempt exorcisms for even the most minor of problems.  But of greater concern was the often heavy-handed and meddlesome way that elders and leaders exerted control over the members of their flocks.

            As I began to find friends who were involved in this stream, I came to genuinely appreciate their fellowship, and I also listened to them as they told of what their walks were like in that situation.  I knew that the movement had genuine spiritual power, as I had evidenced directly by reading Bob Mumford’s book 15 Steps Out (referenced in the citations pages linked below and also referred to in my article Analysis) and by attending one of their many conferences and hearing some powerful teaching, including some concepts from Mumford on forgiving others.  Yet I couldn’t help but wonder about how young believers could be allowed to grow under the weight of the expectations of their authority figures.  The answer for many turned out to be departure from their fellowship (sometimes voluntarily, but sometimes being forced to leave by their elders), followed by a time of repair and healing in a new church with a more accepting environment.  But unfortunately, many who had been burned out by such situations began to develop an attitude of disdain for genuine authority in the churches and retreated to positions at the opposite end of the spectrum which to some degree disparaged positions of leadership, which then produced problems with spiritual accountability.  Many stopped attending church at all, and even today some still have not returned.

Fourth stream: prosperity

            Soon after the arrival of the Florida Five, another force appeared on the horizon which came to be known as the Word of Faith or Prosperity movement, headed primarily by Kenneth Hagin Sr. during its ascent, but proliferated by Kenneth Copeland, Frederick K. C. Price and others at its peak.  As the title implies, these teachers stressed certain ideas first brought forward by E. W. Kenyon in the 1930’s and 1940’s, who taught that the characteristics of truly faithful believers included material prosperity, guaranteed physical healing, inner healing and deliverance—and all this from the believer’s own mouth in the form of a “positive confession.”  In 1974, Rhema Bible Institute began in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma to groom leaders for Word of Faith churches.

            Critics of this movement appeared almost immediately, branding the positive confession feature as “name it and claim it” or “blab it and grab it” theology.  The claims of material blessing were easily exaggerated to include a tendency toward “conspicuous consumption” and a disdain for some of those who had not achieved wealth.  Anyone’s “negative confession” would draw a quick rebuke, along with counsel to repent of secret sins that may be interfering with the flow of riches into their bank accounts.  To make matters worse, many who continued to struggle with health or financial issues began to doubt their standing with God for those reasons and became depressed, or at least deeply introspective, which further concerned many outside observers.

            Some of the other characteristics of this fourth renewal stream included very little attention to matters of any theology outside their specialty, which placed a ceiling on individual growth and a loss of emphasis on certain spiritual gifts which might not fit the mold.  Mastering the means of personal gain was considered the “meat of the gospel,” and a phony smile replaced honesty in times of need.  After only a few short weeks in this type of church, I became bored with it and departed to seek an environment which fostered genuine spiritual virtues and depth of inner development.  I soon looked back on my experience and decided that these teachings were, to quote the words of one of their critics, a “dangerous imbalance.”  Tragically, many left this stream battered and resentful; most found solace elsewhere, but again a few departed the church altogether.

The end of the charismatics?

            Most of the charismatic movement during the 1980’s was preoccupied with the tension between the theological positions of the third and fourth streams, with the remnants of the first two streams now having been absorbed into one of the multitude of alternatives.  Thus we found ourselves in the odd position of each one having to define his or her place within the mix, which was especially awkward when dealing with non-charismatics who learned about the movement in terms of only one of its streams.  It then became even more complicated when every problem which had surfaced in any of the streams was ascribed to every charismatic believer, despite the fact that many of us had a quite clear view of these foibles and had rejected them while wisely holding onto the positive aspects of the basic tenets of renewalism.

            Then in 1987 when the news of the televangelist scandals involving Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker broke, it appeared at first that all of pentecostalism, and by extension all charismatics as well, had forfeited their credibility as representatives of Christianity in America.  But happily, the rest of the world was unhindered by these high profile failures, and soon here at home the facts demonstrated that these cases were obviously uncharacteristic of the movement as a whole.  Yet these events along with others served to indicate that the charismatic renewal in all its several contemporary forms had run its course and was due for a major change.

            I will name two more streams after this, although in doing so I may be considered incorrect by many since they more accurately represent post-charismatic rather than charismatic developments.  These two may be easily considered together, and some would probably argue that the distinction I draw between them is unnecessary.  This group tends to prefer the general description of “Third Wave” churches, with the view that the pentecostals are the first wave and the charismatics the second.  However, the roots that the Third Wave has in the charismatic movement, plus the ways in which they have extended their influence and development beyond the earlier confines make them a logical addition to our current discussion.  But most of all, since this is a subjective history, my own story continues from here as I encounter the Third Wave in two more somewhat distinct streams.

Fifth stream: Vineyard

            Even though the Vineyard churches will trace their collective origin back to Pastor John Wimber of the Calvary Chapel in Yorba Linda, CA joining the six Vineyard churches under Kenn Gulliksen and forming the Association of Vineyard Churches, the large scale effect actually began in 1981 with Wimber’s days as a teacher at Fuller Seminary.  Yet the real impact of the things that were happening there did not greatly affect the national scene until the publication of Wimber’s Power Evangelism in 1986 (listed in The Bookshelf which is linked below).  From this and the series of similar books which followed from Wimber’s pen, and also from the activity of the first the Vineyard churches in California, these churches became the vanguard of the phenomenon which Wimber’s associate C. Peter Wagner coined the term “Third Wave” to describe.  Soon most major American cities had a Vineyard or similar church, and most contemporary churches outside the movement were singing songs written by Vineyard musicians.

            Some of the characteristics of this stream included paying just enough attention to theological matters to be practical in view of the greater purposes of evangelism and church growth.  The gifts of the Holy Spirit were regarded as a means for reaching the lost rather than an end in themselves, and therefore their practice was deemphasized in the meetings but still taught as a distinctive feature.  The teachings were generally quite insightful, with much emphasis on integrity and relevance.  My own early encounters with the Vineyard churches came through the music, writings and teaching tapes, and left me favorably impressed.  This was also the case with my rare visits to Vineyard services during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s and with my encounters with the people who were involved in the fellowship.

            Controversy came in the mid-1990’s when the so-called “laughing revival” broke out at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church in 1994.  The Vineyard organization was open to this at first, but as it continued the reports of “exotic manifestations,” such as animal noises and a seeming general lack of order, caused Wimber by 1996 to separate the Toronto church from his fellowship.  Also separating at about that time from the Vineyard organization was the Kansas City Fellowship (now known as Metro Christian Fellowship) with its leaders Paul Cain and Mike Bickle and the rest of the “Kansas City Prophets.”  Cain and Rick Joyner, the head of MorningStar Ministries, are still closely associated.  From this split we now see two different streams in the Third Wave, the older being the Vineyard Churches and the newer being the MorningStar/prophetic stream, with which I shall deal shortly.

            John Wimber’s untimely death in 1997 created less of a problem in the Vineyard churches than one might expect.  Wimber’s successor, Todd Hunter, had already been titular head of the Association, and as one of their pastors told me later, a group of the primary leaders got together and decided to continue under the common goals they all shared as a unified but loosely connected organization.  The movement had by then already firmly established itself, so that turned out to be the logical way for them to proceed.

            Not long thereafter, I attended a Vineyard church for a number of months.  Even though I found some warm and accepting people there, it became apparent that there was little else to recommend this church above any of the other churches of any sort in the local area.  It appeared that they had so de-emphasized the charismatic aspects of their ministry that frankly there was little left.  Perhaps the drive behind the churches had eventually dried up after the passing of Wimber, or perhaps this particular church simply was in desperate need of revival.  In any case, it appears to me that these days the Vineyard is making relatively little impact either nationally or internationally.

Sixth stream: the prophetic movement

            Some refer to this stream as the “restoration movement,” others might simply call it by the name of its premier church, MorningStar Ministries near Fort Mill, SC, just south of Charlotte, NC at the former headquarters of the PTL Club.  I use the term “prophetic” for them because that is how they describe themselves in their activities in worship, and unfortunately it is used by them in a rather narrow manner in terms of style, despite the fact that a study of Biblical prophets reveals quite a great diversity in modes of ministry.  I suspect however that their use of the term differs from the classic understanding of the word and acts more as a synonym for “spontaneous.”  In any case, this could be considered as a catch-all category for the many other neo-charismatic churches which are not officially a part of Vineyard or of the MorningStar Fellowship of Churches, even though MorningStar might be seen as an archetypal church for them.

            Some of the characteristics of this stream include a great deal of attention to experience, often at the expense of theology or any ordered from of teaching.  A visit to MorningStar will reveal that although delivering the Word is central, it is rarely systematic or instructional, but rather consists mostly of rambling exhortations and testimonies.  At the end, visitors are invited to meet with student-prophets and be prophesied over, along with a disclaimer as to the potential inaccuracies thereof.  Also central to their operations are the many conferences they host, the publications they produce, and their school of ministry known as MorningStar University.

            Perhaps I would have been more receptive to the things that MorningStar had to offer (or any other Third Wave church, for that matter) if I had been able to find anything fresh which I had not already encountered so many times before.  Even the more “exotic manifestations” that happened there were not dissimilar to many of the things I had experienced at old-style pentecostal meetings.

            It seems more than a little absurd to me that in many of the testimonies that I heard at charismatic meetings, there was some form of the statement: “I knew there was something more to this walk with God, but I didn’t find it in my old church …” and then it would continue on to say that the baptism in the Holy Spirit had fulfilled that need.  But now I had walked the length and breadth of the renewal movement and found myself saying, “I knew there was something more to this walk with God, but I couldn’t find it within the pentecostal, charismatic, or third wave churches,” and discovered that the missing thing for me was the deep fellowship among believers that I saw portrayed in the Scriptures and was practiced by the first century Church.

What, me worry?

            In the early days of the pentecostal movement, one of the more frequent charges leveled against them was that of Montanism, also known as the “Phrygian heresy” due to the region of its primary influence.  According to editors Philip Schaff and Henry Wace in their footnotes to Eusebius’ Church History, the main problem of the supposed heresy of Montanus, which surfaced sometime before the year 180, was one of form rather than of substance (see Book V, Chapter XVI and following—this work is listed in The Bookshelf and is available at ccel).  Montanus and his many followers tended toward the “exotic manifestations” as described above, usually going into some sort of ecstatic frenzy while delivering their words and then calling for the church to return to a more disciplined and austere lifestyle.  Many of his peers conceded (and most contemporary scholars seem to affirm) that there was no unbiblical slant to the messages given, but that the Church as a whole during the intervening time had become unaccustomed to the style of prophetic utterance described by Paul in I Corinthians 14.  Therefore when Montanus attempted to revive the more zealous manner of previous days, the Church overreacted to it to such an extent that many bishops began to teach that all prophecy had passed away with the first generation apostles.

            The actual doctrinal problems of Montanism began to emerge later, when the prophets within the movement began to assert themselves above the established authorities of the Church, and afterward went so far as to claim that their prophetic words were just as important and reliable, or perhaps even more so, than the Scriptures themselves.  They went on to preach that the first century church had been unable to receive everything that the Lord had to say, and that now through these prophecies He was revealing the remainder of His will.  Of course, when such claims are believed, the tendency then becomes that of allowing the words of the prophets to overshadow if not supersede the actual Scriptures in the minds of their followers.