Charismatic Post Mortem by Bill Randles

Bill Randles has a very interesting on-going series of articles on his blog, starting with “Charismatic Post Mortem”

He looks at the beginnings of the Charismatic Movement and how it has progressed since then.

At the time I post this, he has written six parts to the series. Links to the other parts can be found at Bill Randles’ blog.

One thought on “Charismatic Post Mortem by Bill Randles

  1. Well, I hadn’t seen before that Engle had gotten down and kissed …sigh.

    This might seem rambling, but I will preface by saying I would
    go to a Lutheran church if I could be satisfied with
    a traditional or regular place of Christianity.

    So, anyone who IS satisfied with
    basic Christianity, I would
    recommend they do.

    [I originally wrote this, below, for the blog at the link you gave. I guess Bill Randles didn’t like it.]

    I happen to have gone online to look up {something I have been thinking about lately, in connection with a different discussion first} a church name from my formative years (I went to a church school for 7th and 8th grades before then attending a Lutheran high school). Concord Lutheran was the elementary (through eighth grade) school at a local church. [No, I wasn’t Lutheran. But, you know, pretty close on my part since I was immersed in it for six years. And they really emphasize Bible, which every place I went did. And I learned to read it myself.] Concord Lutheran (in St. Louis) is currently doing a series on questions. These sermons are online, and I liked what the preacher said in the one about praying: “God is not a force or a source.” Out of context, that looks like it might be wrong. God is the source of all life. God certainly has or is force. But a good sense is not what is meant when people pray as if they should get what they want. And he gives illustrations like getting used to his grandparents bringing him things until one day he ran up to them when he hadn’t seen them for a while (because they’d been out of town) saying, “What’d you get me? What’d you get me? What’d you get me?”*

    I appreciate solid teaching. And then I’m frustrated, a bit sad, because while they are strong (and correct) on most things, you have to hear that Paul converted from Judaism to Christianity. The point that was being made (in the excellent second sermon) was that Paul wrote just a few years after the Messiah had been crucified and come back to life, and there were still direct actual witnesses alive. So, there was a very good purpose in referencing a timeframe as to Paul’s letter talking about the risen Lord. But then the preacher felt he had to emphasize, “That’s just a fact.” That this person who wrote a lot of the Bible converted from Judaism to Christianity. But to put it in terms this Lutheran man might understand, that’s like saying: There was a man who had grown up in Catholicism. He figured out Catholicism had some things wrong, but that the Bible (which had always been in his life) is true. He became an effective missionary. Hundreds of years later, though, people who didn’t know him but admired him told a story and continually passed on that he’d converted to AG or JW or Mormonism or… [That is really oversimplifying, but an attempt to break through the thinking.]

    I’ll add a note here that the Lutheran preacher would probably get right away. Martin Luther obviously didn’t convert to AG or any other denomination (etc.). He in fact also didn’t want there to be a denomination or anything called “Lutheranism” — or anything doing away with historic faith because of him.

    *In another sermon (the first in the series, concordlife dot com/sermons, I don’t remember his name, but he is carrying on what I remember from them), “The problem of pain” (which does not reference C.S. Lewis), he talks about God not existing to make your life comfortable or enjoyable, and that God is redeeming all things… redeeming and all. And that it’s not about this current time (in full).

    I’m not sure what to say about “it” {a reference to Bill Randles’ fourth installment on Charismania} ever being genuine. I think not. But I wasn’t there (at Azuza for instance). Mostly, it sounds like people got bored (or, as someone said, I think in this {Bill’s} comments section, jealous) but tried to hang on [instead of get distracted or even angry and leave faith]. Cessationism isn’t quite true, but an expectation that marvelous supernatural wonders should happen all the time (which, if true, would logically lead to health and wealth) or that everyone has to speak in tongues and all the rest of “the movement” is also incorrect. I know personally (by my own witness) that instantaneous healing can happen. But I don’t take it upon myself to run out and start a church, or take one over, and tell people what to do (and institute a movement). I suppose that when healing didn’t happen always as the theories defined, the attendants/attendies started filling time (with noises and twitches and pyramid authority structures/shepherding schemes, book upon book on getting rich, all that stuff).

    I agree that a number of people can simply find themselves in these places (for various reasons including upbringing, attraction to Christianity in general, one nice contact, and so on). But I think the majority that keep them going do like something about the odd characteristics.

    Additionally, I wonder if the masses in them cycle out with others cycling in. And what does that mean? One thing often pulled into it all is political views unloaded on newbies as integral to faith. And now we’re full circle back to the guy who kissed the priestly feet, IHOP (… House of Prayer), et alii.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s