Charismania and Postmodernism?

[TheThirdandReformedAdam]

Does anyone know of any articles/books/studies that examine a possible connection between the rise of the Charismatic movement and postmodernism? Or, does anyone here on the board see a connection between the two?

 

[jwithnell]

Interesting question. I don't know of a book, but it seems that the experiential push of the '60s contributed to the popularizing of both movements. The charismatic movement has much deeper roots, particularly among the less educated who emphasized direct communication from God over an educated examination of the scriptures -- "old time religion." Finny and related heretics pushed experience over scripture too, and that takes you back into the 1800s. Just thinking out loud here ...

 

[TheOldCourse]

I see a link in that they both are manifestations of a rebellious desire for autonomy that goes back to Eden, but I'm not sure that there is an organic connection. Postmodernism originated in the academies and it took many decades for it to substantially impact common discourse and society. Charismatism, on the other hand, was a distinctly populist movement that originated well before Postmodernism had much of an effect on the populations in which it was incubated (if it ever has). If anything, Charismatism is more modern than post-modern, as the modernists generally critiqued propositional theology but not "religion" and rather emphasized our shared experience.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is no hard and fast connection, since charismatic outbreaks long predated deconstructionism or postmodernism. James K A Smith tries to make a connection in Thinking in Tongues, but the best he can do is to show how Heidegger's view of "thrownness" anticipates "bodily rationality." The only problem in that argument, is that I can guarantee that 100% of charismatics would have no idea what he is talking about

 

[KMK]

I don't think there is any connection either. Every Pentacostal or Charismatic that I have read or talked to believes in miraculous gifts because of Scripture. I don't think Postmodernists care one whit about Scripture.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think that what the OP is getting at is that many charismatics, especially laypeople, will openly disregard and sometimes explicitly disparage the Bible if it contradicts their experience. "Get your nose out of that Bible and get into the Spirit." "The letter killeth" or whatever. If he is using postmodernism and relativism as synonyms, then the connection would be obvious, it seems to me.

There is a difference between the way that traditional Pentecostals argued and the way that modern charismatics have argued. The former pointed to Scripture whereas the latter have increasingly tended to make experience the ultimate authority. (This is blurred somewhat now with the more recent charismatic emphases, including the prosperity gospel, making inroads into more traditional Pentecostal denominations.) This is why you saw the ecumenism of the charismatic movement of the 60s, with charismatics fellowshipping with Catholics and even Mormons who spoke in tongues because that was seen as the mark of a spiritual man or whatever, regardless of the incompatibility of their respective denominations and sects. This kind of ecumenism would have been unthinkable for the Pentecostals of the 1920s. It has also led to something of a rapprochement between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarian Pentecostals and charismatics, the result of doctrine being downplayed for decades.

Charismatics will make arguments from the Bible, but if you really push them, a great many (and perhaps the vast majority) will cite experiences as being authoritative and seek to bring their (and your) interpretation in line with their experience rather than the other way around. This is why so much space in Jack Deere's books is devoted to testimonies and stories, and it was supposed to be the great Scriptural case against cessationism. And he does make many arguments, and perhaps makes a few valid points here and there, but many were carried along by stories that seemed to be compelling at first glance. Even key "prophets" who were revealed to be degenerates aren't enough to cause many to question the movement.

It is no accident that Fuller Seminary became the epicenter of Third Wave charismania not long after it switched from inerrancy to neo-orthodoxy. Experience rather than Scripture became the determining factor. And you see this with some who are anti-charismatic but who aren't inerrantists. It is a factor in the acceptance of homosexuality by "evangelicals" and especially those in the mainline who are afraid to say "The Bible says" about anything other than social justice. Once they meet people who are out of the closet and who don't seem to be monsters or icky people, they have no answer.

You see something like this with many who are non-charismatic inerrantists too, at least formally. "You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart" rather than an argument for the resurrection, etc from Scripture or classical apologetics.

The Mormon can give you a compelling testimony too of how his heart burned and what his religion has done for his business and his family, and will dismiss any concern about the claims of the Book of Mormon (its historicity, etc.) Is it any wonder that Mormonism seems to have grown more rapidly as experience has tended to trump Scripture and theology (formerly known as the Queen of the Sciences?)

 

[Dachaser]

I came out of classic Pentecostal church background, and would see them much more aligned with the Holiness side of the Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene churches.
Unlike most postmodern views, they do tend to have a high view on the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures, just have a bad understanding on some of its teachings.

 

[Claudiu]

I came out of classic Pentecostal church background, and would see them much more aligned with the Holiness side of the Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene churches.
Unlike most postmodern views, they do tend to have a high view on the inspiration and inerrancy of the scriptures, just have a bad understanding on some of its teachings.

This has been my experience as well. At least in the more traditional, Romanian Pentecostal circles I grew up in.

To the OP: Perhaps a tenuous connection may be made between charsmania and postmodernism in the sense, as others pointed out, that charismatics will emphasize experience even over and above scripture at times. However, I don't think the elevation of subjective experience is something unique to postmodernism.

 

[RamistThomist]

This has been my experience as well. At least in the more traditional, Romanian Pentecostal circles I grew up in.

To the OP: Perhaps a tenuous connection may be made between charsmania and postmodernism in the sense, as others pointed out, that charismatics will emphasize experience even over and above scripture at times. However, I don't think the elevation of subjective experience is not something unique to postmodernism.

True. And most pomos I've dealt with (and read) don't care too much about "experience" anyway. That's more of a late-liberal subjectivism.

 

[Dachaser]

This has been my experience as well. At least in the more traditional, Romanian Pentecostal circles I grew up in.

To the OP: Perhaps a tenuous connection may be made between charsmania and postmodernism in the sense, as others pointed out, that charismatics will emphasize experience even over and above scripture at times. However, I don't think the elevation of subjective experience is not something unique to postmodernism.

I was a teaching Elder in the Assemblies of God, and would say that they are very on point in regards to the scriptures and the Gospel, as much as any Arminian theology group can be. My biggest issues with them were over speaking in tongues as the sign of being spirit filled, and their view on all sign gifts still in operation now.

 

[yeutter]

I think you might find many of those Pentecostals in the Episcopal Church, and many of the charismatic Roman Catholics have drifted a long way from their Thomistic, essentialist roots.

 

[TrustGzus]

I too don't think they are connected. I grew up spiritually in Calvary Chapel after getting saved. They definitely disagree with postmodernism and use Scripture to back up their view of the gifts though I obviously disagree with them now.

 

[Dachaser]

I too don't think they are connected. I grew up spiritually in Calvary Chapel after getting saved. They definitely disagree with postmodernism and use Scripture to back up their view of the gifts though I obviously disagree with them now.

The classic Pentecostal churches/groups would hold with the scriptures as actually inspired by God as we do, as it would be the charismatics who tend to shift away from that to seeing modern day revelations as authoritative also, hence postmodern.

 

[RamistThomist]

modern day revelations as authoritative also, hence postmodern.

There is nothing postmodern about that. Postmodern in its broadest connotation means that all knowledge-claims are subject to power, interpretation, and that metanarratives are bad.

Continuing revelation can be problematic, but not because it is postmodern.

 

[Dachaser]

There is nothing postmodern about that. Postmodern in its broadest connotation means that all knowledge-claims are subject to power, interpretation, and that metanarratives are bad.

Continuing revelation can be problematic, but not because it is postmodern.

Isn't a postmodern view also though be that there is no standard and agreed upon authority, such as the scriptures? So their adding other revelation would fit that definition?

 

[Claudiu]

Isn't a postmodern view also though be that there is no standard and agreed upon authority, such as the scriptures? So their adding other revelation would fit that definition?

What you're getting at is the anti-foundationalism and the view that metanarratives are bad (as found amongst postmodernists). However, Pentecostals and Charismatics don't fit this line of thinking. Their view of sola scriptura might be inconsistent, but that doesn't make them postmodern, or following some postmodern trend.

 

[RamistThomist]

Isn't a postmodern view also though be that there is no standard and agreed upon authority, such as the scriptures? So their adding other revelation would fit that definition?

Some postmoderns believe that (though not all). And there is no logical contradiction between a charismatic saying the following two propositions:

1. The Bible is the ultimate standard for knowledge and obedience (it is the norm that norms our norms).

and

2. God revealed to me (e.g., Richard Cameron) that the Stuart line would not be recrowned in Scotland (it wasn't).

(2) is a normed norm. (1) is a norming norm. Big difference.

 

[Claudiu]

Some postmoderns believe that (though not all). And there is no logical contradiction between a charismatic saying the following two propositions:

1. The Bible is the ultimate standard for knowledge and obedience (it is the norm that norms our norms).

and

2. God revealed to me (e.g., Richard Cameron) that the Stuart line would not be recrowned in Scotland (it wasn't).

(2) is a normed norm. (1) is a norming norm. Big difference.

Reminds me of this:

“Scripture is our norming norm and tradition is our normed norm and that in a doctrinal controversy Scripture alone has absolute veto power while The Great Tradition (orthodox doctrine) has a vote but not a veto.”
― Roger E. Olson

 

[Dachaser]

Some postmoderns believe that (though not all). And there is no logical contradiction between a charismatic saying the following two propositions:

1. The Bible is the ultimate standard for knowledge and obedience (it is the norm that norms our norms).

and

2. God revealed to me (e.g., Richard Cameron) that the Stuart line would not be recrowned in Scotland (it wasn't).

(2) is a normed norm. (1) is a norming norm. Big difference.

What about the Charismatics though that would see ongoing revelation still coming forth from God, and also as binding as written scripture?

 

[Claudiu]

What about the Charismatics though that would see ongoing revelation still coming forth from God, and also as binding as written scripture?

I see what you're getting at. Maintaining the pentecostal vs. charismatic distinction. Historic pentecostals still held to some [inconsistent] form of sola scriptura (adding tongues and prophecies). The pentecostals of old at least wanted to back up their miraculous gifts from scripture. Later charismatics, however, have moved away from this and many have almost no biblical underpinnings. And they don't even care. Many modern charismatics I've come across conduct themselves as if we're in the days of Noah with no scripture and just receiving words from God directly. No bible needed.

This latter development may have a tenuous connection with postmodernism (as I wrote above). However, this connection would not be an embracing of postmodernism. I think the connection would more like this. Postmodernism has affected our culture and, therefore, thinking. Many, if not most, charismatics have let their thinking be shaped by the culture, and not scripture. But I don't think charismatics embrace charismania with some philosophical understanding of postmodernism. Rather, I think the postmodern cultural context that has shaped them has instead provided them with the impulse to jump to charismania.

 

[RamistThomist]

What about the Charismatics though that would see ongoing revelation still coming forth from God, and also as binding as written scripture?

The scholarly literature on continuationism rejects that claim. Yes, I know some Pentecostals who do that, but most of the continuationists today emphasize that it is not on the same level as Scripture. We can criticize them, perhaps, for an inconsistent position, but they aren't claiming that it is Scripture.

But even if they were, this wouldn't be any evidence of postmodernism, since postmoderns are suspicious of all types of authority.

 

[Dachaser]

The scholarly literature on continuationism rejects that claim. Yes, I know some Pentecostals who do that, but most of the continuationists today emphasize that it is not on the same level as Scripture. We can criticize them, perhaps, for an inconsistent position, but they aren't claiming that it is Scripture.

But even if they were, this wouldn't be any evidence of postmodernism, since postmoderns are suspicious of all types of authority.

Good points, as do know that there are some in the classic Pentecostal ranks, such as a Gordon fee, who are well respected, but that much of the so called modern Charismatic has really shifted away from scriptures to experiences as being the deciding factor in theology and doctrines.

 

[Dachaser]

I see what you're getting at. Maintaining the pentecostal vs. charismatic distinction. Historic pentecostals still held to some [inconsistent] form of sola scriptura (adding tongues and prophecies). The pentecostals of old at least wanted to back up their miraculous gifts from scripture. Later charismatics, however, have moved away from this and many have almost no biblical underpinnings. And they don't even care. Many modern charismatics I've come across conduct themselves as if we're in the days of Noah with no scripture and just receiving words from God directly. No bible needed.

This latter development may have a tenuous connection with postmodernism (as I wrote above). However, this connection would not be an embracing of postmodernism. I think the connection would more like this. Postmodernism has affected our culture and, therefore, thinking. Many, if not most, charismatics have let their thinking be shaped by the culture, and not scripture. But I don't think charismatics embrace charismania with some philosophical understanding of postmodernism. Rather, I think the postmodern cultural context that has shaped them has instead provided them with the impulse to jump to charismania.

Interesting analysis here, as could very well be true that their leaning and trusting experience over scriptures, fixed reference standard, could come due to how the postmodern influence has crept into their churches and ranks.

 

[RamistThomist]

Good points, as do know that there are some in the classic Pentecostal ranks, such as a Gordon fee, who are well respected, but that much of the so called modern Charismatic has really shifted away from scriptures to experiences as being the deciding factor in theology and doctrines.

All of that may be so, but that has nothing to do with postmodernism. The charismatic nonetheless thinks his experience gives him real *knowledge.* The postmodernist denies that real knowledge (of any sort) is possible. Or, if it is possible, it is always tainted by sex and power claims.

 

[Claudiu]

All of that may be so, but that has nothing to do with postmodernism. The charismatic nonetheless thinks his experience gives him real *knowledge.* The postmodernist denies that real knowledge (of any sort) is possible. Or, if it is possible, it is always tainted by sex and power claims.

This is why there can't be a true philosophical connection between the two. The other problem is that charismatics are hardly a homogenous group. There is quite a spectrum of charismatics, with some being closer to old school Assemblies of God, and at the other end where they actually think prophecy is at the same level of inspiration as scripture (yes, I've met these types - and there are more of them than you think).

 

[Dachaser]

The latter group would be made up of the so called Word of faith, and Health and Wealth prosperity.

 

[Pilgrim]

The latter group would be made up of the so called Word of faith, and Health and Wealth prosperity.

Keep in mind that a lot of the worst aspects of charismania has infiltrated some of the more traditional Pentecostal denominations and churches, such as the Assemblies of God. The same goes for the "Toronto Blessing" about 20 years ago. Some welcomed it, some did not. D.R. McConnell's book on Word of Faith and the prosperity gospel (which links Kenneth Hagin's teaching to that of the "New Thought" preacher E.W. Kenyon) refers to the turmoil those teachings caused at Oral Roberts University a few decades ago.

 

[Dachaser]

Keep in mind that a lot of the worst aspects of charismania has infiltrated some of the more traditional Pentecostal denominations and churches, such as the Assemblies of God. The same goes for the "Toronto Blessing" about 20 years ago. Some welcomed it, some did not. D.R. McConnell's book on Word of Faith and the prosperity gospel (which links Kenneth Hagin's teaching to that of the "New Thought" preacher E.W. Kenyon) refers to the turmoil those teachings caused at Oral Roberts University a few decades ago.

The book that you mentioned was probably the one that finally convinced me to leave Pentecostal circles and migrate over to the Baptist side of things, and Baptists were known by many in the Charismatic circles as being those who were "denying" the Holy Spirit.