The Charismatic Movement In The United States

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

| PentecostalTheology.com

               

The

Charismatic

Movement

Peter Hocken

than

origin

than the Pentecostal attention of

many

doctoral

on the

development of the

detailed

scholarly level,

191

in the United States

of the

it has not

yet

attracted the

so there are as

yet

no

movement in

any

at a

In this

article,

I will

attempt

to

survey

the

development Charismatic movement

in the mainline churches of the United States. Being

a movement or stream, it is of its nature more

fluid and

complex

a denomination or cluster of denominations.

Being

more recent in

movement,

candidates,

monographs

of the Charismatic

mainline churches of North America.’ There are a few historical studies which deal with

aspects

of this

subject,

for

example,

the

writings

of David E.

Harrell, Jr.,2 and,

at a more

popular level,

some books

by

Vinson

Synan.3

The

general

studies

are

mostly

of a more

popular character,

the most useful

being the two studies

by

Richard

Quebedeaux.4

the

movement in the

Dictionary of

the Pentecostal

one of the few

attempts

at an

available

Charismatic Charismatic

Movements remains

Recurring 1993). Perrin, Signs (Ph.D.

My

own article on

and

‘There

is, however,

a

comparative study of the Assemblies of God and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal from an ecumenical a Ph.D. Dissertation from Marquette University: Terrence

perspective, originally

Robert Crowe, Pentecostal

Unity:

Frustration and Enduring Hopes (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press,

There is also a doctoral dissertation on the churches: Robin D.

and Wonders: The Growth

Vineyard

of the Iiineyard

Christian

Fellowship

Dissertation; Pulman, WA: Washington State University, 1989). There was a dissertation on the origins of the Charismatic movement in the mainline Churches of the United States that,

unfortunately, was never published: James T. Neo-Pentecostalism:

The Charismatic Revival in the Mainline Protestant Connelly, and

Chicago, Connelly

–

Roman Catholic Churches in the United States, 1960-1971

(Ph.D. Dissertation;

IL: The University of Chicago, 1977). There are, however, two articles

based on his doctoral research: “The Charismatic Movement:

by in As the

1967-1970,”

Spirit Leads Us, eds. Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan (Paramus, NJ: Paulist Press, 1971), 211-232; “Not

in

Reputable

Churches? The

Reception

of the Charismatic Movement in the Mainline Churches in

America,”

in

Essays

on Apostolic Themes, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 184-192.

1985),

Origins

2 See in particular All Things are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America

(Bloomington,

IN: Indiana

University Press, 1975);

“The

and Evolution of the Charismatic

Revival, 1945-1980,”

Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae 7 (1985): 287-298; Pat Robertson: A Personal, and Political Portrait

(San Francisco, CA: Harper &

Religious

Row, Publishers,

‘ The

1987).

Twentieth-Century

Pentecostal The

Churches and Charismatic Renewal

Exciting

Growth Pentecostal

Explosion: Movements of FL: Creation Under His Banner: Full (Altamonte Business Springs, House, 1987);

Men ‘s

History of Gospel

Fellowship International (Costa Mesa, CA: Gift Publications, 1992). See also Richard M. Riss, A

MA: Hendrickson Survey of 20th-Century

Revival Movements in North America

Publishers, 1988), 147-162.

4 The New Charismatics (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1976) and The New Charismatics Il (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1983).

(Peabody,

1

192

overview. Some other works

examining

the Charismatic movement that are more biblical and

theological

6

in their orientation contain some data on its historical

development.6

Statistical Evidence

There have been a few

attempts

to

gather

statistics

concerning

the involvement of North Americans in

charismatic-type Christianity.

The results of a

Christianity Today-Gallup poll

were

published

in 1980.’ This

poll

claimed that 19% of the

population

were Pentecostal or Charismatic,

and of

these,

17%-that is 4% of the

population-spoke in tongues. Of these Pentecostals and

Charismatics,

27% were Roman Catholic,

21%

Baptist,

8%

Methodist,

6%

Lutherans,

and 4% Presbyterians.’

These

percentages

tend to reflect the numerical

strength of these traditions in American

society.

In

spring 1992,

a national

survey

of

4,001

Americans was conducted for the Bliss Institute

by

the

Survey

Research Center at the

University of A.kron.9 The

survey,

entitled “The National

Survey

of Evangelicals,” was intended to

probe

the

diversity

within American

Evangelicalism. The

survey

used different tests to determine the extent of Pentecostal/Charismatic

experience

in the United States.

Using

the test of

self-description,

4.7% of the United States

population registered

as Pentecostal,

6.6% as

Charismatic,

and 0.8% used both

terms, giving

a total

percentage

of 12.1.’°

According

to this

survey

“outside the historic Pentecostal

denominations,

the label ‘charismatic’ is much more

likely

to be

adopted

than the term

‘pentecostal.’

The

only exception

to this

pattern

is found within

non-pentecostal

black churches where

approximately equivalent

numbers

expressed pentecostal

as charismatic identities.”” The

percentage

of the

population

who have on occasion

spoken

in tongues is lower: the

survey

found that 8.7% of the

5Peter D. Hocken, “Charismatic

Movement,” in Dictionary of Pentecostal

and Charismatic

Movements,

eds.

Stanley

M.

Burgess

and

Gary B.

McGee

(Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988). The section dealing with North America is on p. 130-144.

Charles E. Hummel, Fire in the Fireplace: Charismatic Renewal in the Nineties (Downers Grove, EL: InterVarsity Press,

6E.g.,

the Shame: on the

1993); Peter Hocken, The and Glory

Reflections 20th-Century Outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Guildford, England: Eagle, and Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1994). ‘ Kenneth S.

Kantzer,

“The Charismatics

Among Us,” Christianity Today, 22 February 1980, 25-29.

BKantzer,

“The Charismatics Among Us,” 25-26.

9 The information

concerning this

“The

survey and its findings is taken from a paper

Spirit-Filled Movements in Contemporary America: A Corwin E. Survey Perspective” by

Smidt,

on Mainstream

Lyman A. Kellstedt, John C. Green and

James L. Guth for a conference Protestantism and Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements held at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, on March 10-12, 1994.

‘° Smidt, et al.,

“The Spirit-Filled Movements in Contemporary America,” 11-12. “Smidt,

et al., “The Spirit-Filled Movements in Contemporary America,” 17.

2

1.1%

of all Americans tongues.”” Taking

193

and

of Americans

sample

made this claim, of whom 2.5% were

white Pentecostal

black Pentecostals. 12

A more recent survey by the

Barna Research

Group reports

that 90%

“pray

to God” and 12%

pray

“in charismatic

a wider

range

of markers than

self-description

and glossolalia

as a way of

determining

the

percentage

who

Pentecostals and Charismatics

yielded higher figures:

22.9% of the American

public (917 of 4001 ),

of whom 47.1%

(432 of 917)

exhibited

markers.” Of the

larger

25.8% were

are

full charismatic

Charismatics within Evangelical Catholics and 15.5% Pentecostals

number,

denominations,

22.1% Roman (white

and

black).”

It would

appear

experience

been

steadily spreading and, (2)

it is mainline

that 6%

belonged

to nondenominational Charismatic churches. ‘?

Thus, this 1992

survey suggests

overall that

(1)

Charismatic has

in the

general population

of the United

States;

not a

deeply-anchored phenomenon

in the life of the

churches.

.

Charismatic

The General

Development of the

in the Mainline Churches

Movement

The comments conversations 1994; (2) familiarity

preparation

Dictionary of Pentecostal

and

from

or

Movements;

in the and, (5)

some

join American groupings

that follow are based on:

(1)

interviews

with several Charismatic leaders

during

the first half of

with most of the literature

emanating Charismatic Renewal

agencies, particularly

the denominational confessional

family

newsletters or

magazines;” (3)

some research done in the

early

1980s on Charismatic

origins; (4)

further research done in

for the article on the “Charismatic Movement”

and Charismatic

recent research on

independent

Charismatic churches and

why people

them. This

survey

does not cover the United

Methodists,

the

Baptists,

other than the

Anabaptist.’8 *

the Southern

Spirit-Filled

Baptists

or

any

of the smaller

12 Smidt, et al., “The Spirit-Filled Movements in Contemporary America,” 10-11. The survey shows that “slightly more than one-half of those affiliated with white pentecostal

churches

report speaking

in

tongues,

while

only one-third

of those affiliated with black

National and International pentecostal

churches do so” (14).

“See

Religion Report,

17 May 1993. It is not clear whether the 12% is of the whole population or 12% of the 90% who pray to God. “Smidt, et al., “The Spirit-Filled Movements in Contemporary America,” 22-23. “Smidt, et al., “The Spirit-Filled Movements in Contemporary America,” 23. ‘6This figure is arrived at

by deducting

the mainline Evangelical Charismatics (25.8%) from the total “Third Wave” figure of 31.8% given in Smidt, et aL, “The

Movements in Contemporary America,” 24.

“These

periodicals

are: Acts 29

(Episcopal

Renewal

Renewal

Ministries);

Lutheran

(International Lutheran Renewal Council); Renewal News

and Reformed Renewal Ministries

(Presbyterian

International);

Manna

(United

Methodist Renewal Services

Committee); and, Empowered

(Empowered Ministries, representing Renewal in the

‘8 These

Anabaptist stream).

omissions reflect a

variety

of factors: a lesser amount of reliable

3

194

Hardly any

mainline Christian tradition in the United States

reports

a steady growth

and

expansion

of Charismatic Renewal

throughout

the period

from the 1970s to the 1990s. In

virtually

all

cases,

the 1970s saw an element of “denominationalization” of the movement,’9 partly stimulated

by

the Catholic

example,” partly

necessitated

by

the stream element in the

planning

and execution of the Kansas

City

conference of July

1977.

Almost all the seasoned Charismatic leaders in the United States see the Kansas

City

conference as a kind of

high

watermark of the movement. Those

present

were convinced that this

epic

event was ushering

in a new era of

spiritual awakening

and of inter-stream cooperation.

Instead of this

hope being realized,

most date the beginnings

of decline and/or lack of direction from the

period immediately following

Kansas

City

which Crowe describes as “an

apex of unrealized desires.”” Some are convinced that the decline followed from a failure to heed the

major prophecies given

at Kansas

City calling the

shepherds

of the flocks to

repentance.

The

ups

and downs since Kansas

City vary

from tradition to tradition;

the causes of this variation would seem to include: denominational

openness

to

spiritual renewal; degree

of denominational or confessional

identity; quality

of national renewal

leadership; and,

the degree

of

reception

into local

congregational

life. The factors

affecting all traditions include a highly mobile

population;

faddish

approaches

to religion;

a culture oriented toward self-fulfillment and thus a

tendency for the culture to subvert the

gospel; and,

a

pragmatic society

more given

to action than reflection.

.

The Charismatic

Renewal

Among Episcopalians

movement in the

Episcopal

Church has seen three

main

phases:

the first

ending

in

1978;

the second

covering

the

period from 1978 to

1991;

and the third from 1991 on. Two men in particular. have influenced

Episcopal

renewal: Dennis Bennett

(1917-91)

and Everett L.

(“Terry”)

Fullam

(1930- ).

Their

gifts, emphases

and strongest

influence

correspond respectively

to the first two

periods.

In the first

period,

the

emphasis

was on

experience;

there was little

information,

the lack of denominational renewal newsletters among the fewer

Baptists,

figures

with a national

profile.

The Southern

Baptists

with Charismatic experience

and convictions have used the term “Fulness” to describe themselves, in view of the

mostly

in

opposition

to

explicitly

Charismatic claims and terminology

the denomination. A

magazine

F;Iness was

published

from 1978-1990, and then replaced with a much slimmer communique. My research on

Charismatic churches will be part of the forthcoming second issue of PNEUMA on the Charismatic Renewal.

independent

“See later sections for details of denominational or confessional Charismatic agencies. 20

21 See Hocken, “Charismatic Movement,” in DPCM, 136. Crowe, Pentecostal

Unity, 92. ..

4

195

thinking through

of Charismatic

experience

in relation to the

Episcopal Church and its tradition. The

“theology”

of Renewal was

largely

the use of Pentecostal

language,

and for all the

courage

and

clarity

of Dennis Bennett’s witness, his theology never won over

all the leaders in the

Episcopal

Renewal. The

early

1970s saw both the

period

of

major influence from the

Episcopal

Church of the Redeemer in Houston, Texas,

led

by Graham Pulkingham,22

and the formation of the

Episcopal Charismatic

Fellowship (ECF)

at Dallas,

Texas,

in 1973.

A new

phase

can be dated from

1978, particularly

due to the

impetus for Church Renewal in the

Episcopal

Church

coming

from the International

Anglican

Conference on

Spiritual

Renewal held at Canterbury, England, just

before the

bishops

of the

Anglican Communion

gathered

for their

ten-yearly

Lambeth Conference of that year.”

Stimulated

by

the

impact

of the 1975 Rome conference of Roman Catholic

Charismatics, Anglican

Charismatic leaders

sought

to convey

a fresh vision of the Charismatic Renewal

serving

the renewal of the churches of the

Anglican

Communion.24

Many Episcopal Charismatics had been alarmed

by

the excesses associated with the Discipleship movement,

and saw the

remedy

in a

deeper

interaction between the Renewal and their historic

Anglican

convictions and praxis. Thus,

the second

period

was marked

by

several features all pertaining

to Church renewal.

The immediate

impetus

of

Canterbury

1978 was evident in the series of twelve Conferences on Parish Renewal

organized by

the ECF for 1979,

described as

emphasizing

“Renewal

Episcopal Style. ,2′

The new vision was

particularly expressed

in ECF’s

change

of name to

Episcopal Renewal Ministries

(ERM)

in 1980. This

change

reflected

(1)

a concern not to

arrogate

exclusive claims for

itself,

a

willingness

to

cooperate with other currents of

spiritual

renewal26 and a desire to be a leaven within the wider church rather than a movement

apart; and, (2)

a development

from a focus on the individual to concern for the renewal of

parish

life.

Thus,

ERM’s new statement of purpose declared: “ERM

22 Besides the publicity generated by Pulkingham’s two books, Gathered for Power (New York,

NY: Morehouse-Barlow Co.,

1972) and They Left Their Nets (New York, NY: Morehouse-Barlow Co., 1973), the Church of the Redeemer was lauded Michael

experiment

by Harper in A New Way of Living (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1973).

“See A New

Canterbury

Tale: The

Reports of

the

Anglican

International Conference

on

Spiritual

Renewal held at

Canterbury, July

1978

(Bramcote, England: 24

Grove Books, 1978) with an introduction by Michael

Michael Harper and Terry Fullam had been at the Rome

Harper.

conference. “They were taking part,

as observers, in the large Catholic charismatic gathering in Rome in 1975, when they conceived the idea for an Anglican gathering” [Charles M. Irish, “Praying

for the Death of the Charismatic Movement,” Acts 29 (August/September 1978): 6J. 25

26 See Acts 29 (December 1978): 1. See below for instances of such collaboration.

5

196

teaching,

Biblical

preaching,

worship,

characterized

by

biblical

teaching

ordered

of

leaders,

all

Fullam

epitomizes

this

period, profoundly biblical, well-grounded who,

as one observer remarked, teaching

sound

eminently

reasonable.”

Though

there were

pioneer

is dedicated to the renewal of the

people

and

parishes through apostolic

historic and charismatic experience. “27

This new

phase

was

particularly

to

spiritual growth,

to the exercise of gifts and to the formation

within the framework of

ordinary

church life.

Terry

as he is a

gifted

teacher who is

in

contemporary scholarship,

and

“has the

ability

to make radical

renewed

parishes

in the

Episcopal

a

significant

increase in

formation,

the second

period infra-structures-several Charismatic for Christian Renewal

Charismatic

component.

The

theological college, Trinity (TESM)

features of

Church before

1978/8

this second

period

saw

their number. In line with the

developing emphasis

on

teaching

and

saw the rise of various renewal

and a

theological college

collaborate;

missionary societies,

an Institute

with a

strong

Episcopal

School for

Ministry

illustrates certain distinctive

Church. These

identifying

in

Ambridge, Pennsylvania,

Renewal in the

Episcopal

characteristics are

( 1 ) the willingness

of different renewal

groups

to

(2)

the

emergence

of a strong Evangelical sector within the Episcopal Church; and, (3)

the

coming together

elements. TESM was not founded as a Charismatic

institution,

Catholic

but had a biblical and

Evangelical

of

Evangelical

and

vision

arising

out of

Evangelical

increasing secularity

Church.

However,

Charismatic

Renewal,

to its foundation. Of the

original Charismatic; by 1994,

the student

currents within the

Episcopal

Church29 that were

seeking

to counter the

of American culture and its influence on the

from its

inception

in

1976,

TESM was

open

to

as one

among

the currents that had contributed

17

students,

about one-third were body

had risen to

150,

and the

of the whole. A

parallel

number of Charismatics to

three-quarters

the

faculty,

led since 1990

by Bishop

development

has

happened among

by Fullam, explains

(Ted Nelson);

InterVarsity Fellowship impact

27This statement of purpose is found in Acts 29 (Summer 1980): 2. A short article

“It’s Official-Our Name is Changed,” Acts 29 (Summer 1980): 3-4,

the reasons for the change from ECF to ERM. That Fullam played a role in this formulation is indicated

major

by

his

personal explanation

of these four elements in “What is a Charismatic Church?” Acts 29 3!4 (1985): 1-2.

28 The most prominent

examples were St. Luke’s, Seattle, WA (Dennis Bennett); St. Paul’s, Darien, CT

and Truro (Terry

Fullam); the Church of the Resurrection, Dallas, TX

Church, Fairfax, VA (John Howe).

29Faith Alive

(begun by

the Brotherhood of St. Andrew and Fred

Gore);

on the

E. similar

Episcopal Church, especially Charles

through

Hummel; influences from Campus Crusade and later from the Cursillo

movement; the Charismatic Movement. Students coming out of these movements were entering Episcopal seminaries that did not know what to do with them.

6

197

and the first

Episcopal

bishop

to

identify strongly

TESM has also come

William

Frey,

former

Bishop

of

Colorado,

with Charismatic Renewal.

to

long

been in

strong

tension

represent

a

Catholic-Evangelical

has

as this work of the

Holy Spirit

and has

encouraged

biblical

orthodoxy

Winter

Park,

Florida in 1986. Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics United for

Revelation,

rapprochement

within the

Episcopal

Church.3° While

Anglicanism

contained

Evangelical

and Catholic

wings,

these have

commonly

with each other. The Charismatic factor has perhaps

facilitated this

reconciliation,

has touched all strands within the

Church,

Evangelical

convictions without an anti-Catholic bias.3′

The

coming together

of

Episcopalians

with a

strong

concern for

and Church renewal led to the “3Rs” conference at

“that the Lord

Apostolic Witness,

Institutional

developments

of

Leadership

This

gathering

brought together

believed Salvation, Preaching,

held at the

Evergreen

The Institutes have

steadily courses for

clergy, spouses

of

and Charismatics to form

Episcopalians

Renewal and Reformation. 32 A Statement of United

Purpose

selected as areas in which the

participants

has

spoken

to us”:

Authority,

Life in the

Spirit, Evangelism

and Mission.33

later in this

period

have included the sponsoring Training Institutes,

Conference Center in Colorado now run

by ERM,34

and the foundation of the Order of St.

Philip

the

Evangelist.

and now offer

week-long

and an Advanced

Leadership follow-up

for

Clergy.

the desire to

develop Renewal-Episcopal style and

the rise of

a

strong

Charismatic

component, Episcopal

Renewal has not

yet produced any major theological writings.

This

lack, paralleled

in other

traditions, may

reflect the activist character of both American

expanded clergy, lay people

Despite TESM with

society

and of Pentecostal/Charismatic also

apologetics

Christianity

in

general.

It

may

of

theological energy

in

reflect with TESM the

absorption

and the defense of historic doctrinal

orthodoxy.35

By

the late

1980s,

the Charismatic Renewal in the

Episcopal

Church was made

largely up

of

(1)

small

groups

of Charismatics scattered across the United States without

ready

access to

any

Renewed

parish;

that

incorporated many

elements from the Charismatic

(2) parishes

30 this coming together is indicated by the publication The Evangelical Catholic,

in 1977.

Leadership Transforming Experience,”

Perspective,”

begun “The

Evangelical and Catholic Covenant begins with the declaration: “We believe that the Evangelical Faith and Catholic Order which the Anglican Communion has received 32 are

A

God-given.”

leaflet about

the

Episcopalians United further explains the 3 Rs: “the Revelation of God,

Renewal of the Church, the Reformation of

“SeeActs 29 4/2

Society.”

(1986): 1-3, statement dated 10 January 1986.

34 In 1989. See the announcement in Acts 29 (May 1989): 1, and Kevin Martin “A

Acts 29 (July/August 1990): 6.

“For a thoughtful reflection on Charismatic Renewal in the Episcopal Church, and some of the theological tensions within it, see D. William Faupel, “An

Mission

Analytical

and Ministry 7 (Spring 1990): 35-41.

7

198

Renewal into their

corporate life-emphasis

on

personal experience

of the

Spirit, every

member

ministry, styles

of

praise

and music in worship,

ministries of

healing-without describing

themselves as Charismatic; and, (3) overtly

Charismatic

parishes

with the

regular manifestation of

spiritual gifts

in their

Sunday liturgy.

Besides these people

and

parishes,

there are numerous

“post-charismatics,” many

of whom see their Charismatic

experience

as a

significant phase

on the way

to a richer

spirituality.

Within the above

categories,

the second would be far more numerous than the third,

though

the third has been increasing

in recent

years.

Parishes in the second would often

regard those in the third

overtly

Charismatic

category

as rather extreme and less

Episcopalian.

– .

The third

phase

in

Episcopal

Renewal dates from the

early 1990s, and reflects a

growing struggle

within the

Episcopal

Church for basic Christian

orthodoxy

in faith and morals. The difference between the third

period

and the second is that more renewed

Episcopalians

are facing

the

question:

“Will there be a future for Renewal within the Episcopal

Church?” So there is a

widespread

sense

among many Episcopal

Charismatics that it is not sufficient to

evangelize

and provide formation;

there is also a battle to be

fought against

unbelief within the Church. ERM has not until now

played

an

apologetic role, partly

because this is the direct interest of

Episcopalians

United. The role of Charismatics in

Episcopalians

United has the attraction of working

with fellow church

members,

but it can run the risk of alliance with bodies which

may

be more conservative than

they are,

and which may

not be as

open

to the creative work of the

Holy Spirit.36

Several Charismatic leaders remarked that in the last decade the middle has

dropped

out of the

Episcopal Church,

so that both the House of

Bishops

and the

clergy

in

general

are now more

polarized between the

doctrinally

conservative and the liberal. While renewed parishes

have

grown

in their

membership, many

of the new members have no

deep loyalty

to the

Episcopal

Church. The Charismatic

clergy, who

generally

do have such a loyalty, are not

itching

to

jump ship,

but many

know that

they

are in a

spiritual battle,

which could face

them with

painful decisions,

if the battle

goes

the

wrong way.

There has been a

widespread Episcopal tendency

to

play

down a distinctive Charismatic

movement,

and instead to understand the Charismatic sector as one dimension of a wider Renewal. In the third phase,

there is

stronger

affirmation of basic

Evangelical-Catholic identity among

renewed

Episcopalians, though

the assertion of Charismatic

identity

remains more

problematic.

Episcopal

Renewal is also characterized

by stronger

international connections than other

traditions, excepting

the Roman Catholic. The historic

Episcopal

link with Britain has been seen in visits from

leading

16 This point is taken up again in the conclusion.

8

199

Anglican

Charismatics from

England, especially

Michael

Harper and, more

recently, Bishop

David

Pytches,

as an

Anglican exponent

of the message

of John Wimber. The

Anglican

Communion worldwide has a Charismatic

agency

called

SOMA, 37 which has branches

in both the United States and Canada. SOMA is not a service agency

for Charismatic Renewal on the

pattern

of the Roman Catholic office in Rome,

but is a mission

body, aiming

to send out and receive inter-cultural short-term mission teams.

Renewal

Among

Lutherans

As in most of the mainline

churches,

the Charismatic Renewal

among Lutherans saw a

rapid growth

in numbers

during

the 1970s. It was estimated that

by

the

mid-1970s,

some 10% of Lutherans identified with the movement.38 A 1979

Gallup poll

for

Christianity Today estimated the

figure

as twenty

per

cent.

Also

parallel

to

many

other

traditions,

Lutheran Charismatic Renewal appears

to have suffered some decline

during

the 1980s. Attendance at the annual International Lutheran Conference on the

Holy Spirit peaked around 1980 at

18,000,39 though

the fall to the more recent level of 4,000-5,000 appears

to have

happened

in the mid-1980s.

However, big conferences are not the

only indicator,

and

virtually

all traditions saw a shift from

big

national events to smaller

regional

events

during

the 1980s. A rather different

picture

is

given by

a

survey

conducted

by Fuller

Theological Seminary

of Lutheran

pastors

of all Lutheran denominations. The Fuller

survey gave

the

following

results

While there are

clearly many

“ex-Charismatics”

among

the Lutherans,

the movement does not show

signs

of serious recession. At

“SOMA,

besides its Greek meaning, is an

acronym for Sharing

of Ministries Abroad. It publishes a newsletter called Sharing, produced with different national versions.

38Larry Christenson, ed.,

Welcome, Holy Spirit (Minneapolis, MN:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1987), 354.

“Lutheran Charismatic Renewal 6 (September 1980): 1.

‘o C. Peter

Wagner, “Survey

of the Growth of the Charismatic

Renewal,” unpublished

Pentecostal

report (1985),

cited in Vinson

Synan,

The

Twentieth-Century

(Altamonte

“Pastors declared” includes those who Explosion

Springs,

FL: Creation

House, 1987),

118.

acknowledge their Charismatic experience publicly, whereas “Pastors charismatic” includes those who report a Charismatic experience but who had not then made a public disclosure of this experience.

.

”

9

200

American Lutherans church

leadership,

has, however,

to one-third of participants

may concentration

Assigning

distinct

periods

One reason is Renewal, originally

called

first director

and then

each national

conference,

about

one-quarter

are new to the movement. Continued

growth among

Lutherans owe

something

to their

geographical

in

particular

states, and to local

patterns

of

fellowship

and service. The Renewal

among

made

very

little

impact

on the

both

governmental

and

theological,

in marked contrast to Lutheran Renewal in some Third World countries.

The Lutheran Renewal seems to have

changed

less in its

history

than

Renewal in other traditions.

is more difficult for the Lutherans.

for Lutheran

Renewal Services

(LCRS),

has been under the capable leadership Christenson,

its formation in 1974.

LCRS,

now called International Lutheran Renewal Center

(ILRC),41

serves all Lutheran

denominations, and has

always

included on its board

representatives

recently-formed

now the

largest numerically.

One of the more

significant developments

the Charismatic

to its

development

that the service

agency Lutheran Charismatic

of

Larry chairman,

since

churches. The America

(ELCA)

is

relation to the more conservative

Christians, organization,

Evangelical

from the different Lutheran Church of

Lutheran

in Lutheran Renewal is in Church-Missouri

Synod

(LCMS),

which was

very

critical of Charismatic Renewal in the earlier days.42

Because LCMS had a rule

prohibiting fellowship

with other

LCMS Charismatics formed their own Renewal service

Renewal in Missouri

(RIM),

in 1987 when

opposition

to Renewal had

significantly

decreased.43 A series of meetings were held in 1990 and 1992 between

representatives

of

Synod

and RIM to resolve the difficulties raised for denominational

significant

advance in

understanding

governance by the Renewal.

A occurred,

and a statement was

Some

drawn

up

with a series of common affirmations and

rejections.” difficulties remain

unresolved,

and these

meetings

will

probably continue.

simply

” In

1982, Lutheran Charismatic Renewal Services (LCRS) was merged with the International Lutheran Center for Church Renewal to form the International Lutheran Renewal Center (ILRC). At the same time, the LCRS newsletter Lutheran Charismatic Renewal was renamed International Lutheran Renewal. From January 1993, when publication was

Lutheran

changed from monthly to quarterly, the title became

Renewal, though still the newsletter of ILRC.

42 See the 1972 statement “The Charismatic Movement and Lutheran Theology” in Presence, Power, Praise: Documents

on the Charismatic

Renewal, ed. Kilian McDonnell (3 vols.; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1980), I, 321-363; the 1975 “Policy Statement Regarding the Neo-Pentecostal Movement,” in Presence Power Praise,

II,

I S-22 and the 1977

report

“The Lutheran Church and the Charismatic Movement: Guidelines for

Congregations

and

Pastors,”

in Presence Power Praise,

II, 307-324.

“The LCMS service agency, Renewal in Missouri, is led by Delbert Rossin, and

a newsletter entitled RIM Report. LCMS representatives continue to serve on the ILCS board.

produces

“RIMReport

21 (February 1994): 1, 3.

10

direction. the

Presbyterians,

traditions. There LCRS,

with a

group

201

leaders and teachers,

Phases in the evolution of LCRS and ILRS

are also less

easy

to identify

because there have been no clear

changes

of

policy

and

The Lutherans have not

produced

the kinds of

programs

of

for

example,

but Lutherans were

probably

more oriented to

congregational

renewal at an earlier

phase

than some other

was a

strong teaching ministry

from the start of

of

widely recognized

including Larry Christenson,

Dennis

Pederson,

Delbert

Rossin,

Morris

Voeks and Paul Anderson.

During

the

1980s,

the Lutherans

developed

a

strong

international with several of

and

leading

teams to most continents of the

Vaagenes,

George

their teachers

speaking world.

The Lutherans form attachment

discovered that

they being schwdrmerei,

outreach,”

tradition,

with a

strong of the 16th

century.

The

appealing

to

spiritual

a confessional

to the doctrinal confessions

development

of the Charismatic Renewal

among

Lutherans has been marked

by

this tradition.

First,

more

negatively,

Lutheran Charismatics

needed to defend themselves

against

the

charge

of

that is to

say,

enthusiasts

experience apart

from Word and sacrament.

Secondly,

more

positively, Lutheran Charismatics formulated a

stronger

doctrinal foundation in their

teaching. Thirdly,

Lutheran Charismatics have a stronger sense of

than

many

of the other mainline traditions

in the Charismatic Renewal. This confessional

identity

was reflected in the book Welcome

Holy Spirit’

international consultation and offered an

historical, theological,

biblical

of the Renewal

confessional represented

identity

and

practical understanding

which resulted from an

from

a Lutheran

.

among Lutherans,

Sexuality,” sharply Christenson’s necessitating

perspective.

In

general,

ILRC has not

played

a

significant

role in the

politics

of American Lutheranism.

However,

the recent ELCA

report

on “Human

which

departs

from the historic Lutheran

teaching,

drew a

critical

response

from

Larry

Christenson in Lutheran Renewal.

critique

attracted much attention

the

printing of 30,000

extra

copies.4′

Renewal

Among Presbyterians

Charismatic Renewal in

Presbyterian

tradition,

and

Reformed

and Reformed Churches in the

United States has been characterized

by the following

five features.

1. In the earlier

years,

there was

stronger opposition

to Charismatic Renewal in some local

governmental

bodies than in

any

other

major

other than the Lutherans of the Missouri

Synod.

Several Charismatic ministers were involved in church

litigation seeking

to remove them from their

pastoral charges.

What became known as the 46 4’This was reflected in the name change mentioned in note 41. See note 38.

47 L. Christenson, “ELCA ‘Human

Sexuality’ Paper:

A

Response”

Lutheran Renewal 158 (January 1994): 1-6.

11

202

Presbyterian

Charismatic Communion

(PCC)

was the first denominational or confessional Charismatic body to

be formed in 1966.48 One of the

primary

motives in the establishment of PCC was to provide support

for

beleaguered pastors.’9

2. The

Presbyterian

Churches

gave

more serious

theological attention to the Charismatic movement than other Protestant Churches in the United States.so

3. While the Charismatic movement touched a

large

number of Presbyterian

and Reformed

Christians,

a considerable number of these subsequently

left their denomination to

join

Pentecostal or Charismatic Churches. A

report

in Renewal News in 1984 stated: “Since then [1966],

it is

conservatively

estimated that between

3,000

and

4,000 Presbyterian

and Reformed

pastors

in the United States have been involved in the charismatic renewal

personally

and between

200,000 and

250,000 laypersons.

Over one-half of these

laypersons

have left the Presbyterian

and Reformed denominations

during

the

past

15 5′ or 20 years feeling

unwelcomed or

deprived

of

spiritual

nourishment.”

4. PCC was founded to serve Charismatic Renewal in the various Presbyterian

and Reformed denominations. In

playing

this

role,

PCC was similar to its Lutheran

equivalent,

but different from the

Episcopal and United Methodist bodies that

simply

served Renewal in one Church. The

high

level of

“leakage”

of

Presbyterian

and Reformed Charismatics,

much

greater seemingly

than that of

Lutherans,

is possibly

linked with the more

liturgical

and confessional character of Lutheranism that

gives

Lutherans a

stronger

sense of traditional identity.

5. Unlike the

Episcopal Renewal,

the movement

among Presbyterians

and Reformed had no dominant

figures

who had significant impact

at a national level.

Phases of Development

The first identifiable

phase

is that of

spontaneous beginnings followed

by sporadic opposition

to Charismatic ministers. This

period came to an end in

1968,

with the reversal of the decision of the Phoenix

” Its original name was “The Charismatic Communion of Presbyterian Ministers.” ” It was in 1972 that it was

opened

to

lay persons

and the title

changed

to Presbyterian

Charismatic Communion

“An

(PCC).

early PCC

Newsletter includes the statement the

C. “Brick” Bradford: “Some

following by Secretary,

Synod

Executives and some Ministerial Relations Committees have cast shadows across the

George

competence of ministers who have received the Presbyterian

baptism in the Spirit with the manifestations as

described in Acts 2:4″ 3

Holy

(Newsletter, July 1967, 1). 50 See the

statements on “The Work of the

Holy Spirit” (United Presbyterian Church, USA, 1970) and “The Person and Work of the

Reference to ‘the in the

Holy Spirit, with Special

(Presbyterian Church in the United States, 1971), 51

in McDonnell, Presence, Power, Praise, I.

Baptism Holy Spirit”‘

“Presbyterian Charismatic Communion Changes Name to Presbyterian Renewal Ministries International,” Renewal News 84 (May-June 1984): 1.

‘

12

203

Presbytery

in Arizona that had

placed

severe restrictions on the Charismatic

practice

and

fellowship

of Rev. Robert C. Whitaker. Whitaker took his case to the

judicial

committee of the United Presbyterian

Church

(UPC)

at the national

level,

who found in Whitaker’s favor. This

controversy

contributed to the UPC

setting up

a study committee, leading

to their 1970

report

on the Charismatic Renewal. The decision for Whitaker

effectively

ended the initial

period of hassle and trial for Charismatic ministers.

A second

period

can be identified between 1968 and 1983-84. Presbyterians

shared in the Charismatic

surge

of the

1970s,

but the pressures

to

develop

a distinctively confessional form of Renewal were less evident than in the

Episcopal Church,

nor were there

comparable Charismatic infra-structures. There was a rise in the number of renewed congregations,

with an increased attention to

teaching.

It

was, however, only

in 1983 that PCC

began

to

develop training programs, following

a 1981 decision that PCC should focus on “the spiritual

renewal of the local church as a

community

of faith. ,,52 As a result,

the

“Spirit

Alive”

campaigns

were introduced as a

multi-year congregational

renewal

program. 53

The

following year,

in

1984,

PCC changed

its name to

Presbyterian

and Reformed Renewal Ministries International

(PRRMI). 54

These

steps, however,

did not halt the decline in the Charismatic Renewal movement

among Presbyterians

and Reformed. A

degree

of revitalization came with the

appointment

of Dr. Zeb Bradford

Long

as executive director of PRRMI from

January,

1990.55 Brad

Long,

who had been a

missionary

in Taiwan since

1980,

came from a situation of

dynamic

Charismatic

expansion

back to an American situation that was visibly

less vital than what

Long

had known in the 1970s.

Long

moved the PRRMI offices from Oklahoma

City, Oklahoma,

to Black Mountain,

North

Carolina,

and has been instrumental in bringing a new dynamism

to

Presbyterian-Reformed

Renewal. New

programs indicating

Brad

Long’s priorities

and convictions include the

following: (1)

the Dunamis

Project,

a retreat

program

aimed at

leadership development ; 56 (2) Prayer Mountains; 5′ and, (3)

Overseas Mission

Alive Events Emerging,” Renewal News 80 (September-October 1983): 1. See also “”Spirit

Gary R Sweeten, “Renewal of Congregations of All Sizes,” Renewal News 67 (July-August 1981): 3.

?3 See “First

Spirit

Alive Event Blesses

Many,”

Renewal News 82

1984): 1, 3-4;

and Carter

Blaisdell, “Spirit Alive,” Renewal News 125 (Winter 1992): 1, 3.

(January-February

“‘Renewal News 84

1984): 1, 3.

5″‘Brad Long Succeeds (May-June

Bradford,” Renewal News 116 (September-October 1989): 1,3.

The first Dunamis Project was held in early 1991: see “The Dunamis Project for Leadership Development,” Renewal News 121 (Fall 1990): 1.

Mountain retreats are described as a following of Jesus “to a

with the Father: see

“Prayer lonely place”

“Prayer Mountains,” Renewal News 122 (Winter 1991): 1.

13

204

adopted by

PRRMI in 1993

Outreach. S8 A new Mission Statement

reflects the addition of these further three

emphases

to

congregational

renewal.’9

teaching Vigils during

defender

with.

This recent

emphasis

on

prayer

has been

accompanied by regular

on

spiritual

warfare and the

holding

since 1991 of

Prayer

the annual

general assembly

of the

Presbyterian

Church (USA).60 During

this

period

PRRMI has

played

an

increasing

role as a

and advocate of traditional biblical

orthodoxy

in faith and morals, particularly

within the PCUSA.6′

Growing

dissatisfaction the liberal direction of national and

theological leadership

in the

to

smaller and

denominations,

PCUSA has led some Charismatic withdraw and

join

Presbyterian-Reformed

Presbyterian

Church. 62

Renewal in the

Anabaptist

Presbyterian congregations

more conservative

particularly

the

Evangelical

Tradition

and the Church of the

seems

by

now to

Charismatic

Brethren, though perhaps have had a

greater impact early

outbreak

among

Mennonites

Renewal

among

the Mennonites

slower at the

beginning,

than in most other Christian traditions. An

by Virgil Vogt. residential

community

in Minnesota

developed

as an

fellowship.63

A

significant

independent ministry

outside the Mennonite

impulse

came from the Reba Place

Fellowship

in Evanston, Illinois, led

Reba Place

began

around 1957 as an intentional

in the

inner-city,

and

only

became Charismatic in the

early

1970s. Due to the fact that a majority of the members of Reba Place were Mennonite the community’s relationship

beginnings

.59 “Exalting Christ, Igniting

with the

Congregational

‘$ See “Overseas Mission Outreach,” Renewal News 124 (Fall 1991): 1, 3. This article notes that “Both the Dunamis Project and the Prayer Mountains had their

in Korea and Taiwan” (3).

the Church in the power of the

Prayer…. Leadership Development….

Renewal…. Mission Holy Spirit through Outreach…. So That the Church

May be Empowered To Do

All That Christ Commands.” Renewal News 130 (Spring 1993): 16.

‘See

Doug McMurry,

“A

Report

on the PC

(USA)

General

Assembly Prayer Vigil,” Renewal News 131 (Summer 1993): 12. 6′ This role is

particularly

evident in Renewal News 134 (Spring

1994) with the controversies

following

the denominational

support

for the

Re-Imagining God, Church and the Community Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in November 1993.

prominent Presbyterian congregations

62 The Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) was founded around 1980 from the United Presbyterian Church, the northern denomination in the 1985 union between the

major Presbyterian

denominations of the North and the South. Of the six

listed as PCUSA in my article “Charismatic Movement” in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Stanley

Publishing House, 1988), 140, three have since seceded to join

EPC: those in Pompano Beach, FL; Virginia Beach, VA; and Charlotte, NC.

63 see Gerald Derstine,

Following the

Fire

(Plainfield,

NJ:

Logos International,

1980).

14

205

Mennonite

Church became an

important

issue. The

relationship

went through

a number of

phases

from

approval

to

disapproval

and dissociation,

but to later affiliation as a local church with the Mennonite Church

and the Church of the Brethren. 64

Mennonite Renewal Services (MRS)

was one of the denominational service agencies

founded in 1975 in order to have denominational sessions

within the Kansas

City

conference of

July

1977. Renewal was steadily spreading

in Mennonite and Brethren circles in the 1970s. A major

role was

played by

Nelson Litwiller

(1898-1986),

a retired missionary baptized

in the

Holy Spirit

in 1970.65 Litwiller

brought

to Anabaptist

renewal a wisdom and

serenity,

as well as a breadth of vision fed

by

over 40

years

of

missionary

service in Latin America and symbolized by

his

baptism

in the

Spirit through

the

ministry

of Catholic Charismatics from Notre Dame.

As in some other

traditions,

MRS

gave up

its annual conference in favor of 12

regional

conferences. But

by

the

mid-1980s,

the numbers supporting

such events and the finances of MRS were in decline.

Yet, in the

Anabaptist stream,

it would seem that this decline was more of a problem

of

servicing

the Lord’s work and a lack of over-all coherence than of a real diminution in the number of Mennonite Charismatics. A need was felt to

help congregations

in

renewal,

and a national consultation was called for 1987.? At this

meeting,

the renewal organization

of the Church of the Brethren was

integrated

with

MRS; membership

was

opened

to

congregations

as well as

individuals;

and attention was

paid

to the five-fold ministries

of Ephesians

4:11 and how to revitalize them in church life. 67

In

1989,

MRS was

changed

to become

Empowered

Ministries

(EM) “Fostering Renewal, Unity

and Mission in the

Anabaptist

Stream. ,18 Doug Fike, currently

executive director of

EM,

estimates that 50%-55% of those

associating

with EM are

Mennonites,

25%-30% are Brethren,

and 20% from Related Renewal

Congregations.69

With a new and coherent vision focused on

“Empowered

for Mission” with

emphasis

on

missions, evangelism

and

training

of

“For a

history of the Reba Place Fellowship up

to

1987, see Dave and Neta Jackson, 6S Glimpses of Glory (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 1987).

Litwiller’s witness is in Roy S. Koch, ed., My Personal Pentecost (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press,

1977),

106-117. Tributes

following Litwiller’s death are found

in Empowered

5 (Winter 1987).

66See Mahlon D. Miller, “A

Fellowship

of in

Renewal?,”

5 (Spring 1987): 9.

Congregations

Empowered

6′ See the

Policy Statement of MRS in Empowered 5 (Summer

5

1987): 15; and “MRS Projects Future Course,” Empowered

(Summer 1987): 14.

68 See the chair’s address by V.

Vogt, “Harvest Time,”

7 1989): 1-2, 9-10; and

the

reports by R.

Koch and H.

Empowered (Summer

Gingerich, Empowered 7 (Summer 1989): 13. An article that shows clearly the newly emerging direction is V. Vogt, “New Dimension of Renewal,” Empowered 6 8-9. 69Interview of author with D. Fike, 11 May 1994.

(Winter 1988):

15

206

ministry

to form vibrant church

fellowships,

EM has

gained increasing support

and is in

expansion. Many

renewed

congregations

within EM are now

pursuing

a cell

growth strategy.

A new Resource Center is being developed

in Warm

Springs, Virginia.

Charismatic Renewal in the

Anabaptist

streams has then

probably

had more

impact

on

general

church life than in

any

other traditions. The Renewal is taken

seriously by

denominational leaders.” Unlike its

early days, Anabaptist

Renewal in North America is now multi-racial.

Catholic Charismatic Renewal

For an

understanding

of the

development

of the Charismatic Renewal among

Roman Catholics in the United States, it

may

be

helpful

to divide

up

its

twenty-seven year history

into three

periods: (1)

the period

of

community leadership (1967-1976); (2)

the

period

of contestation of

community leadership (1976-1981); and, (3)

the

period from 1981 to the

present.”

The Period of Community Leadership

(1967-1976)

While the Charismatic

communities,

often called covenant communities,

did not all

begin

in the first

year

of neo-Pentecostal penetration

of the Catholic

Church,

there was a close link between the origins

of the movement and the formation of communities.’ The Catholic stream was marked in its

origins by

the close network of young

men and

women, many already

known to each

other,

who formed the first centers of influence at Notre

Dame, South Bend, Indiana and at East

Lansing

and then Ann

Arbor, Michigan.

The majority

of those first involved became the leaders of the Word of God Community

at Ann

Arbor,

and of True House

Community

and

slightly later the

People

of Praise in South Bend.

Thus,

in its

early years,

the Charismatic Renewal

among

Catholics was led from Ann

Arbor, Michigan by

the leaders of the Word of God Community (especially Ralph

Martin and

Stephen Clark)

and from South

Bend,

Indiana

by

the leaders of the

People

of Praise

(especially

70 thus, there have been several meetings between Renewal leaders and Mennonite officers. See, for example, report “Apostolic & Conference Ministers’

Dialogue,” Empowered

Newsletter 8

(Winter 1990): 3. At the Mennonite World Conference in Winnipeg

in

July 1990,

that

reported

a

growth

of over 50% in Mennonite the Holy Spirit accounting

membership

worldwide since 1974, “frequent reference was made to the ministry of

for the explosion in the number of

converted”

persons becoming ”

[Empowered Newsletter 9 (Fall 1990-Winter 1991): 5].

In addition to the literature cited in note 1, there are interesting writings on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal by the sociologist Joseph Fichter: The Catholic Cult of the

Paraclete

(New York, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1975) and The

Works: Research in Catholic America

Sociology of Good

(Chicago, IL: “The Charismatic Press, 1993), especially chapter

5, Renewal,” 75-94. Loyola University

” On the Charismatic communities, see Theophane Rush, “Covenant Communities in the United States,” P,VEUk£4 : The Journal

of the Society for Pentecostal Theology 16

(Fall 1994): 233-245.

16

207

Kevin

Ranaghan).

The

greater structuring

that characterized the Catholic stream was the work of

these leaders and their communities: the formation of a national office,

of a National Service Committee (NSC),73

of a communications center, of New Covenant magazine,

of national

conferences,

of Life in the

Spirit

seminars to

prepare people for

baptism

in the

Holy Spirit,

and of Foundations courses for

people after

experiencing baptism

in the

Holy Spirit.

Besides

providing

most of the

teaching

materials for the wider movement in the Catholic Church, the covenant communities also

shaped

the vision for renewal. Catholic Renewal

began

with Charismatic

prayer groups, many

of which then aspired

to

develop

into communities.

The Period of Contestation of Community

Leadership (1976-1981)

The Charismatic Renewal

spread

with remarkable

rapidity among Catholics in the 1970s. The attendance

figures

for the annual conference at Notre Dame increased

dramatically through

the first half of the 1970s.’° As the movement

mushroomed,

there

were,

not surprisingly,

voices who

questioned

the

all-pervasive

influence of the major

communities.

Also,

not

surprisingly,

the

questioning

was particularly

led

by priests

and nuns. The communities were almost wholly lay organizations,

and

professional theology

and

qualifications played

a smaller role within the

community

world than the wider Church.

The

questioning

of

community-based leadership

was

spearheaded first

by

individual Charismatic leaders who were not invited to address the national

gatherings

at Notre Dame. The

strongest

forum for these leaders was the Eastern

Region, covering

the North Eastern Atlantic seaboard,

that held an annual conference at Atlantic

City,

New

Jersey, whose attendance

figures

rivaled Notre Dame. From these circles came Fr. John

Haughey,

a Jesuit

theologian,

who

directly challenged

the community

model in his address to the Eastern

Region

conference in 1977,75 and Fr. Joseph Lange,

who became the

managing

editor of a

“The National Service Committee (NSC) is, as the title implies, a service for the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the nation. While it has no

agency

authority over Renewal

groups and it selects its own membership, it is seen as, and acts as, the national

leadership of the movement. The NSC organizes national conferences and its executive

arm, so to speak, is CharisCenter, the office that is the successor to the communications center.

“The attendance

figures were: 1970: 1,279; 1971: nearly 5,000;

1972: 11,500; 1973: 20,000; 1974: 30,000; 1976: nearly 30,000. In

1975,

1977 and

1978, the Notre Dame conference gave way to Rome (international-Catholic), Kansas

and Dublin

City (national-inter-confessional) (international-Catholic) respectively.

In 1979, the Notre Dame conference was restricted to leaders and attended by

approximately 10,000. “Fr.

Haughey’s talk was subsequently published under the title “Salt or New

Covenant 7

Leaven?,”

(June 1978):

14-17.

Many

of Fr.

Haughey’s

concerns are illustrated in his

article,

“The Domestication of the

Holy Spirit,”

Catholic Charismatic 1 (March/April 1976): 8-11.

17

208

suggests,

than New Covenant,

called Catholic Charismatic.76 The

and concerns

parish

rival

publication

to New Covenant

new

magazine deliberately

catered for the interests

ignored

or

opposed by

the dominant communities. As the title

perhaps

it stressed a

stronger

identification with Catholic distinctives

it

encouraged

renewal

through parochial prayer groups;

and it gave more

prominence

to women in opposition to the male

headship policies

of the covenant communities.

Also at this time

appeared Josephine

Pentecostals?

at Notre

Dame,

had

quarreled

vision was Los

Angeles,

where Fr. Ralph Tichenor, SJ,

was

prominent

Renewal Communities.”

Which

Way , for

Catholic professor

Another center for an alternative

establishing

Southern California

While the

theological

contestation just outlined,

greater

influence

of official

relationships

diocesan

Charismatic Renewal were

priests,

but some people. Initially,

the role communication

movement,

Over the next

decade,

diocesan

own

newsletter,

Massyngberde

Ford’s book (1976). Ford,

who was a with the

community

there.

in

advocating parish

renewal and

was

taking place

in the milieux was

beginning

that was to have

was the

forming

participants

and

began

their

another

development

in the

long-term.

This

development

between the Charismatic Renewal and the Catholic

bishops. During

the

mid-1970s,

the

bishops began

to

appoint

“liaisons” to serve as

bishops’ representatives

for the

in their dioceses. The

majority

of the liaisons

were deacons or

nuns,

and a few were

lay

of liaison was

primarily

seen in terms of

between the

bishop

and the

rapidly spreading Charismatic movement. Some liaisons were in the

while some were

not,

the latter

invariably being priests.

centers for renewal

sprang up

in many places, organized

and

developed by

the diocesan liaisons. 78

In

1978,

the liaisons formed a national

association,

as well as two conferences a

year,

one for all the liaisons,

the other a theological

symposium organized by the

liaisons on a chosen

theme,

with the results

being

fed into the next

general conference. With the

organization

of the diocesan

liaisons,

the Charismatic Renewal

among

Catholics had a national framework and voice that was

very

different

from,

and contrasted

with,

the role and influence of the covenant communities. The liaisons were

part

of the church

structure,

and

high

on their

agenda

was the renewal of

parish

life.

demise of the Association

A serious blow to the influence of the covenant communities was the

of

Communities,

“Ralph Tichenor,

formed in 1975. Most of

76 Catholic Charismatic published 27 issues from its beginning (March-April 1976) until its demise (August-September 1980).

“Renewal in L.A.,” Catholic Charismatic 2 (April/May 1978): 37-39. notation of this 1978 issue was identified as 2/7 and

(The April/May mistakenly

78 should have been 3/1, the next issue

3/2.)

See “Diocesan Centers for

being

Renewal,” NSC Newsletter

8 (November-December

4.

1983):

18

209

the

major

communities

belonged

to this

Association,”

with the

greatest influence

being

wielded

by

the Word of God from Ann Arbor, Michigan,

and the

People

of Praise from South Bend, Indiana. In 1981, this Association was disbanded as a result of differences between

Ann Arbor and South Bend. Not

only

was the

possibility

of a coherent influence

thereby lost,

but the

credibility

of their

leadership

was weakened. While their means and instruments of communication

were divided between Ann Arbor and South Bend, neither

had the same impact

in separation as in the earlier united

years. 80

The Period from 1981 to the Present

The

structuring

of Catholic Charismatic Renewal

according

to dioceses,

each

having

its own

liaison,

involved a

degree

of official recognition

that had been

sought by many

Charismatic Catholics. However,

this formal

organizational

tie

may

have

appeared

to

represent a

greater penetration

of the Roman Catholic Church

by

the Renewal movement than was

actually

the case. The

years

that saw the loss of community

influence and the

growth

of the diocesan liaisons as a national framework were the same

years

that saw the

beginnings

of a decline in the numbers of active Catholic Charismatics.”‘

A

variety

of reasons for this decline can be identified. One was the difficulty

of

establishing

renewed

parishes, given

the

authority

of the pastors

and their

system

of appointment in which there is no mechanism to ensure the continuation of a Renewal vision

by

a priest’s successor. Another was the inherent limitation of

prayer groups.

Unless

prayer groups develop

into

something

more structured and less

casual, they cannot

adequately

meet the

spiritual

needs of

those-especially young couples-seeking

a vibrant

congregational

life for themselves and their families. The

ephemeral

character of most

prayer groups

is all the greater

in a highly mobile

society. Thus,

the 1980s saw a big rise in the number of Catholic “ex-Charismatics.”$2

With the loss of influence

by

the covenant

communities,

the National Service Committee

(NSC) sought

to become a more

representative body,

both

geographically

and in terms of the trends and

emphases 79 One exception was Mother of God Community from Potomac and Gaithersburg,

Maryland. “New Covenant

magazine stayed

at Ann Arbor under the Word of God

and the National Communications Office at South Bend, continued to be staffed 81

Community,

by the People of Praise. Attendance at the national conferences at Notre Dame

were 1982: 12,000; 1983: 9,154;

1984: nearly 8,000; 1985: 8,000; 1986: 8,000.

82 The extent and the influence of “ex-Charismatics” in the Catholic Church in the

United States is a subject awaiting detailed study. Impressions suggest that their

presence

in

parish

and diocesan life is

extensive,

and that

they

have

with them. Whether a

brought

something positive person

is

rightly

called an

“ex-Charismatic” should depend on their self-understanding of their spiritual walk;

some, who are not attending Charismatic

Christians.

groups,

still understand themselves , as

may

“Spirit-filled”

19

210

.

included.83 “The

period

of 1984-1987 could best be characterized as

a time of

healing.

The NSC

began

to build

bridges

with

liaisons,

ethnic groups,

renewal

centers,

itinerant

healing

and

preaching ministries,

and with areas of the

country long estranged

from the covenant

community network of

relationships.””

In the same

way,

New Covenant

magazine no

longer

articulated the

emphases

of the covenant communities, but included authors from various tendencies in the Renewal.

Though

the covenant communities were no

longer

at the

center, they still made an

important

contribution to the Charismatic Renewal. The FIRE teams from Ann

Arbor, Michigan,

and Steubenville,

Ohio,

held regular

rallies in

nurturing

renewal.” In

addition, Ralph

Martin’s television

program

“The Choices We

Face,”

the conferences held each summer at

Steubenville,86

and the

monthly magazine

The

Word Among Us from Mother of God

Community, Gaithersburg, Maryland functioned as an informal network which

provided

Charismatics with an opportunity

to

keep

in touch with

developments

in the movement. 87

With the

change

in role of the

NSC,

strenuous efforts were made both to ascertain the needs of the

prayer groups

and to

develop

some kind of national

strategy. First,

a “Back to Basics” formula was adopted,88

that reflected in itself an awareness that some focus had been lost and needed to be recovered.

Secondly, by 1986, evangelization was

emerging

as almost a

defining

task for the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.89 This

emphasis

was

initially brought

to the fore

by

the New Orleans conferences of 1986 and 1987 on

Evangelization organized by the North American Renewal Services Committee. It was also

the of the NSC took place in January 1984. For a description, see Walter restructuring

Matthews, “Through

the Basement Window: A

History of the National Service

Committee,” CharisCenter

USA 17 (March-April 1992): 3, 15.

84 matthew, “Through the Basement Window,” 15.

85 The FIRE

(Faith, Intercession, Repentance, Evangelization) team of Ralph Martin, Fr. Michael Scanlan, Fr. John Bertolucci, and Ann Shields was formed in 1983.

“The influence of the Franciscan University at Steubenville, Ohio, as a Renewal center for

teaching

has continued,

though

with less vigor since the

troubles of the

community

early

1990s. The difficulties linked with an

committee the local led to a less

investigation

close

by

a

appointed by bishop

association between the Steubenville Covenant Community and the activities on the university campus. On Steubenville, see Michael Scanlan,

Let the Fire Fall

(Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, Ir7 1986).

The Word Among Us is

and the

produced to be an aid to a daily prayer life based on the Scriptures

NSC Newsletter 7

using readings from the Catholic “See Lectionary.

(December 1982): 1; 8 (February 1983): 1-2, 5; 8 (March 1983): 1-2. The “basics” are the basics of Charismatic Renewal.

“The Mission Statement adopted by the NSC in 1986 has as its first commitment: “Serve God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by serving the Catholic Church in its primary

mission of evangelization through the

power of the

Newsletter 11

Holy Spirit” [NSC

(June 1986): 8].

20

211

highlighted through

the influence of Fr. Tom Forrest, and

subsequently sustained

by

the 1990s

being

made a “Decade of Evangelization.”9°

The efforts of the NSC to

develop

a fresh vision to fill the void resulting

from the relative

marginalization

of the covenant communities eventually crystallized

around the

concept

of bringing “the Renewal to the heart of the

[Catholic]

Church.” An NSC-sponsored consultation of leaders and

theologians produced

the booklet

Fanning

the

Flame, 91 which

is,

in

many ways,

a manifesto for the

pastoral application

of the key concepts

in the book

by

Kilian McDonnell and

George Montague 92 entitled Christian Initiation and

Baptism

in the

Holy Spirit.

The

picture

of Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a

complex

one to assess. There has been an undoubted loss of numbers and

dynamism from the

heyday

of the 1970s. There has been a

development

of structures,

but not a

corresponding blossoming

of new life. On the other

hand,

not all has been decline and loss.93 In

many ways,

the last period,

for which I could not find an

appropriate label,94 has involved the search for a vision to

replace

that

coming

from the communities in the first

period.

It would be too

optimistic

to describe this search as a success and too

pessimistic

to describe it as a failure. There does seem to be a widespread sense that

something

has been lost

beyond

numbers since the earlier

days.95

The overall

picture suggests

that the Catholic Charismatic Renewal can

only fully

recover its

dynamism

and vision when it comes to terms with the

original

work of the

Holy Spirit

in the covenant communities. The covenant communities were a distinctive feature of the movement among Catholics,

and were an

integral part

in the movement’s initial dynamism,

its ecumenical vision and its

prophetic

character. The process by

which the communities moved and were moved

away

from the

leadership

of the Renewal movement

represents

weakness on both

.

“Also

important for Catholics here has been the emphasis of Pope John Paul II on “the New

Evangelization.”

“Kilian McDonnell and

George

T.

Montague, eds.,

MN: The

Fanning

the Flame (Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1991). See Chris Aridas, “New Document Tool for

Moving Renewal to Heart of the Church,” CharisCenter

USA Newsletter 16 (May-June 1991): 1, 4-5.

‘Kilian McDonnell and George Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Collegeville,

MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991).

9′ The greatest vitality and growth has probably been among ethnic for example,

the the Koreans, the

minorities, been considerable Hispanics,

Filipinos

and the Haitians. There has also

impact from the “cell concept” from Pastor David Yonggi Cho of Seoul, Korea, particularly

mediated to Catholic circles through the work of Fr. Michael Eivers, of St. Boniface parish near Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

941 I thought of

calling

it the

“post-community” period. However, this would not be accurate, as the communities have continued to exist and sometimes to grow. Not all have been enveloped in the difficulties experienced at Ann Arbor, Michigan. See Rush, “Covenant Communities in the United States,” 233-245.

93 This sense was particularly evident at the Pittsburgh celebration for 25 years of Catholic Charismatic Renewal at Pentecost, 1992.

21

212

sides.’ This

pattern

is somewhat

particular

to the United

States,

and has not

generally

been

repeated

in other continents.

Some Final

Reflections

Are there

any patterns

common to the

development

of the Charismatic Renewal in all the mainline North American Churches? While accurate statistics are not available for each denomination or for each confessional

family,

the numerical

growth

of the 1970s has not generally

been maintained.

However,

the

patterns vary

here between a definite decline in the Catholic Renewal and a clear increase in the Anabaptist stream;

the

Episcopalians

seem to have

grown slowly,

while the

Presbyterians

have been

picking up

after a

falling away.

Most mainline churches have lost some Charismatics to Pentecostal and independent

Charismatic

churches,

but the losses were

probably greatest among

the

Presbyterians

and the Methodists. 97

All streams have

developed

renewal structures or service

agencies

to promote

renewal in the

Spirit.

Most of these have been

developing

their own

programs

for

renewal, teaching

and

leadership

formation. The Presbyterians

have done the most

here,

followed

apparently by

the Mennonites

(Anabaptists),

and

Episcopalians,

with the Lutherans and the Catholics

doing

less.98

They

also

vary

in terms of their

political impact

on their Churches. The

Presbyterian

is

heavily

involved in resisting

erosion of traditional standards of faith and

morals;

the Lutheran is

becoming

more involved in this defense of

values; among the

Episcopalian,

this role is

primarily played by

other

agencies.

The Catholic CharisCenter is hardly involved in apologetic

activity

at all.99

An

identity question

has faced all the different Church traditions. What is this renewal movement? How does it relate to other currents of renewal in the Church? With this

question,

the attitude to the term “Charismatic” comes to the forefront.

Only

the Catholic Charismatics

“This

comparative “sidelining” of the covenant communities was partly their own choice

to focus on of the of the

less

(either deeper penetration grace Spirit

or out of a

sanguine evaluation of the Catholic Renewal apart from the communities) and a

alternative

partly distancing

from the communities by the other leaders (either out of an

vision,

for

example,

for

parish renewal,

or from a resistance to community

”

“control”).

See the section above on Renewal among Presbyterians and Reformed, and the small field survey which will appear in the forthcoming second issue of PNEUMA on the Charismatic Renewal and will

give

data on Charismatic defectors to nondenominational churches.

“This decline among Catholics is also a result of the reduced role of the covenant communities, which had been responsible for an abundance of teaching materials in the first decade.

99 this lack of involvement is partly because, at the highest level of the Vatican and the Pope, there have been few concessions to and “liberal sentiment.” It is also because the defense of traditional

“modernity”

morality and faith has been undertaken by

others within the Renewal. See, for example, Ralph Martin, The Crisis of Truth (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1982).

22

213

in their

self-description.

Others

have retained the term “Charismatic”

who

began

with “Charismatic” in their title later

dropped

it in the

and collaboration in the

interests of

modesty Church.’°°

The Charismatic Renewal

with other

groups

Obviously,

some

within the mainline churches is

clearly concerned both to be

authentically part

of its own church tradition and

for its renewal and reform.

and

maybe

more

independent

Charismatics have doubts as

combination is

possible.

In this

view,

the Renewal

its

prophetic

and ultimately

leave or be thrown out of the mainline churches, or it will

dynamic

and become “domesticated” within those

to be an instrument Pentecostals

to whether this movement will either

follow

lose its

prophetic traditions.

Charismatic

Protestant

speak

out more

clearly.

Christians who

the efforts of the

Presbyterian

challenging

role

the

progress

of the

is

forcing

some Renewal bodies to

of those

the ecumenical

I do

It is then an

important

factor in

assessing

movement within the mainline churches to ask whether it is truly holding

these two

imperatives

in a creative

tension,

or whether it is

heading

for exit or domestication. The tendencies in mainline

churches toward doctrinal and moral

positions

at variance with historic biblical

orthodoxy

But the

question

here is whether the

speaking out is authentic

prophetic upholding

of God’s

Word,

or whether it is a defensive conservatism no different from the

rigidities

are

undoubtedly

orthodox in doctrine, but for whom the life and

power

of the

Holy Spirit

is not a distinguishing feature.

Here,

Charismatics in PRRMI with a

strong commitment to

repentance

and intercession

may

offer a more

prophetic model.

In this tension between tradition and

renewal,

of Charismatic Renewal is central.

By

“ecumenical”

to inter-Church

agencies

like Councils of

Churches, but to the

original inspiration

of the

Holy Spirit

for the realization of the Lord’s

prayer

“that all

may

be one.” It is

only

as the Renewal

within the different churches hold on to the

unity

of this whole move of God that

they

will be able to retain the

prophetic cutting edge of the

Spirit.

The moves to

“integrate”

the Renewal into “the Church” can result in the diminution of the movement’s ecumenical

dimension,

component not refer

primarily

groups

might

great

Anglo-Catholics-were parachurch leadership. They

‘°°The Episcopalian, Kevin Martin, has well grasped the dangers in this process: “It

be good strategy to say to non-Charismatics, ‘we are not a movement but rather the heritage of all Episcopalians.’ It is foolish to believe it ourselves. The

movements of our church-the

Reformers, the Evangelicals, and the

all aware of the need to organize, plan and build.

structures to

They built

bypass

church

bureaucracy. They developed

local

took control of or built congregations. ERM has resisted this kind of

giving

leadership, I believe into an intentional movement with wrongly. Today’s need is to make the Charismatic ‘experience’

national and local strategies for promoting Spirit-filled life both for individuals and for congregations” [Acts 29 (Feb. 1987): 2].

23

214

in which case what is being “integrated” of God in the Renewal.

becomes less than the true

gift

24