Talk:Charismatic movement/Archive 1

A glaring ommission

There is no discussion of the early church fathers with supporting quotations. I strongly believe there should be. Please see: http://www.victorious.org/sprgifts.htm. ken 17:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Merge?

Can this be merged with Charismatic? Mandel 18:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pages Merged

There was much more content under charismatic, which seemed to be better located here, so I have merged both the article and discussion and turned charismatic into a disambig.

The article could probably do with a clean-up and inclusion in some of the stuff below. User:DaveDave 25 Dec 2005

Related text

The text below was posted at Charismatics, and is pasted here for anyone to merge in. Charles Matthews 09:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

CHARISMATICS

by Daniel F. Rice

Charismatic movements of today have their roots in phenomenologically oriented forms of Christianity, such as Pentecostalism.

The term Charismatic is a loose-fitting generalized term used to describe a largly informal and highly adaptable existential spirituality within Christianity. It is both experience-based and Bible-based in its doctrine.

Some groups are more Fundamentalistic while fringe groups can verge on New Age practices such as visualzation and inner healing.

Charismatic expressions are not the exclusive attribution of any single denomination, nor is it uniquely Protestant. Tha Catholic Church has had its own Charismatic proponents - especially over the past forty years.

There have been a number of Charismatic movements, all of which differ and vary significantly. The most dramatic of these movements was the Pentecostal movement of the twentieth century. The irony of that movement is that it found root and prospered in the age of Modernism, science, and secular humanism. It found widedpread interest in the poorer segments of American society and among the Black population.

The term Charismatic is a generalized designation, often used to describe very different things to different groups. Each Charismatic group tends to use this word a little differently. Not all Charismatica are the same. There can even be radical differences between groups.

Christians who are at odds with Charismatics, often the Southern Baptists and other such Calvin-based denominations, use the word in a derisive manner and generally believe and teach that Charismatics are everything from shallow to dangerous -- even demon possessed. In recent years, due to the growing popularity of Charismatic movements in North America, Calvinist and Reform theologians have attempted to prevent the members of their own churches from going over to the Charismatic churches by emulating them in worship style and jargon. They have written many books about the gifts of the Spirit and "carismata" (spiritual gifts) in order to put a more clearly Evangelical spin on Charismatic issues -- coming closer to Charismatics in language in order to blunt its effects.

Nevertheless, within the various Charismatic movements there is still no sigle meaning to the word, nor do these groups teach a single unified doctrine about Charismatic issues. Each group understands and describe these phenomena somewhat differently. There is no final agreement on these issues, and in the end, most Christians believe them to be important, but secondary issues to the core beliefs such as are stated in the Apostle's or Nicene Creeds. Those creeds are the true core of both Charismatic and non-Charismatic Christians.

In short, the term Charismatic is use to describe those Christians who believe that manifestations of Spirit seen in the first century Church, such as gossalalia, healing and miracles are available to contemporary Christian, and ought to be experienced and practiced today.

The word Charismatic is derived from the Greek word CHARIS (Xaris), meaning a grace, or a gift. Those who are designated as Charismatics are those who have received phenomenological giftings of the Spirit of God, such as speaking with tongues, prophecy, gifts of healing, supernatural manifestations of understanding, insight, wisdom and knowledge. This is not to be confused with paranormal experiences, psychic powers, or what is commonly considered the occult.

Charismatics are generally Evangelical in doctrine with an emphasis on the historical experiences recorded predominantly in the book of The Acts of the Apostles (ACTS), Romans, and First and Second Corinthians.

Charismatics believe in the gifts of the Spirit, and that these are distinctly different from the natural talents and natural motivations resident in the human personality. Non-Charismatic teachers often interpret the gift of the Spirit as "motivational gifts" which can be understood as spiritually enhanced natural giftedness or tendencies of one's own personality enhanced by the Spirit. Sometimes Charismatics will adopt these teachings too, but they do not explain phenonmena like glossilalia. That gift has been the cause of controversy among Christians of all ages, not just in modern times.

As recently as the 1960s and 1970s there was a renewed interest in the supernatural gifts of the Spirit in mainstream churches such as the Episcopal, Lutheran and Catholic churches. The Catholic Carismatic Renewal was focused in individuals like Kevin Ranahan and his group of followers at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. Ranahan's counterpart in the Episcopal Church was Father Dennis Bennett of Ballard, Washington. On an international level there was David Duplessi and a host of others during that time, including Lutheran and even Southern Baptist ministers. The later did not last long with their denominations, either volunteering to leave, or being asked to do so. But in the Episcopal and Catholic churches priest and ministers were permitted to continue on in their parishes, provided they did not allow these concerns to create major divisions within their congregations.

Since then the term Charismatic has been used to describe vastly different kinds of Christian groups from major denominations like the Assemblies of God, to faith-healers like Kathryn Colman and Benny Hinn, to Prosperity preachers like Kenneth Copland, to Vineyard churches established by John Wimber.

The thing these churches, movements and groups have in common is that they all believe and promote the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit in their meetings. This is not really that different than early American church movements like the Shakers, Quakers, Finney's followers, revivalist, followers of Billy Sunday, Oral Roberts, R. W. Shamback; Methodists (the origianl "holy-rollers"), and Holiness churches of earlier American history.

There is more to write about here, but it is late.

I integrated his comments, although I changed them substantially. I'll leave them here as is in case anyone wants a baseline to compare with. Glen Davis 02:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Suggestion: The "fundamentalist" link under "Theological Distinctives" should go to the "Fundamentalist Christianity" article rather than the general "Fundamentalist" one, or is there a good reason to keep it as is? [Unsigned comment by User:70.80.50.187 04:03, 13 December 2004]

Catholic Charismatics

From my observations, besides pentecostals, catholic charismatics, majority philipino, are the largest segment within this umbrella. Often they are called "THE charismatics" from within the catholic church. Although they were obviously heavily influenced by pentecostalism, they may not admit it, and contain many elements such as a promininence in devotion to Mary which would cause friction with other "charismatic" protestants. Is this true? If so then it seems the article should be changed to reflect all this. [Unsigned comment by User:67.180.61.179 06:20, 7 January 2005]

My own observations would back this up as well but I think we need hard citations.TheKillerPawletzki (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more complete coverage than found at Charismatic Movement

Should they be merged? Paul foord 13:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A glaring ommission

There is no discussion of the early church fathers with supporting quotations. I strongly believe there should be. Please see: http://www.victorious.org/sprgifts.htm ken 17:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

I added:

Dr. Dale A. Robbins writes in regards to charasmatic beliefs that Church history argues against the idea that charismatic gifts went away shortly after the apostolic age. Dr. Robbins quotes the early church father Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) as writing the following,"...we hear many of the brethren in the church who have prophetic gifts, and who speak in tongues through the spirit, and who also bring to light the secret things of men for their benefit [word of knowledge]...". Dr. Robbins also cites Irenaues writing the following, "When God saw it necessary, and the church prayed and fasted much, they did miraculous things, even of bringing back the spirit to a dead man." According to Dr. Robbins Tertullian (ca. 155–230) reported similar incidents as did Origen (ca. 182 - 251), Eusebius (ca. 275 – 339), Firmilian (ca. 232-269), and Chrysostom (ca. 347 - 407).[1]

ken 01:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Recent edit

Recent edit:

- Made a few changes to the criticisms section.

- Removed the following section because it is unnecessary and irrelevent. Why on earth does anyone care what charismatic churches there are in India? It is also completely unrelated to the rest of the article.

Charismatic Churches in India

--EthanSudman 04:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charismatic Churches in India I have made of these entries. Sarcelles 09:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally don't care, and did not put it there -- I would assume that information about charismatic communities in the world's second largest country, and where Christianity is growing apace is relevant, especially to people from there, who can access the web and read English. Ethnocentrisms is a strange sentiment on this topic. It should be restored. -- Anon. [ User:138.88.94.214 23:55, 29 October 2005]

Criticism

The criticism section here is currently quite meagre. We used to have a subarticle which has recently been deleted. However, in that article, and in previous versions of the history, is a lot of material that could profitably be merged here in some form. See Talk:Charismatic movement/Criticism salvage and this version. — Matt Crypto 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no value in those criticisms, as most of the citatations are non-notable, and the criticisms thenselves seem to bear no relation to the Charismatic Movement at all. —gorgan_almighty 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the criticisms are meager. The article itself, appears to be neutral, but for a topic that has so many critics from several sides (no criticism even touches upon what an atheist would likely point out) several additions could be made (and cited). --Gregoryg72 11:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the inclusion of the following: "Many children actively involved in this religious sect are quick to call themselves "god warriors," and believe they are being callled upon to fight publicly on issues such as teaching evolution in schools, the fallacy of global warming, and abortion. These issues are highlighted in the documentary Jesus Camp." rather out of place? As a charismatic I myself could easily come up with more valid, more relevant and less narrow criticisms than this rather limited and one-off mention. We certainly don't encourage our children to call themselves "god warriors"!! This implies that all adherents of a very large global movement follow this principle. Not true. Can we take it out? How!? --Alexthurleyratcliff 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montanism

I removed the criticism related to Montanism, as it was uncited and POV. On a side note, I see no parallels between Montanism and the Charismatic movement at all. —gorgan_almighty 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't searched the history of your edits to be able to acertain the validity of the edits you made but some have made substantial parallels between the Montanisits and Pentecostals. Some Oneness Pentecostals claim the later Montanists, which were Modalists, as being in their linage. Chuwils (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Focus Too Narrow?

It seems to me the focus of this article is too narrow (starting the history of the movement in the 19050's). My original impression of the charismatic movement was that it was basically a movement stressing the gifts of the spirit as described in the Bible. The members of such a movement would profess to speak in tongues, heal, prophecy, and see visions.

What about the movements prior to 1950 that had these attributes? Shouldn't they be called charismatic movements as well? Amulekii 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the charismatic movement is a historical movement that began in the 1950s. Pre-Pentecostal manifestations of the charismatic gifts might be termed "charismatic movements" in a generic sense, but not the charismatic movement.

It is a point of confusion that I think would perhaps best be solved by a separate article entitled something like Charismatic Christianity to encompass all forms of Christianity that have embraced charismatic experiences, including pre-Pentecostal and pre-charismatric traditions and movements. David L Rattigan 20:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intro problems

The way the intro is currently written, it looks as if two separate intro sections where added together one ater the other. You the first paragraph that explains how the movement started but no what it is then you have a separate intro describing what "charismatic" means in religious term. The intro should be rewritten so it describes the movement is, incorporating the definition of what the term charismatic means in Christianity. The bolding of "charismatic" should be removed so only "Charismatic movement" in the first sentence of the intro is bolded, as per Wikipedia policy. --Cab88 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Testimony

My Testimony of Working with Charismatic Catholics and other thoughts on the subject of tongues/

Bill Scudder Dayton, Ohio, USA Azusa755@sbcglobal.net

I would like to say first of all that I am not a Cecessionist. I do not believe the Gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the New Testament Apostles. They are available to the Church of God today.

For those who do not believe the above, you are still my brother or sister in the Lord if you believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. What I am about to tell you is not 'politically correct' and I will be labeled as 'intolerant' or maybe even a 'basher' by some people. I love Catholics, as I do anyone else, but it is the doctrine's of Rome that are deceiving the Catholics.

President of the FGBMF-Peoria, Illinois

It started when I was voted in as President of a local chapter of the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship International. We had a dinner meeting once a month and a breakfast meeting once a month. At the dinner meeting we would usually invite a Christian businessman to give his testimony. I also held a Bible study and prayer meeting in my home. Catholics began to come to my home prayer and Bible study meeting, including a priest. The first thing this priest did was kneel in front of me, as if I could impart something to him. Later I knew that he wanted me to pray that he would receive tongues. Later that night I sat down with him and the scriptures and tried to explain to him the plan of salvation. My words and scriptures seemed to address deaf ears. His "religion" seemed to have a shield around him so the "Gospel" could not be heard.

I became a friend with this Priest and we began to attend other meetings together. More Catholics started coming to all of our meetings and I invited a Catholic professor from Ball State University to come and speak to our fellowship.

It wasn't long until many of these Catholics were seeking and receiving tongues. At the time I just took it for granted that they were already saved and were receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Priests, nuns and others were beginning to receive tongues. I was guilty of believing that tongues was an indication that we shared the same Holy Spirit experience, and the same Jesus. This was due to my ignorance of the 'Gospel according to Rome,' for which I have no excuse.

I was invited to teach a course one night a week for six weeks in a Roman Catholic Parish, St. Monica In East Peoria, Illinois. Priests, nuns and others were present. I taught on the gift of Salvation. At the time I was not prepared for what I was confronting and because all present at the meetings deemed themselves already saved because of the Roman Catholic religion. I don't believe I addressed the subject in the right way. There was a spirit of bondage given to them by Rome and they had a dependence on their infant baptism and other doctrines of Rome which nullify the Gospel.

I was invited to attend Catholic Charismatic prayer meetings at Bradley University as the only non-Catholic present.

One of the Catholic prayer groups were speaking in tongues and receiving unbiblical interpretations of a sinful nature, supposedly coming direct from Mary, 'the mother of Jesus'. Which was further proof that the unsaved were receiving 'tongues' from a spirit other than God. Charismatic Catholics often become more devoted to Mary after receiving a tongue that was not from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit only glorifies Christ.

MARY BECOMES THE FOCUS

Many Catholic Charismatics have migrated to Mary, whom they see as the Holy Spirit's 'more interesting spouse.' The Catholic Charismatic fellowship at Dayton University reported to the news media that since their 'experience' they have been giving more devotion to Mary. In the statement nothing was said about Christ.

That does not mean that we do not honor Mary at all for her physical part in the birth of Christ but we cannot venerate her more than the scriptures allow or make her in any way Spiritually responsible for our salvation.

contrary to popular expectations, the sign of tongues that Catholics recieved brought back to Catholicism those who had fallen away, reviving their idolatrous practices. Some typical comments from Catholic charismatics illustrate this:

--"Our devotion to Mary was filled with sanctification."

--"The sacramental life of the church has become richer in meaning."

--"I came to a better understanding of the eucharist as a sacrifice, and I came back to frequent confession."

--"At that time I discovered a profound devotion to Mary."

Is the spirit that is active in the Roman Church, the Holy Spirit? In speaking of Him, Jesus said, "He will guide you into all truth". This is the particular characteristic of the Holy Spirit. It is characteristic of an evil spirit to lead one into only part of the truth.

Now, one of the most marked effects of the Catholic charismatic movement is to lead its followers into part-truth, part-error as, for example: spontaneous prayer AND the rosary; the adoration of Christ AND the Holy Sacrament; reading the Bible AND the veneration of Mary.

There are several testimonies from people who had been baptised by the "Holy Spirit", one while reciting his rosary, another while singing a hymn at mass, and yet another while on her knees praying to the Holy Virgin. These testimonies are quite sufficient to prove that the spirit who baptised these people is in contradiction with the Scriptures and cannot, in any way, be the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists, not of doubting His work, but of attributing such error and such dreadful idolatry to His divine person. To quote Charles Foster, "When the experience of the Holy Spirit is put before doctrine and salvation, seduction is certain..."

Universalism

A Catholic Priest who was a sought after speaker in the Catholic Charismatic movement and spoke at many FGBMFI chapters, was speaking one night to a large group during one of our FGBMFI conventions. After his talk he gave an altar call to come and be 'born again.' I had an uneasy feeling, and after the service was over, I approached to ask him some questions. I asked him if Jesus was the only way to be saved, and he said very plainly, 'NO.' I asked, 'Do you have to be born again and believe in Jesus Christ to be saved and he said 'NO.' What did he mean by 'born again'?

It was obvious he meant that if you received tongues or any kind of subjective feeling, that this was proof of being born again, having nothing to do with being born from above by the Spirit of God or believing in Christ alone for salvation.

At that point I rebuked him for what he said and he got very angry and began to shake. I reported him to FGBMFI but nothing came of it. There are several kinds of Roman Catholics. The Catholic church is not as united as they would like everyone to believe. There is the liberal that believes God is the Father of all and no-one is lost and the one that believes that if you do good works and are baptised you will be saved and the traditional pre-Vatican 2 Catholic that believes that only through the Roman Catholic church can you be saved. Then there are all those in between.

((The Roman Catholic religion in its quest for ecumenism is now playing both sides as is seen in Vatican II. ""....

An article published by the Dallas Morning News on Saturday March 20th, 1999 of an ecumenical meeting held in Dallas, Thanksgiving World Assembly, shows the other side.

What is important about this meeting is that it was attended by a Nigerian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic religion named Francis Arinze.

Many people think that Arinze, the Pope’s Deputy for Outreach, is heir apparent to John Paul II. But even if he is not, his comments are chilling and revealing.

An illustration of Roman Catholic ecumenism, which ices out the Gospel and makes mockery of the ministry of Jesus Christ, is found in Arinze’s answer to the question, "Can you still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?"His answer, not surprising, but chilling and ominous, is: "Expressly, yes!"

He says"".....Gods grant of salvation includes not only Christians but Jews,Muslims, Hindus and people of good will." ))

WHAT DOES THE POPE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?

Note the following quote (Dallas Morning News, 12-09-00):

By Peggy Polk and Robert Nowell

VATICAN CITY, Dec. 6 (RNS)--Tempering a controversial Vatican declaration on salvation, Pope John Paul II said Wednesday that all who live a just life will be saved even if they do not believe in Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.

The Pope blatantly contradicts the Bible

© 2000 Discerning the Times Digest and NewsBytes On March 26, 2000. The popular Catholic Pope John Paul II blatantly contradicted the Bible on December 7 when he proclaimed "Heaven is open to all as long as they are good," even for "those who ignore Christ and his Church." The Bible clearly teaches only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation will be saved. The December 8, Electronic Telegraph reported the Pope as saying that "Heaven is open to all as long as they are good."

POPE'S WORDS BEFORE THE "ANGELUS", VATICAN CITY, OCT. 1, 2000 (ZENIT.org) 3. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. “The Spirit’s presence and activity”, as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions” (n. 28).Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue

In spite of the mistakes of being too ecumenical with those that do not beleive the Gospel, the FGBMFI has been and is being used of God, and many have been saved through it's efforts, but I and others, have been guilty of an ecumenical spirit and unity at any cost. We have given a false hope of security to those who needed the truth of salvation.

Catholics no longer a mission field?

Some Evangelicals are now saying that Roman Catholics are no longer considered to be a mission field since they are 'Christians', as evidenced in the document ECT,(Evangelicals and Catholics together).

What a sad commentary to our brothers and sisters in Latin countries, and others who have laid down their lives for the Gospel, and have seen millions of Roman Catholics believe the Gospel. The future of evangelism hangs in the balance.

In my eight years of working with Charismatic Catholics, I have come to the following conclusions.

I had been naive and had neglected to really look into the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church to see what they really believed about the doctrine of Salvation by Grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. I took it for granted that they believed the Gospel of the Bible. I had not prepared and made serious mistakes. After study I found that historically, and conversely, the Roman Catholic Church teaches as dogma, that justification is conferred through her sacraments, and that it consists of inner righteousness whereby a man, it is stated, becomes 'just within himself.' The Church of Rome condemns the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. (Council of Trent)

Any non-Catholic Church that held the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church would be considered a 'Cult' by many of the same people who are seeking unity with the Catholics.

I have discovered that most Protestants do not know what the Gospel is 'according to Rome'! And are easy prey for Roman Catholic apologists because they do not know how to defend sola scriptura or because of their extreme arminism. Do we once again need a reformation in the 'Protestant'Evangelical Churches?

It was the standard practice of the FGBMFI to tell Roman Catholics to stay in the Catholic Church so that they could witness to others and I find this to be true also in many protestant/Pentecostal churchs. I believe this was a very dangerous attitude in that I found those who stayed eventually were lost to the Roman Church once again for various reasons or because they had not been truly born again. I believe most of the ones who had trusted in Christ alone for salvation came out of the Roman Catholic Church.

You cannot stay in a Church, without consequences, that denies we are saved by what Christ did outside of us, and not what we can do to become worthy inside.

"Solo Christo"

"Solo Christo" was one of the cries of the Protestant Reformation. Translated from the Latin, it means "Christ Alone."

In these times, the growing tendency to emphasize feelings and experiences at the expense of sound doctrine is presenting the world with a 'feel-good' religious community, the boundaries of which grow more ephemeral with every new ecumenical pronouncement. This is especially true among Roman Catholics and some Evangelical and some Charismatic Christians. I want to emphasize that not all Evangelicals and Pentecostals are being deceived but some are.

And the lines become more blurred, so that now in some ecumenical meetings, New Agers, Universalists, Roman Catholic as well as "some" true born again Christians such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals are coming together to celebrate their oneness in a quote, 'Common Experience.' This is the great deception.

Although speaking in tongues can be valid experience from God it is not always of the Holy Spirit. It can be counterfeited. Satan has counterfeits of every Gift of God. You can receive an experience without being saved, and when this happens it leads to many problems. The major problem is a false sense of security that you are saved, and leads you further away from the true Gospel and many times into the occult. It has been documented that most spiritulists are former Catholics.

If we accept everybody as brothers and sisters because they speak in tongues, then we are heading down a slippery slope, Catholic or other wise. (Spiritual experience ALONE can never be the basis for unity. Unity must be based on sound DOCTRINE.

Some may have a legitimate question about laying hands on unbelivers. some bitterly regret having prayed for and laid hands on these Catholics who have, according to some Pentecostal testimony, received an alien spirit as a result. Does this mean that "we" transmited an evil spirit from us to them? NO-in our ignorance God would not alow us to transmit the Holy Spirit or an unclean spirit to a unregenerated person but we have been guilty of helping that person open up to an unclean spirit.

"If anyone comes with another doctrine, do not receive him....for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." Holy Bible 2 John 10-11 KJV.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Galatians 5:1. KJV

Bill Scudder Dayton, Ohio, USA Azusa755@sbcglobal.net

Permission is given by the author to copy this testimony to be used in any way provided it is reproduced in its entirety including my e-mail address without change and that the following disclaimer be included. This testimony may be pasted on any other site but does not mean I agree with all other documents or links listed there.

Minor Edit

Just for notation, I simply alphabetized the list of Charismatic associations and added another big one. --70.157.78.253 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only acceptable form of criticism on Wikipedia

I have yet again had to remove two paragraphs of uncited POV criticisms. I acknowledge the fact that some of these criticisms could be acceptable on wikipedia, but not in their generalised form. In my opinion...

Criticisms must report on or quote the words of a notable person. They cannot be generalised criticisms, such as "Some people feel that...", or "It is generally thought that...".

This, in my opinion, is the only way that criticisms can be cited and NPOV. Thoughts? —gorgan_almighty 10:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism is just as inappropriate in a Wikipedia article as promotion. Neither has a place here. A Wikipedia article should describe its topic and should mention and discuss promotion and criticism that takes place elsewhere - ie not in Wikipedia. The article should explain what the Charismatic movement is and how it is viewed by both its promoters and critics, together with its place in Chritianity, its history, notable people, and everything else that a reader might wish or need to know. If the Charismatic movement has been criticised then that should be mentioned, but the article is not the place for new criticism. New criticism is simply one form of original research, and Wikipedia policy expressly opposes it.

That is my opinion, just a long-winded way of agreeing with gorgan almighty. Chris Jefferies 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Melissa Scott (pastor)

Interested editors may wish to vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Badagnani 06:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative viewpoints

I removed the "Alternative viewpoints" sub-section under External links, as all of the links appeared to be non-notable linkspam. If anyone disagrees and can provide evidence that any of these links are notable, please discuss it here. —gorgan_almighty 10:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faking the gifts of the Spirit

Traditional pentecostals would consider the charismatics neo-pentecostals if in fact they are genuine pentecostals at all. Traditional Pentecostals point to instances of charismatics teaching their congregates how to speak in tongues ex. "see my bow tie come tie my bow tie" Traditional pentecostals although they do believe in the gift of healing and that God in this day is able and willing to heal they are not as flamboyant with regard to healing and don't attempt to use healings as a sign of their apostleship or spirituality. Traditional pentecostals don't practice being "slain in the spirit" which they consider to be more of a carnival side show stunt to bamboozle the audience. Furthermore, there is a remarkeable differnce in what charismatics call "dancing in the spirit" which appears more like a practiced or coreographed old jewish folk dance (Fiddler on the roof) in contrast to the remarkeable spontanaity of traditional pentecostals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 22:54, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The fruit of the Spirit..?

Bishop Thomas W. Weeks III a word of faith charismatic pastor-evangelist was charged with beating and stomping his wife Juanita bynum who also is a word of faith minister. Here is the a.p.i. story on yahoo; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re/televangelist_assault;_ylt=AgYOR6x4DmBO6DwIWSaKShJH2ocA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste similarity between "Early Charismatic History" section of Charismatic movement and "Miscellany" section of Anabaptist

I noticed in a passing "read" that someone has duplicated major portions of these two sections, apparently with the purpose of showing that anabaptists were predecesors of the charismatic movement. The material seems somewhat forced and out of context in both locations. Perhaps someone with an interest in maintaining these articles can edit these sections to make them more focused on the major points of the articles. Steve Baskauf 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Charismatic History

Am I nitpicking or do the first three paragraphs seem like a novel, not an encyclopedia article? It also seems to be a Bible quote? The rest of the section seems good, but I think it would have been better to just mention, Jesus told the believers to wait in Jerusalem until He sent the Holy Sprit, and Pentecost was the beginning of the Sprit's permanence among believers. Or would this whole section bet better in an Article on the works of the Spirit through out the ages? I am relative a newbie, so I didn't want to just change it without discussing the change. --Wer2chosen 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Southern Baptist Organization?

There's no such thing as the Southern Baptist Organization. You probably meant the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, the SBC did not forbid the use of tongues. The International Mission Board of the SBC merely created a guideline for missionary candidates, essentially stating that you cannot be a missionary if you practice a private prayer language or speak in an unintelligible tongue. There's a big difference. I'm going to remove the sentence about the Southern Baptist Organization since there is no reference backing it up, and clarify the other statement about the IMB. WesBarnett (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic rituals as cure for depression

If judged encyclopeadic, should this topic be a new section or a new article? --Firefly322 (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Importance Rating

The previous rating of low importance is not correct. The charismatic movement is a global movement that is reshaping and revitalizing global christianity. For this reason, I rated it high. This may be a little much, but in my opinion, it is at least mid. User:Ltwin 18:43, 28 May 2008

Most pages about groups are rated as "mid." I have rated this as mid.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's so pervasive. TKirby (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do most Pentecostals think speaking in tongues is necessary?

I have known a number of Pentecostals and most have not considered speaking in tongues necessary -- most that I have known. To imply that most, or even many, Pentecostals "think speaking in tongues is necessary" for either baptism in the Spirit or conversion needed tocite a source.

Without discounting the history of the terms, it seems to me that

if a person believes in gifts (such as speaking in tongues) for today, then he/she is "Charismatic" (and perhaps also Pentecostal)--
and if parts of denomonation, but not the whole, believe in gifts for today those parts are "Charismatic"--
but if denomonation as a whole, and not just parts of it, believe in gifts for today, that denomonation is a "Pentecostal" denomonation -- (while many groups in church history have avoided terms that in normal use do fit them)-- even if they do not think speaking in tongues is necessary for for either baptism in the Spirit or conversion.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look at the term neocharismatic which has some currency in making the distinction between the classical Pentecostal, the charismatic and those situations where a whole movement believes in spiritual gifts but wishes to be distanced from Pentecostalism per se. This is a helpful term for situating a movement historically, sociologically and theologically. What do you think? I'm still looking for references on the speaking in tongues issue... Hyper3 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (and memory) is:

1. Pentecostalism started around the beginning of the 20th century. Its defining feature is a belief in the baptism of the Holy Spirit "with signs following", or more specifically the gift of tongues as a sign that was expected and required.

2. The Charismatic Movement started in the 1960s outside the historic Pentecostal denominations. Typically adherents believed in a specific experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit, but not neccessarily with the gift of tongues as a sign that was required. For many, the charismatic movement took place within the historic churches, in a move known as Charismatic Renewal. Others at the same time left and formed new churches or groupings, such as the British New Church Movement, who although not part of Charismatic Renewal were part of the Charismatic Movement.

3. Although Charismatic Renewal proved acceptable within mainline denominations in the UK, it was always more suspect in the USA. When John Wimber and others taught of the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit without the classic terminology and without a specific experience of baptism of the Holy Spirit, this proved more acceptable, and the Vineyard movement grew and influenced others in a Third Wave from the 1980s, which became known as neo-charismatic.

This would appear to be consistent with The Encyclopedia of Christianity By Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley, David B. Barrett p. 139

John Campbell (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling and confusing Intro

I think we can do better than this:

The term charismatic movement describes the adoption, from the early twentieth century onwards, of certain beliefs typical of those held by Pentecostal Christians — specifically what are known as the biblical charisms or spiritual gifts: e.g. glossolalia (speaking in tongues), prophesying, supernatural healing — by those within mainstream Protestant and Roman Catholic churches.

The sentence (yeah, I think it is one sentence) doesn't really tell the reader what the charismatic movement is. I think the average user would be confused by this. Also, the United Pentecostal Church was not founded until 1914, well after the 1906 Azusa Street revival.

It does not seem accurate to me to describe the Charismatic Movement as an adoption by mainline denominations of Pentecostal beliefs since they were adopting it long before there were "Pentecostals". TKirby (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKirby (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Charismatic Movement is a historical movement that started around 1960 - the fact that others did similar things in history (like Fox and the Quakers) is only marginally relevant to this article. Hyper3 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the the Azus Street Revival was not part of the Charismatic Movement??!! 208.127.152.52 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You are confusing Charismatic and Pentecostal. See the next section which deals with this. Hyper3 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported by the text as you say. Rather, both Pentecostalism AND the Charismatic movement have their roots in Azusa Street. TKirby (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Charismatic Movement has its roots in the Pentecostal movement, but they are different movements, with different characteristics, different historical settings and different theology. I have found an appropriate quote which locates the first use of the term charismatic in this way to 1962. Hyper3 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

This quote is characteristic of the POV nature of the article in general:

"The 2006 documentary film Jesus Camp provided a window into one facet of the charismatic movement, though this heightened focus on 'training' children for spiritual warfare, while not uncommon, is probably not representative of the larger Charismatic movement."

If something is "not uncommon," that means it is common. Common means a wide degree of representation of a particular characteristic within another phenomenon; where does this stuff come from? Dg7891 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of "Charismatic Movement"

Shouldn't this page be called "Charismatic Movement?" I suggest this because the capitalisation makes it clear that this is a proper name, and therefore the movement is not to be confused with the use of the word "charismatic" which might be used to describe the use of spiritual gifts at any point in history and by anyone. "Catholic Charismatic Renewal is capitalised for example.

If so, then perhaps "charismatic" should have its own page. Looking through the discussion, I believe it did in the past. Bringing these two ideas together in one page has been confusing. Hyper3 (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found that in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church uses capitals for "Charismatic Movement."Hyper3 (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

Move To Charismatic Movement:

It is a historical movement, not solely a theological position, but the two are being confused.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church recognises this
A parallel case would be Arts and Crafts Movement - because it is a historical movement that is capitalised to show it is a proper name
Much confusion surrounding this entry could be cleared up with this change

Charismatic Movement needs to be distinguished from Pentecostalism (because the movement itself desires it so, and presents a good case)
Charismatic Movement needs to be distinguished from Neocharismatic because a clear difference exists between the two as the former describes those who believe in spiritual gifts and remained within Historic Denominations, and the latter describes those who believe in spiritual gifts and formed their own, new congregations

Capitalisation will aid in both these endeavours

Hyper3 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style (capital letters) says, "Unofficial movements ... within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name." I see no reason for this topic to be an exception so propose that "Charismatic Movement" be changed to "charismatic movement". Nurg (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: now lower case in most instances within the article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign

This page needs a redesign around core issues. Because the Charismatic Movement is about the historic churches accepting aspects of Pentecostalism, references solely pertaining to Pentecostal Christianity or general charismatic issues need removing. The article should revolve around specific denominational issues. I think we should list the various denominations affected, and put the comments in the right place, removing the timeline references. Anyone else agree? Hyper3 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ltwin (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lutherans

It is hard for me to believe that, as this article claims, 'Most Lutheran congregations in the developing world would be considered "Charismatic" in their piety.' As a traditional Lutheran, my first reaction is that this appears to be the biased opinion of a Charismatic "Lutheran." A credible source needs to be cited, or the statement should be removed. Kaleb70 (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. It's now over a year since a 'dubious' tag was reasonably applied. I'm deleting it as you suggest. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]