Do Charismatic churches follow doctrines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Newsy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Newsy

Guest
Just a question…

I understand that many Charismatic churches have a set of founding doctrines, but most seem very “basic”, i.e. Trinitarian God, Jesus died and rose again, etc. I haven’t run into many Charismatics that went beyond “experience”. Seems that the ones I have encountered cared less about beliefs and doctrines and cared more about “feelings and experiencing God”. Is this an accurate view of Charismatic churches?

I have known an AoG member that converted to the Catholic Church. He said the show got to be the point, as in too much entertainment, not enough teaching. I know that his views are personal and don’t speak for others.
 
Just a question…

I understand that many Charismatic churches have a set of founding doctrines, but most seem very “basic”, i.e. Trinitarian God, Jesus died and rose again, etc. I haven’t run into many Charismatics that went beyond “experience”. Seems that the ones I have encountered cared less about beliefs and doctrines and cared more about “feelings and experiencing God”. Is this an accurate view of Charismatic churches?

I have known an AoG member that converted to the Catholic Church. He said the show got to be the point, as in too much entertainment, not enough teaching. I know that his views are personal and don’t speak for others.
I think it depends. The Catholic parish that I grew up in was Charismatic. They certainly followed church doctrines (the church we had moved from was sort of folksy/charismatic and they certainly did not follow the church on anything). Also the church I grew up in though charismatic was very orthodox even in some optional practices and less so in others. Like they only had male altar servers, but only had praise and worship bands. They were always open from further instruction from the diocese and from Rome as to correct liturgical practice. When the parish got a new pastor so was of a more quiet personality and spirituality, the parish was open to this as well. (He is a great priest, he moved the tabernacle to the sanctuary and made other wonderful changes (sort of waiting for him to get rid of the liturgical dancers, but I understand the difficultly and it being a hold over from a very “liberal” lay liturgist.

I personally think that it ‘can’ help teach about the holy spirit working in our lives in a way that is often missing from Catholic spirituality. There is a focus on the the gifts of the Holy spirit. (I taught CCD/RE at a parish close to my university and the kids there did not know the first thing about the Holy Spirit as the third person of the trinity as even the most ill informed had some ideas about God the Father and Jesus the Son.

Obviously the emotionalism without the teaching behind it does not have these same effects, and thus is just an impoverished spirituality without any correct understanding. This I have seen in many parishes that try to do the worship band/folk group, wacky liturgical practices.
 
LOL. Charismatics are big on experience, but that experience is understood within a doctrinal framework. Exactly what that doctrine is depends on what tradition a person is in. There are Pentecostals, Neo-Pentecostals, and then there are Catholic Charismatics, Anglican Charismatics, Baptist Charismatics, etc.

I wont/cant speak for every single charismatic person or group. However, it is true that some charismatics do fall into the dangerous area of valuing experience without proper theological formation. That is dangerous. But not all charismatics are like that.

Pentecostals are very concerned about doctrine. That is why there are so many groups out there. These splits didn’t happen over the color of the carpet.
 
There is a church in the Diocese of Ann Arbor called Christ the King that is very well known for its charismatic spirituality. This same church has confession before every Mass, only male altar servers, multiple clerics at Mass, as well as encouraging receiving Communion on the tongue (and kneeling). All homilies are very orthodox and faithful to the Magisterium.

From my own experience, I see that there is no definite correlation between spirituality and orthodoxy in doctrine.
 
TBN is a channel. It is not all charismatic Christians.
Right. TBN is run by Word of Faith people. That’s a very specific branch of Pentecostalism, one much influenced by the New Thought movement that inspired so many self-help gurus (Dale Carnegie and Napoleon Hill, etc.). They do have doctrines but many of those doctrines would not sit well with most orthodox Christians from any church, Pentecostal, Catholic or whatever.
 
Btw, as has been touched on already, Charismatic is not a specific church or denomination. It just means Christians who believe the charisms are still available today. The theological term for that is “continuationism”, and its opposite is “cessationism”. They might be Baptist, Catholic or most anything else, and their doctrines, other than on that specific matter, would be those of their church, whichever church that is.
 
Right. TBN is run by Word of Faith people. That’s a very specific branch of Pentecostalism, one much influenced by the New Thought movement that inspired so many self-help gurus (Dale Carnegie and Napoleon Hill, etc.). They do have doctrines but many of those doctrines would not sit well with most orthodox Christians from any church, Pentecostal, Catholic or whatever.
Exactly. Pentecostalism started at the beginning of the 20th century. Prosperity gospel didn’t take off until the 40s and 50s. You can’t judge all of Pentecostal/Charismatic spirituality by an aberration that has only existed for around 50 years or so.

The fact is, there is no such thing as one type of Pentecostalism. There are, however, Pentecostalims. Likewise, there is no single type of charismatic Christian. There are a variety of types of charismatic Christians. Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity is not a denomination but a worldview which has spread to ALL Christian traditions, including the Catholic Church (or one could say that charismatic spirituality is just emphasizing in a unique way a spirituality that was always present in Catholicism).

The reason why many people look at charismatics and see only a focus on experience is that the worldview of charismatics is one of knowing God through experience. Rightly understood this does not mean that all judgement, discernment, theology or scripture goes out of the window. As the charismatic Roman Catholic sociologist Margaret Poloma writes in The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism (pp. 63-64):
Spirit-filled Christianity, unlike Christian Fundamentalism and Evangelicalilism (sic), represents more than a cognitive or doctrinal reaction to modernity. It has proactively developed certain characteristics which taken together makes its worldview distinct from other forms of Christianity, both of the liberal and conservative stripes. The Pentecostal worldview is experientially centered, with followers in a dynamic and personal relationship with a Deity who is both immanent and transcendent. According to Pentecostal scholar Jackie Johns (1999:75), “The Spirit-filled believer has a predisposition to see a transcendent God at work in, with, through, above and beyond all events. Therefore, all space is sacred space and all time is sacred time.” God is seen as active in all events past, present and future which work together in a kind of master plan. It is a worldview that tends to be “transrational,” professing that knowledge is “not limited to realms of reason and sensory experience” (Johns, ibid.) Consistent with this transrational characteristic, Pentecostal Christians also tend to be suspicious of creeds, believing that “knowing” comes from a right relationship with God rather than through reason or even through the five senses. Theirs is a God who can and often does defy the laws of nature with the miraculous and unexplainable. Without doubt the Bible holds an important place in their worldview, but for many it is a kind of catalyst and litmus test for the authenticity of personal and corporate experience rather than a manual of rigid doctrine and practices. As Johns (1999:79) succinctly states: “In summary, a Pentecostal paradigm for knowledge and truth springs from an experiential knowledge of God which alters the believer‘s approach to reading and interpreting reality.”
Of course, this experience is understood and interpreted within a particular theological framework.
 
Thank you, Itwin! In what Paloma wrote there, I recognized myself and my approach to Christianity. That’s probably why I was attracted to an AG church, even though I really think of myself as an Anglican.
 
Thank you, Itwin! In what Paloma wrote there, I recognized myself and my approach to Christianity. That’s probably why I was attracted to an AG church, even though I really think of myself as an Anglican.
I highly recommend Poloma’s work. Since you are in the Assemblies, you should check out her two books: The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas (1989) and The Assemblies of God: Godly Love and the Revitalization of American Pentecostalism (2010). Both sociological studies chart the “routinization of charisma” within the Assemblies of God, and this is a problem that all Pentecostal/charismatic churches inevitably face.

I like this quote because she gets into the variety of charismatic Christians (pp. 64-65):
This “paradigm for knowledge and truth” is shared by traditional Pentecostalism as well as by more recent and divergent Pentecostal streams, in which followers reflect the early forefathers and foremothers in their reluctance to embrace particular religious labels. The new-comers as well as some once-traditional Pentecostals may self-identify as “charismatic,” “Spirit-filled” Christians, or even simply as “in the river.” As products of more recent renewals and revivals, they are often stronger in what Grant Wacker (2001) has called primitivism (and sometimes, but not always, weaker on pragmatism).
The primary distinction we have observed between the Pentecostal and neo-Pentecostal streams in North America is in different overt expressions of a common core Pentecostal spirituality (Albrecht 1999). At the risk of oversimplification, those who self-identify as “charismatic” or “third wave” are more likely to accept a range of paranormal experiences (including prophecy, miracles, healing, and physical manifestations of an altered state of consciousness) as signs of Spirit baptism while most Pentecostals, including the AG, tend to place a doctrinal emphasis specifically on the gift of tongues. Furthermore, established classical Pentecostal denominations tend to have well-developed bureaucratic structures while thriving neo-Pentecostal organizations tend to be non-denominational with members focusing on relational ties expressed in loosely-knit networks.
What can be said about the larger Pentecostal movement, regardless of the stream, is that it is more about a distinct spirituality than about religion (Albrecht 1999; Land 1993). Members share a common transcendent worldview rather than particular doctrines, defined ritual practices, or denominational involvement. This worldview is a curious blend of premodern miracles, modern technology, and postmodern mysticism in which the natural blends with the supernatural. Signs and wonders analogous to those described in pre-modern biblical accounts are expected as normal occurrences in the lives of believers (Poloma 2001). Johns (1999) asserts that what underlies Pentecostal identity is a Pentecostal epistemology “congruous with the ancient Jewish approach to knowledge” – one that represents an alternative to modern ways of knowing:
Pentecostals have an alternative epistemology because they have an alternative world-view. At the heart of the Pentecostal world-view is transforming experience with God. God is known through relational encounter which finds its penultimate expression in being filled with the Holy Spirit. This experience becomes the normative epistemological framework and thus shifts the structures by which the individual interprets the world (Johns 1999:74-75)
 
I am trying to get a feel for the Pentacostal church. I understand that there is no cookie cutter pattern, whereby all agree, I am just trying to find out what the “norm” is. I have family members in the AoG church. They used to belong to an independent pentacostal church. They had some troubling ideas like celebrating Jewish holidays. For instance, they celebrated Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement, but Christ is our Atonement.When I tried to ask them about it, they evaded my questions. Any time we have discussed the Catholic Church, they always focused on the experience of Mass, i.e. always the same/ boring. They chose their current church based on how it “felt” to them. If conversation leads into Christian doctrines, they just reply that their experience leads them.

I was raised Presbyterian. Presbyterians are heavy on doctrine, some branches are very liberal, but it is less “experience” and more teaching. I am aware that not everyone is into theology, but it seems scary to have experience without doctrine. Vice versa, all doctrine without experience is history class.

I am just looking for insight into pentacostal beliefs. Not looking to offend anybody, just curious what the beliefs are. I am not pigeon holing all charismatics, just trying to see what their experience is.
 
I am trying to get a feel for the Pentacostal church. I understand that there is no cookie cutter pattern, whereby all agree, I am just trying to find out what the “norm” is. I have family members in the AoG church. They used to belong to an independent pentacostal church. They had some troubling ideas like celebrating Jewish holidays. For instance, they celebrated Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement, but Christ is our Atonement.When I tried to ask them about it, they evaded my questions. Any time we have discussed the Catholic Church, they always focused on the experience of Mass, i.e. always the same/ boring. They chose their current church based on how it “felt” to them. If conversation leads into Christian doctrines, they just reply that their experience leads them.

I was raised Presbyterian. Presbyterians are heavy on doctrine, some branches are very liberal, but it is less “experience” and more teaching. I am aware that not everyone is into theology, but it seems scary to have experience without doctrine. Vice versa, all doctrine without experience is history class.

I am just looking for insight into pentacostal beliefs. Not looking to offend anybody, just curious what the beliefs are. I am not pigeon holing all charismatics, just trying to see what their experience is.
I think the point me and Izdaari are trying to make is that the parts of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements are diverse and the only thing that unites them is not theology really, but it is a worldview. A way to approach theology. Theology differs based own whether you a classical Pentecostal or a charismatic Roman Catholic; what remains the same is a worldview that breaks down the boundaries between the natural and the supernatural.

Therefore, you can have one group of Pentecostals that is very deeply concerned with maintaining conformity with Scripture, believing that experiences not recorded in Scripture should at the least be carefully evaluated as to whether they fit with what we know about God’s dealing with the Christian. You could also have Pentecostals who are much more open about experiences that would leave even other Pentecostals uncomfortable.

I think (and I mean no disrespect to any relatives or friends of yours) the people you mention have been poorly taught. I hear a lot on this forum about Catholics being poorly catechized. Well, guess what–Pentecostals can have this same problem. Unlike Catholicism, there is no “central authority” in Pentecostalism, so the potential for warped theologies to develop is a problem. However, there have always been warped theologies developing, so I don’t think that is a criticism of Pentecostalism/charismatic groups in particular. Remember, we’re only 100 years old. Think about the tremendous variety and strange theologies the church faced in its early years.

The Assemblies of God (and Izdaari can speak more to this than I can) is highly, strongly doctrinal. They look to the Bible for everything they do. So, the Bible becomes the litmus test for any type of experience. Please read this Assemblies of God Position Paper Endtime Revival–Spirit-Led and Spirit-Controlled and this statement by the AG Superintendent responding to a recent (though questionable) revival that broke out in Lakeland a few years ago and this statement from the AG on Modern Day Manifestations of the Spirit. What you will see is a high regard for measuring experience by Scripture. Of course, the AG can’t regulate how its members measure experience.

I think what all Pentecostals/charismatics can agree on is that the Spirit of God has fallen on all flesh. That Pentecost was not just an event a thousand years ago, but it is a continuing reality for the church and the individual Christian. Pentecostals talk a lot about power. This is so important for understanding Pentecostalism. The Spirit falling on the individual, empowering him or her for life, service, witness, and vocation is the crucial element to Pentecostalism. All people–men, women, children can be anointed and empowered by the Spirit to accomplish what Christ wants accomplished. All that is necessary is for someone to step out in faith and do what Christ has commanded us to do. We ourselves have no power, but if we walk in the power of Christ and the Spirit then God can use us to do things we ourselves could not do.

Everything else is highly variable. Even Pentecostal worship is not uniform. You can have holy roller Pentecostals or the you can have Hillsong Church and other hip megachurch type Pentecostals. You can have TBN name it claim it Pentecostals or you can have the no funny business Pentecostals like David Wilkerson.

So there is a lot of variety.
 
They used to belong to an independent pentacostal church. They had some troubling ideas like celebrating Jewish holidays. For instance, they celebrated Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement, but Christ is our Atonement.When I tried to ask them about it, they evaded my questions.
I don’t see anything wrong with observing Yom Kippur. It is an opportunity to teach people about Christ’s atonement. I’ve never celebrated it. However, my church does possess a shofar horn (the rams horn used in the Bible) which we blow as a call to worship. We also have Jewish prayer shawls that we drape over people in prayer.

Another thing. There is an emphasis on spontaneous worship. We just like it. So you get things like congregational singing in the Spirit.
 
I think (and I mean no disrespect to any relatives or friends of yours) the people you mention have been poorly taught.
That is my thought also. It seems to be on “the fringe”, but I’m rather structured (I’m Catholic, remember!)
I think what all Pentecostals/charismatics can agree on is that the Spirit of God has fallen on all flesh. That Pentecost was not just an event a thousand years ago, but it is a continuing reality for the church and the individual Christian. Pentecostals talk a lot about power. This is so important for understanding Pentecostalism. The Spirit falling on the individual, empowering him or her for life, service, witness, and vocation is the crucial element to Pentecostalism. All people–men, women, children can be anointed and empowered by the Spirit to accomplish what Christ wants accomplished. All that is necessary is for someone to step out in faith and do what Christ has commanded us to do. We ourselves have no power, but if we walk in the power of Christ and the Spirit then God can use us to do things we ourselves could not do.
This sounds an awful lot like what Catholics refer to as Grace. God gives us Grace to accept or accomplish things we could never do on our own. This is just another example of that “language barrier” we find every now and then between Catholics and Protestants.:eek:

Thanks for your insight!👍
 
Well, Pentecostals talk about grace as well.I think the power to go out into all the world preaching the gospel is the active part of that grace. When Jesus says “You shall have power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you” we Pentecostals take that seriously.
 
Endtime Revival–Spirit-Led and Spirit-Controlled
and this statement by the AG Superintendent responding to a recent (though questionable) revival that broke out in Lakeland a few years ago and this statement from the AG on Modern Day Manifestations of the Spirit. What you will see is a high regard for measuring experience by Scripture. Of course, the AG can’t regulate how its members measure experience.
This is exactly right. 👍
So there is a lot of variety.
My AG church is most like Hillsong, though not nearly big enough to be a megachurch. It feels like hip Southern Baptist, - OSAS, + continuationism. And our pastor is a excellent teacher and scholar. He could teach theology at seminary, but he has a heart for the pastoral role.

But still I’m thinking of moving on: I’m not a conservative evangelical anymore, if I ever was. I do approach theology from the charismatic worldview, but my doctrine would fit much better in a mainline church, probably Anglican.
 
The Catholic Church has much written on Carisma and the Charismatic Movement in the Catholic Church which is here: read-out.net/avila/ccr.html ; vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PH.HTM ; and here at iccrs.org

The AoG USA has a single doctrine of 16 articles here: ag.org/top/beliefs/statement_of_fundamental_truths/sft_full.cfm#1
There is also an online liturgy and guide to ensure continuity of service for ministers to follow by password.

From this point on any reference to to charismatic is meant to not include the CCR or AoG or the 15 other Pentecostal Denominations. Each of these Pentecostal Denominations have their own Doctrines. None of the Pentecostal Doctrines are in communion with any denomination or the Catholic Church outside the Pentecostal movement. Also each Denomination is divided into groupings, and each grouping may have different liturgy and disciplines. AoG has 140 groupings worldwide. The CCR is unique and is within the Holy See.

Many charismatic non denominational churches are very evangelical as they are ministering to pastoral needs of non christians in their format. Thus the power of the holy spirit during these events is uniquely palpable and quite frankly it is “electrifying” (this is a metaphor). Those who attend these services tend to feel excitement, and some can even feel the Holy Spirit itself as if they stood in a sea and could feel a current (again another metaphor).

This really makes a big difference whether a non denominational charismatic church is evangelizing christians and baptizing them in the holy spirit while asking them to accept Jesus Christ as their Personal Lord and Savior. It’s like asking a person to accept their wife or husband after marriage in a rebirth of marriage through this proclamation and affirmation. In non-denominational charismatic service many christians easily and with great joy accept Jesus Christ, accept being born again, and accept the concept of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the outward early evidence of such a Baptism as signs of Grace. The experience can be like nothing they have ever personally felt due to the nature of these services. But if you ask someone to accept their wife or husband, after service why do they simply not return to their own home and congregation and grow in faith thus ending the need for that couple to attend the service that led to their proclamation and or affirmation? Thus the result would devoid any non-denomintional charismatic ministry of a congregation and in truth many ministries have come and gone in a mere 50 year period.

The issue is how can a non denominational evangelical charismatic church survive and become brick and mortar if they are merely asking christians to accept Jesus Christ? And the answer is that christians who attend a charismatic service who return often return to the same format of evangelism (accepting Jesus Christ). Thus every service is simply to accept Jesus Christ accompanied by the same excitement and festivities of the original conversion (imagine celebration Christmas 365 days a year). There is in essence nothing substantive beyond this than to return to their own christian denominations and continue their service to God within their own congregation and add to their belief in their own doctrines

Non-deonominational evangelical charismatic churches that prosper and grow in congregation often seek to re-indoctriate new attendees (especially return visitors) into their church by stripping them of Doctrine identifiable to any denomination or the catholic church. Since initiation was immediate a person who accepted Jesus Christ merely stood up and need not real explanation of the church’s doctrine or practices outside the experience at that moment. As a result there it is hard for a person to identify any doctrine or even heresy of doctrines they already accept during their first service and “conversion” from Christianity to Christianity.

In reality there is doctrine in every non denominational charismatic church but varies from one pastor and leader to another and it may not be clear or written. Even within a single church you might receive mixed messages over time. And over time pastors may begin stripping out so much doctrine, the sacraments, the liturgy, and the communion, that what is left is merely whatever is read that day in church or spoken that day in faith formation. Although long last charismatic churches do establish a doctrine it is not in harmony with any other charismatic churches doctrine and as such is fluidic although the congregants may not see that.

To prevent members from returning to denominations much effort is put into debunking denominational doctrine and liturgy associated with denominations and the Catholic Church. At first it starts simple, with the sacraments, and over time it leads to just about every element and facet in minor verbal written detail that have profound theological meaning.
 
The thing about doctrine is that it is interpretation by man. I am not saying that my church does not have doctrine, but it is taken with great care to make sure it taught in light of true gospel and not mankind’s depraved interpretation of the teachings of the Holy Spirit. For instance, you could easily say that one of the doctrines of the church I attend is election. We believe that man is totally depraved, that Christians are unconditionally elected, that there is limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. However, we do not record these doctrines on paper, officially, etc. We have the Bible. God’s word, no more, no less. That does not mean we do not read the teachings of John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, etc, we just hold them to be man’s words, not the infallible word of God.
 
The thing about doctrine is that it is interpretation by man. I am not saying that my church does not have doctrine, but it is taken with great care to make sure it taught in light of true gospel and not mankind’s depraved interpretation of the teachings of the Holy Spirit. For instance, you could easily say that one of the doctrines of the church I attend is election. We believe that man is totally depraved, that Christians are unconditionally elected, that there is limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. However, we do not record these doctrines on paper, officially, etc. We have the Bible. God’s word, no more, no less. That does not mean we do not read the teachings of John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, etc, we just hold them to be man’s words, not the infallible word of God.
So, where do you get your doctrines? Election is not exactly explicit when reading the Bible. In fact, all the ideas you mentioned are not easily distinguished by a layman.

Also, if these doctrines are never written down, what keeps them from being changed?

I am not trying to be rude, I am just curious. Like I have stated before, I am very comfortable with doctrine and Tradition, so I have a hard time seeing the other side.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top