The AOG churches around here that I used to occasionally attended did not refer to themselves as “Pentecostal”, but rather as “Charismatic”. They did not like the use of the word “Pentecostal” to describe themselves. Perhaps it was because one of the biggest Pentecostal churches around here is an Apostolic Pentecostal Holiness Church that is non-trinitarian.
That could be the reason. It’s also possible that they just realize that Pentecostals are often stigmatized as “Holy Rollers” and fanatics. They probably just think that calling themselves “charismatic” is less offensive to people they are trying to reach.
It still doesn’t change the fact that they are classical Pentecostals, not charismatics.
One preacher said they were also more orderly. Whether other AOG churches refer to themselves as “charismatic” I don’t know, but the two I attended did. The AOG website refers to themselves as Pentecostal.
The AG is not a charismatic church. By all accounts, it is a classical Pentecostal church arising out of the radical holiness movement of the second half of the nineteenth century. All classical Pentecostal denominations are traced back to the Los Angeles Azusa Street Revival led by William J. Seymour, which broke out in the first decade of the 20th century.
The charismatic movement started only in the 1960s among mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. During the 1980s, evangelical Protestants began to respond to the charismatic movement with the rise of groups like John Wimber’s Vineyard Movement. They preferred to call themselves “empowered evangelicals” and scholars gave them the label “neo-charismatics.”
Pentecostals, charismatics, and neo-charismatics share an emphasis on spiritual gifts and the experiential side of Christian life. However, there are important differences that we have over theology, mostly over the exact nature of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.
The differences between Pentecostals and charismatics have nothing to do with how orderly the church in question is. Often, charismatic meetings are more rowdy and seemingly dysfunctional than their older Pentecostal counterparts. The Toronto Blessing, for example, that became famous for the animal farm noises produced by those in attendance was a neo-charismatic revival, not a classical Pentecostal one. Most classical Pentecostals thought it was weird.
I’m not saying this to dispute what you were told at those AG churches. I believe you and am not surprise that AG pastors would try to rebrand their local churches as “charismatic” rather than “Pentecostal.” You may know this, but there are AG pastors and churches who try to act like generic evangelicals and often try to downplay their affiliation with the AG. Nevertheless, their attempt at rebranding does not change the theological identity of an entire denomination. It also can’t change history, and it is a historical fact that Pentecostalism is something distinct from the charismatic movement.
