Contrary to how cessationists frame much of their arguments and criticisms concerning the New Apostolic Reformation, not all Pentecostalism is the same. To sloppily tag all continuationism with the moniker, NAR, is simply lazy polemics. It betrays theological prejudices. To rightly understand how the term has evolved, one must take a moment and understand the history of Pentecostalism.
Pentecostalism might be best understood with the concept of “waves”. There were theological shifts which I will mention towards the end of the post, but allow me to frame the evolution (or what might be better termed, restoration) of this movement.
The FIRST Wave might be identified by its birth and early revivalism (1900 – 1940). In 1901, in Topeka, KS, at Charles Parham’s Bible School during a watch night service, the students prayed for and received the baptism with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Parham received this same experience sometime later and began preaching it in all his services. At about the same time that Parham was spreading his doctrine of initial evidence in the Midwestern United States, news of the Welsh Revival (1904-05) ignited intense speculation among radical evangelicals around the world and particularly in the US of a coming move of the Spirit which would renew the entire Christian Church. Around the same time, one of Parham’s Bible School students by the name of William Seymour, traveled to Los Angeles where his preaching sparked the three-year-long Azusa Street Revival in 1906. The years following we see the development of several pentecostal denominations we know today:
The Church of God in Christ
The Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
The Assemblies of God
The Pentecostal Holiness Church
International Church of the Four Square Gospel
This wave continued into the 1940’s and 50’s which produced the post-World War 2 healing revivals and what would be called The Latter Rain Movement in the northwest United States and Canada. The Latter Rain Revival distinguished itself from classical Pentecostalism in several important theological and practical ways. Although it emerged out of Pentecostal circles, many Pentecostal denominations eventually rejected it as doctrinally dangerous or excessive. That said, it’s theological impact was massive. It is from these years one begins to see the earliest glimpses of what will eventually be labeled as the Charismatic renewal. Groups like The Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship began to form by appealing to American businessmen who normally wouldn’t attend a Pentecostal church. The door was opening during these years to impact a far broader spectrum of believers across traditional denominational boundaries.
The SECOND Wave might be identified by the emergence of what became known as the Charismatic Renewal Movement (1960 – 1980). The movement spread to historic denominations, such as the Episcopal Church (notably through Episcopal Priest, Dennis Bennett in 1959) and multiple denominations in the late 1960s and early 1970’s. The work of the Holy Spirit began to be defined by the theological moorings of the particular denomination rather than a distinctly holiness/Arminian perspective. Pentecostalism had numerous distinct cultural attributes which were not necessarily held by the broader Charismatic Movement. So, you begin to see Charismatic believers unite, not so much on the basis of agreed doctrinal statements or ecclesiastical structure, but rather a shared, common experience of the Holy Spirit and a commitment to Bible being the final authority.
The THIRD Wave might be identified with greater evangelical acceptance (1980’s to present). Some have used the term Neo-Pentecostal to label this era. We begin to see more identifiable groups foment and organize. These groups gather around doctrinal distinctives, ministry practices, and worship styles. Please understand, these groups are likely not to endorse one another without close conversation and understanding.
Calvary Chapel
Vineyard
Word of Faith
Hillsong
Bethel
Association of Related Churches (ARC)
Untold numbers of independent churches and ministerial fellowships
I am sure I have left out scores of churches and important notable names in all 3 “waves”, but I wanted to illustrate how this movement is anything but static and entrenched. There has been both biblical development through the years, as well as heretical challenges. This is why a valid critique needs some precision. It was in the early 1990’s and within this context that C. Peter Wagner began to analyze missiologically, why this stream of Christianity was growing exponentially. Wagner said he observed a global shift away from traditional denominational Christianity toward independent networks led by leaders demonstrating apostolic authority and creating a new structural paradigm in their churches.
If I might make a further observation, there are hundreds of denominationally affiliated churches which are transitioning to a stronger pastor-led and team collaborative structure. You may disagree with parts or even ALL of the church structure Wagner espouses, but that does not necessarily make it heretical. In fact, a case could be made it might even be more biblically accurate. But I will leave polity for another day.
Okay, if you’ve stuck with me this long, let me suggest 8 ministry practices (and even doctrinal distinctives) which are different between First Wave Pentecostals and many Third Wave Charismatics:
- Traditional Pentecostals generally recognized pastors, evangelists, and missionaries, but did not strongly emphasize restored governmental apostles and prophets. Most saw the original apostles as unique foundational figures. Later Charismatics taught that God was restoring apostles prophets, and the full fivefold ministry before Christ’s return. Ephesians 4:11 became central. This became one of the foundational ideas later influencing how local churches were structured.
- Pentecostals believed prophecy existed, but usually it was more spontaneous, less directive, and less personalized. Later Charismatics strongly emphasized prophetic presbytery, impartation through laying on of hands, and personal prophecy over individuals. Leaders would prophesy destinies, identify ministries, and impart gifts spiritually. This was revolutionary for its time and controversial among Pentecostals.
- Third Wave Charismatics taught spiritual gifts and ministry anointing could be imparted through the laying on of hands and prophetic ministry. This moved beyond classical Pentecostal emphasis on tarrying, seeking, and sovereign Spirit baptism experiences.
- Many Pentecostals (and subsequent denominations) hold to a pre-tribulation, premillennial, eschatology. Significant numbers of Charismatic leaders teach an overcoming end-time company of believers which would reach unprecedented spiritual maturity, manifest Christ’s authority, overcome death and corruption, and prepare the earth for Christ’s return.
- Classical Pentecostalism is generally more straightforward and revivalistic in biblical interpretation. Charismatics have been known to heavily used typology, allegory, and symbolic interpretation. Old Testament narratives are often treated as prophetic patterns for end-time church restoration and spiritual warfare.
- Pentecostals organized into denominational structures. Charismatics strongly rejected denominational structures. They believed denominations hindered the Spirit and that God was restoring one unified end-time church.
- Pentecostalism focused heavily on evangelism, missions, salvation, and Spirit baptism. Charismatics tend to focus more on restoring the church, spiritual government, corporate maturity, and end-time prophetic fulfillment. It is restorationist in its hermeneutic.
- While worship practices across the board have become extremely similar in recent years, it was the Charismatic renewal which contributed significantly to modern worship practices. This includes extended praise and worship, spontaneous singing, prophetic worship, and freer congregational participation.
So, you can see that all Pentecostals are not the same. Therefore, all Pentecostals are not to be tagged with NAR. As I now turn to post 3, I want to explore briefly as to how this moniker evolved publicly and whether that evolution is valid.
See you next time…
No Comments