|
Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
|
|
Particulars
of Christianity:
310
Pentecostalism, the Charismatic
and Faith Movements
Survey
4 - From the Renaissance
to the Modern Era
Our
Background and Objectivity
Comparing Modern Tongues to Biblical
Tongues
Basic Introduction to the Charismatic
Movement
Opening Remarks and Introduction
to the Gifts
Survey 1 - Continuity of the
Gifts in the First Few Centuries
Survey 2 - Decline of Orthodox
Gifts and Rise of Counterfeit Gifts
Survey 3 - A Change in Tune Regarding
the Gifts
Survey 4 - From the Renaissance
to the Modern Era
An Introduction to the Gifts
in Modern Times
The Origins of the Modern Charismatic
Movement
Section 1 | Section
2 | Section 3 | Section
4
| Section 5
In
our second survey we established from historical documents
that toward the end of the second century counterfeit gifts
were emerging among heretical sects such as the Gnostics and
the Montanists. From the Montanist example, we saw that both
Eusebius and Asterius Urbanus (whom he quotes extensively)
specifically made note of the distinction between the character
and quality of the prophetic gifts among the heretics and
the gifts among the orthodox churches. In particular, according
to Asterius Urbanus and Eusebius, the distinction was marked
by the "ecstatic," "raving," and "babbling" that accompanied
the prophetic gifts among the Montanists. Such ecstatic behavior
they noted was "contrary to the constant custom of the Church
handed down by tradition from the beginning." And we also
noted that these assessments by Asterius Urbanus and Eusebius
were completely consistent with Paul's instructions for the
operation of the gifts provided in 1 Corinthians 14:31-33,
37-40.
From this we can conclude that historically speaking that
the early church identified the counterfeit gifts by the fact
that they occurred while the speaker was in an ecstatic state.
Conversely, "the constant custom of the Church handed down
by tradition from the beginning" concerning authentic gifts,
was that they did not involve a state of ecstasy or raving
or babbling. Therefore, as we embark upon our examination
of hypothetical restorations of gifts beginning with the Renaissance,
we can determine whether or not those "restorations" were
authentic or counterfeit by this same standard.
Where gifts are accompanied or characterized by ecstatic states,
raving and babbling, we should conclude that these gifts are
the reemergence of the counterfeit gifts of the early heretics.
If the gifts are not ecstatic, but follow in accordance with
the orderly manner of early Church custom, then we can press
on to examine them further.
In our third survey, we established that somewhere between
the close of the second century and the arrival of Augustine,
the authentic gifts so definitively passed out of existence
that Church commentary regarding this issue shifts entirely
toward explaining their cessation. In fact, as we have noted,
there is a consistent commentary regarding the cessation of
the gifts throughout the Middle Ages including such writers
as Augustine (354-430 AD), John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), Gregory
the Great (600 AD), and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD).
Furthermore, since this cessation of the gifts posed a problem
for these writers we can conclude that if the gifts had been
going on, they would not doubt have preferred to assert that
than to explain why they had ceased. Or in other words, the
cessation of the gifts posed a dilemma for these writers that
needed to be explained. We can imagine that they would not
invent this dilemma just to have to answer it. Rather, we
can assume that the dilemma was real, that the gifts had in
fact ceased, which required an explanation. Therefore, from
the statements of these writers we can conclude that it was
widely and prevalently understood from at least the middle
of the fourth century until the middle of the thirteenth century
that the authentic gifts were no longer occurring.
This brings us to the period from the Renaissance to the modern
era.
As we move forward through the Renaissance, we find that several
groups have been suggested to have spoken in tongues. What
we must keep in mind is that we are trying to substantiate
the authenticity of modern occurrences of gifts. Since modern
occurrences cannot be traced back to the apostles or early
church, they cannot be authenticated in that manner.
Nevertheless, the existence of gifts in a modern context still
must be accounted for. How did they get here? Where did they
come from? If as we answer these questions we find that the
modern practices of gifts originated from heretical groups
or in a manner consistent with the counterfeit and ecstatic
experiences of the ancient heretics, then we cannot except
modern gifts as authentic. Instead, we must reject them as
the heirs of heresy and the continuation of counterfeit heretical
gifts.
For this purpose, it becomes necessary for those modern groups
who practice the gifts to trace their origins from orthodox
Christian groups and away from heretical groups. In this effort,
several sources have been suggested. The Anabaptists, the
Huguenots, the Ranters, the Mennonites, the Moravian Brethren,
and the Quakers are a few of the more common candidates.
But there are five problems with these suggested origins for
modern charismatic gifts.
First, there is the problem of documentation. Unfortunately,
corroborating the claim that any of these groups actually
practiced the charismatic gifts is very difficult to do using
objective sources. In fact, such corroborating accounts are
so difficult to find that it becomes impossible to document
the origination of modern gifts among these groups without
relying upon heavily biased sources. Objective sources such
as encyclopedias or other reference books say nothing that
would corroborate such notions. Or, in other words, the only
documentation one can find for these claims comes from those
who currently practice the charismatic gifts. That makes substantiating
the initial claim that any of these groups practiced the gifts
extremely difficult.
Second, there is the problem of distance. The Ranters were
an English movement from 1649-59. The Huguenots lived in France
in the sixteen and seventeenth century. There has been over
three hundred years between then and now. So here we run into
the same problem of continuity that we have with the early
Church. It becomes necessary to document not only that these
groups practiced the gifts (a task that is impossible enough
on its own), but also to document the continuity from those
groups to the modern practice of the gifts. Even if we were
to grant for the sake of argument that one of these 2 groups
might have practiced the charismatic gifts and that they were
"orthodox enough," that still would not substantiate modern
practices of the gifts without documentation tracing modern
occurrence directly back to these groups.
Third, there is the problem of association. While the Ranters
and the Huguenots passed out of existence by the turn of the
eighteenth century, the Anabaptists and Quakers continued
and also evolved into such modern groups as the Mennonites
and the Amish. So, because these groups continue to exist
in modern times, it is theoretically possible that modern
gifts could exist as a matter of continuity from these groups
(that is, if these groups did indeed practice the gifts).
However, as we will see in our next section, the modern Charismatic
movement arose out of Wesleyan and Methodist denominations
rather than contemporary Anabaptist or Quaker groups. So,
even though the Anabaptists and Quakers continue in various
forms, modern Charismatic groups have no historical association
with them but instead are historical outgrowths of distinctly
different denominations. This means that tying the modern
practice of the gifts to these groups contradicts the documented
history concerning which denominations gave rise to modern
Charismatic movement.
Fourth, there is the problem of competing sources. That is
not to say competing documentation, but rather the existence
of other groups that practiced the gifts and were identifiably
heretical. The most prominent example is the Shakers. The
Shakers began in England in 1747 at a Quaker revival. Among
there known heresies was their stated belief that one of their
members by the name of Ann Lee was herself the female equivalent
to Jesus Christ. Britannica.com also provides the following
description of the Shakers.
"The Shakers derived originally from a small branch of radical
English Quakers who had adopted the French Camisards' ritual
practices of shaking, shouting, dancing, whirling, and singing
in tongues." (Britannica.com, "Shaker.")
So, while it is difficult to authenticate from object or common
sources that the Anabaptists, Ranters, Quakers, or Huguenots
practiced the charismatic gifts, we know that the Shakers
did practice the gift of tongues. And the Ranters, too, were
also heretical.
"Its principal teaching was pantheistic, that God is
present in nature. The Ranters appealed to the inner experience
of Christ and denied the authority of Scripture." (Bartleby.com,
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. "Ranters.")
Since the Ranters were pantheists and denied the authority
of scripture, it makes little difference whether or not they
practiced the gifts. If they did, modern groups would not
want to trace their roots back to the Ranters because of these
heretical doctrines. And without documentation directly linking
modern Charismatic groups to the Anabaptists, Quakers, or
Huguenots we have no evidence demonstrating whether or not
modern Charismatic gifts arose from those groups as opposed
to the heretical groups such as the Shakers and Ranters, which
arose around the same time. To assert that the modern gifts
came from one group over another without documentation would
be simply unsubstantiated "picking and choosing," which is
no basis for validating the legitimacy of any supernatural
occurrence.
Fifth, there is the problem of ecstatic behavior. As seen
previously among the Montanists, the prophetic gifts among
the Shakers were accompanied by ecstatic behavior including
shaking, shouting, and whirling. Similarly, the Quakers (formally
known as the Society of Friends) earned the name "Quaker"
from their ecstatic behavior of their services.
"George Fox, founder of the society in England, recorded that
in 1650 "Justice Bennet of Derby first called us Quakers
because we bid them tremble at the word of God." It is likely
that the name, originally derisive, was also used because
many early Friends, like other religious enthusiasts, themselves
trembled in their religious meetings and showed other physical
manifestations of religious emotion." (Britannica.com,
"Quaker.")
So, if the origins of modern gifts are traced back to the
Quakers, then we run into the problem that the ecstatic and
emotional behavior that occurred in their services resembles
the counterfeit gifts that were arising in the first few centuries
AD. As we have already shown, this ecstatic display of emotion
is precisely how the early orthodox Christians distinguished
and identified the counterfeit gifts of the heretics from
the authentic gifts that they were still witnessing in the
orthodox churches at that time. Therefore, if we trace the
modern gifts back to the Quakers, we are forced to reject
modern gifts as a restoration of the counterfeit rather than
the authentic gifts of the first few centuries.
Given with the problems described in the five points above,
some modern charismatic groups might abandon altogether the
attempt to validate their practice of the gifts by tracing
them back to earlier orthodox groups since the Renaissance.
Instead, they may prefer to view their practice of gifts in
isolation from these problematic groups and argue instead
that modern tongues were restored much more recently. If this
is the case and modern gifts are to be evaluated in isolation
from history, then the origination of modern gifts has conclusively
failed the test of historic validation and modern gifts cannot
be substantiated or validated through an examination of historic
continuity.
As we have seen above modern gifts fail the test of historic
continuity for the following reasons. First, the theory that
orthodox Christians from the Renaissance practiced the charismatic
gifts cannot be adequately substantiated from the readily
available documentation. Second, even if some orthodox groups
did practice the gifts, there is still no evidence that documents
direct connection and continuity from those groups to modern
Charismatic groups. Third, even if groups such as the Anabaptists
or Mennonites did practice the gifts, the modern Charismatic
movement can be documented to have arisen from other sects
with no ties to these two groups (as we will further demonstrate
later on.) Fourth, known heretical groups such as the Shakers
can be documented to have practiced the gifts and so we have
at least as much evidence to connect modern gifts to the Shakers
as we have for connecting modern gifts to orthodox groups.
Fifth, because the Quakers were named for their emotional
"quaking" in their services, the evidence is strong that the
practices of that group were tied more to the counterfeit
gifts of the early heretics such as the Montanists who were
also identified by their ecstatic practice of the gifts.
In conclusion, we must acknowledge that modern charismatic
gifts cannot be validated by continuity from any historical,
orthodox origins from the Renaissance to the modern era.
|
|
|
|
|
|