The Challenge of Independent Christianity (part 5)
Posted for Sherry W.
Part 1 is here, part 2 is here, part 3 is here, part 4 is here.
Just a reminder for my readers: NONE of the staff or teachers of the Catherine of Siena Institute have ever been or are currently part of the “Independent Christian” movement! Nor have any of our posters on ID ever been part of it (as far as I know).
I am writing about this movement as a journalist, not an apologist. I am describing the second largest, fastest growing, and most missionary-minded Christian community in the world today because we have to recognize their existence in order to deal with them.
As a journalist, my job is to try and help you grasp the nature and significance of the movement. Since Independent Christianity is complicated to describe, I will spend most of my time describing and secondarily exploring some of the implications for the Catholic Church. I will not be spending my time in a detailed analysis and rebuttal of their many theological problems, not because I agree with their stance but because it would require another 20,000 words to do so and this is long enough as it is!
Meanwhile, a spontaneous spiritual fire swept the globe in 1994 -1995. It was called the Toronto Blessing because the first well-known manifestations took place in January of 1994 in a small Vineyard church near the Toronto airport.
The Toronto Blessing was associated with dramatic scenes of hundreds being “slain in the Spirit” or experiencing “holy laughter” when prayed over. The blessing seemed to be transferable and could be passed on through what they termed “impartation”. An individual who had been prayed for and had received the “anointing” passed the blessing on to others by praying for them in person, usually through the laying on of hands.
Within months, the Vineyard Church had become a spectacular international draw. Toronto Life Magazine billed the Toronto Blessing as the top tourist attraction in 1994. By September, 1995, 20,000 Christian leaders and 200,000 first-time visitors had come from virtually every country and denomination to experience the blessing and bring it home. (See Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship)
.
In May, 1994, the Toronto blessing reached London and Holy Trinity Brompton (read the Mystery Worshiper’s impression of HTB here), the charismatic Anglican parish that birthed the popular Alpha course. A strange phone call pulled Sandy Miller, then vicar of Holy Trinity, out of a very serious meeting. The church secretary reported that all the staff had been slain in the Spirit and couldn’t get off the floor. Eleanor Mumford, who had "received" the blessing in the US, was invited to speak at all the Sunday services about the experience and many present were affected.
Although Holy Trinity Brompton could not be characterized as an Independent movement congregation, its leadership had strong ties to both John Wimber, until his death in 1997, and to Fuller seminary, which strongly promoted the Alpha course in the US. It is very characteristic of the New Apostolic Reformation that traditional denominational ties are much less important than a shared passion for evangelization and openness to the present action of the Holy Spirit.
After this event, the Alpha course, a 15 week introduction to Christianity, took off in a big way. In 1991, only 900 attended; in 1996 there were 250,000. An important part of the course is a weekend away where participants pray for the filling of the Holy Spirit and are encouraged to speak in tongues.
Sherry’s note:
8 million people have been through Alpha over the past 20 years. In mid 2006, there were 31,763 Alpha courses running in 164 nations. Alpha has been adapted for the workshop, the armed forces, schools, prisons, campuses, and youth versions and has been translated into 64 languages. The course is being used by nearly all Christian communions – including the Catholic church. 1.6 million have attended in the US alone as of 2006, 2 million in the UK out of a total population of 60 million.
In September 2006, a 60-second Alpha commercial was shown in cinemas nationwide. Alpha postcards were placed in every multiplex cinema foyer in the UK and a full page advertisement in the October edition of Cosmopolitan magazine came out on September 16. There were also posters on the sides and backs of over 2000 buses throughout the UK.
Catholic dioceses all over the world are using Alpha with the support of local bishops. Go here for what the Alpha people say about running an Alpha course in a Catholic context. Note there are national Alpha offices in a number of overwhelmingly Catholic countries such as France (take a look at this article about the beginning of French Alpha, which is now running in 2/3 of the Catholic dioceses in the country.) And check out the Alpha national offices in Ireland, Austria, Poland, and Spain. Information about the Spanish language version of Alpha is here. A good deal of the positive signs about the resurgence of Christianity in Europe being reported lately are Alpha-related or influenced.
Nicky Gumbel, who heads up the Alpha movement, met Pope John Paul II in 2004, and met with Pope Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. He says the present Pope already knew about Alpha because he had previously met with Alpha leaders from Germany.
In August of last year, Gumbel began his Canadian visit in Quebec City with a positive meeting with Canada's Roman Catholic Primate, Cardinal Marc Ouellet. "His love for Christ came through," Gumbel said. "His passion for evangelization, for unity, for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is all so obvious in his life and his ministry. I felt so refreshed being with him."
From a Catholic perspective, Alpha is a mixed bag. What Alpha does very well is present the basic kerygma and challenge participants to a conscious discipleship which is life-changing. Another reason for its popularity is that it is designed to be highly accessible to the unchurched of no religious background, a factor very important in the UK, its birthplace. The majority of churches that use the Alpha course grow. Alpha is designed to take the initiative to reach out rather than wait for the unchurched to come to us. And it seems to be attractive to young adults.
Which is why Catholic leaders often approve its use (see this list of approving letters from various US bishops and other Catholic leaders).
From a teaching perspective, there are serious content problems with Alpha which I have outlined in the Siena Scribe article “When Evangelical is Not Enough.”
Catholic leaders are often aware of Alpha’s doctrinal deficiencies but regard it as a necessary trade-off. Alpha is pre-packaged, polished, effective, and heavily supported. Pastors and staff are very busy and don’t know how to go about evangelizing so it is much easier and very attractive to go with a tested “plug and play” program. The assumption is that doctrinal issues will be, ideally, dealt with later in a post-Alpha follow-up teaching such as the DVDs produced by Catholic Faith Exploration which were specifically developed by the Archdiocese of Westminister as a Catholic answer to Alpha.
Back to the development of Independent Christianity:
By 1996, a consensus was developing among many evangelical leaders that a new sort of global Christianity was emerging. That year, Peter Wagner convened the first National Symposium on Post-Denominational Church at Fuller. One of the participants later wrote, “The consensus of the panelists was that there are still apostles and prophets in the Church, and there is an emerging Apostolic Movement that will revolutionize the 21st Century Church” (Prophetic Destiny and the Apostolic Reformation, Bill Hamon, p.18).
I will return to the subject of apostles in my next post.
posted by the other Sherry @ 5:01 AM
7 Comments
Links to this post
7 Comments:
I'm from a pentacostal background (which certainly fits the profile you describe here), and I think you give a pretty good run-down of how what I'd call "evangelicals" and you'd call "post-denominationalists" think. I'd note that we aren't completely uninterested in the past; it's a useful resource to inform the present, but the idea of tradition having authority is something we regard as either laughable or anathema. "Going deep into history" is not high on our list of concerns; there's a lot to be done in the present...
With regards to anti-catholicism, as Sherry noted, we tend to have a lot of assumptions opposite to those of catholics, so the more we know of catholicism, generally, the less we like it (I grew up thinking even having a fixed order of service was a defect; I was worried to find it growing on me when I started attending anglican services at uni). However, from our perspective, catholicism has the advantage over protestantism that it remained essentially charismatic (i.e. believed in a miracle-working God) in a way that protestantism didn't so much; or at least catholics never started parsing 1 Cor. 13 as saying that miracles and prophecy would pass away after the apostolic age, and that therefore whatever the pentecostals were on about was clearly not from God. Not that you'll find many of us who'll give you credit for this, but I should mention it.
(It was never clear to me why Catholicism was simultaneously wrong for not taking Genesis literally and for taking the whole "body & blood of Christ" thing too literally, but as we didn't focus on Catholicism much it was a side issue. The idea of venerating communion, as opposed to merely treating it like something God would perhaps strike you down for if you treated it with contempt, always seemed wrong to me; but I could never wrap my head around what the difference between being literal and being symbolic actually meant here, let alone the difference between trans/consubstantiation... let alone why anyone would even care that much about it...)
With regards to what makes a Christian: we don't regard Christian and Catholic as the same thing - neither implies the other ("going to church doesn't make you a christian any more than standing in a greenhouse makes you a tomato plant"), although we don't generally feel that they're mutually exclusive terms, at least not these days, and Catholicism may even help you become a Christian (especially considering the Catholic Charismatic thing). In the Middle Ages, when everything was a howling void of superstition, saint-worship and misery? Well, good luck trying to be a Christian then, although maybe the Church wouldn't get in your way too much if you tried to be... or at least, that's the impression I got. (My hazy impressions of the Middle Ages disintegrated in a cloud of outrage on reading Chaucer and Piers Plowman, as the former was obviously cheerful and the latter was obviously Christian, even if totally heretical.) To me as a youngster, the idea that the Crusaders and the Inquisition weren't true Christians wasn't a No True Scotsman, it was a statement of the blindingly obvious. One of our youth group leaders had been Catholic, and also an atheist, which hadn't stopped him from going mechanically through confirmation and first communion.
I'm currently seriously considering Catholicism; but I keep coming across stuff about catholic practice & dogma that baffles or outrages me (denying communion under both species to the mediaeval laity? What the hell? And then there's Mary...) That said, I also come across stuff that makes sense: the idea of sex & marriage as sacramental reflects something I felt before I could put the proper word to it.
I'll also note I'm amused by the comment (after pt. II) that John Wimber had nothing on Dominic Guzman, that cutting edge 13th century evangelist who regularly saw signs and wonders accompany his ministry. I read John Wimber (Power Evangelism, I think) and was struck by his list of miracles throughout history in an appendix at the back of the book. In Wimber's vision of history, God had taken a 1000-year break from miracle-working: IIRC the only charismatic event listed under The Middle Ages was some hermit who had the gift of speech in tongues. Yet further evidence that the Middle Ages were a spiritual wasteland, smothered by a corrupt and non- (or anti-)Christian ecclesiastical fossil, clearly! ...except it turned out there was a lot that Wimber had seen fit not to mention.
- James A.
Very, very good stuff! Thank you! I didn't know at first what you were getting at in Part One, because it seemed to me that I had seen these people before --- and from reading these later installments, I see that indeed I had! They are indeed some of the same nondenominational people I had seen around in the 70s and 80s. I had no idea how much they'd grown.
You are exactly right to insist that we see them from THEIR self-understanding - that's very important!
Can't wait to read the rest!
Brian:
"Although I can see that they are not primarily concerned with the doctrinal differences which traditionally led Protestants away from the Church, I wonder if this is simply out of ignorance. That is to say, is it possible that these independents simply do not know enough about Catholic teaching to count themselves among those who reject it--those who protest against it? If so, I suspect that--given a thorough exposure to Catholic theology--they would quickly take up the same objections of their other Protestant forebears.”
We do have to remember that many of the older leaders of this movement like Peter Wagner, were trained as standard issue Protestant ministers in the 60 or 70’s. They are familiar with the standard issues. We have to really grasp this critical point: THEY DON”T CARE much about what we think because they don't regard us as a major player in God's purposes.
For them, the Reformation is assumed to be a step forward but not at all a rallying cry. Because many of them believe that the Reformation retained far too much of Constantinian” Christianity in its structures and assumptions – and now those are all up for grabs. (See this afternoon’s installment for more)
One of the issues I will be dealing with in one of tomorrow’s installments is that Independents are almost completely pre-occupied with the future.
They do not regard the past – ancient, medieval, or modern or even that of 10 years ago as definitive. They really, truly believe that God is revealing his present will now to anointed leaders and that to cling to the practices or structures of the past is active disobedience.
They are not defining themselves against Catholicism any more than the 16th century reformers were defining themselves again the Orthodox. Independents are comparing themselves with and defining themselves against traditionally structured, denominational evangelical Protestantism as they knew it in the 70’s and 80’s.
And I’m trying to present them in the context of their own self-understanding.
About explicit anti-Catholicism, there is a split. Peter Wagner and his group are very explicitly anti-Catholic and won’t collaborate with any Catholics in any endeavor because they believe that we are in a demonic covenant because of our communion with the papacy.
The majority of Independents tend to regard old style anti-Catholicism as “denominationalist” and would reject it. But since they are our anti-type in their assumptions (a-historical, anti-hierarchical, anti-intellectual, and non-sacramental) there is a huge natural dissonance that they wouldn’t think of as specifically anti-Catholic.
We have to remember that we are, at best, on the periphery of their mental universe. Newman’s observation: “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” is of NO interest to them.
What is of burning, abiding interest is how is Jesus Christ to be proclaimed and experienced and lived NOW,in this generation.
Hey, James A. - so glad to have you join the conversation.
I was part of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement for about 15 years before I became a Catholic in 1999. It was an education of the soul, of my emotions, in learning to experience God in a different way than my Baptist upbringing had taught me. And the "miracles" part was a very important bridge for me in coming to understand and embrace sacramental theology.
If you're curious, I invite you to take a look at a piece of my conversion story here on Steve Ray's site (scroll down to "Kathie's Story"). It explores some of the issues that I faced in examining the Church's claims from my perspective at that time. Feel free to email me with any comments or questions.
In the meantime, welcome once again, and I look forward to hearing your comments on future installments of Sherry's article. Cheers!
Dear Sherry,
I'm reading with interest here. Thank you for sharing this wonderful article. I am wondering, though, about the notion that these independent Christians are not Portestant in the classical sense. Although I can see that they are not primarily concerned with the doctrinal differences which traditionally led Protestants away from the Church, I wonder if this is simply out of ignorance. That is to say, is it possible that these independents simply do not know enough about Catholic teaching to count themselves among those who reject it--those who protest against it? If so, I suspect that--given a thorough exposure to Catholic theology--they would quickly take up the same objections of their other Protestant forebears.
Also, I'm not sure if this is just an isolated congregation, but some of the most strident anti-Catholics that I know are members of the local the Vineyard congregation. With their particular emphasis on an unplanned, spirit-led, free-for-all style of worship, they are especially critical of all things liturgical.
Hi David:
You are right. Their attitude toward history is dangerous - but sometimes so is ours.
By that, I mean, that when one jettisons history, one loses important illuminations and correctives. But when one ignores the present realities in favor of focusing on the past, one also loses important illuminations and correctives.
Catholics and Orthodox theologians have traditionally focused upon the past. Pastorally/evangelistically oriented Catholics and evangelicals tend to focus upon the challenges of the present. And there is always a tension between the two.
Present-oriented pastoral/evangelical genuises like St. Vincent de Paul or St. Dominic, for instance - don't tend to write theology. They are too busy coming up with new ways to address the needs of the present.
(Historically, they have founded religious orders who carry their banner for them - but religious orders usually don't generate the sort of theology that permeates the entire Church. St. Thomas is a dramatic exception and it took 7 centuries for his thought to reach that status.)
Why it is so difficult for Christians to hold both together is hard to say. Part of it is that it is too vast and complicated for individuals to navigate both with equal skill.
But this divide between primarily historically minded Christians (Catholics and Orthodox and some confessional Protestant groups) and those who are primarily present-future oriented (evangelicals, Pentecostals, Independents) is one of the biggest divides of our day.
There has been a lot of blogging lately about evangelical scholars who are returning to or becoming Catholic. It takes a certain kind of mind and set of skills to ask and wrestle with the sort of sophisticated historical questions that are drawing intellectually oriented evangelicals to Catholicism. You have to *care* about history, ask historical questions and have the leisure and skills to negotiate history.
But most people aren't asking those questions and don't have those kinds of skills. They are asking burning present and future-focued questions - which we are not nearly as skilled in answering.
Other Sherry,
Thanks for a very interesting and informative article on Independent Christianity. I've been reading it like it's a suspense novel, and a real page-turner at that.
Now I'm scared, because I think this movement could be very dangerous--if only due to its attitude toward history.
Because if I know anyhting, I know one thing: To be ignorant of history, to be unmindful of history, is to be forever starting at square one again and again, with all that implies of a pointless waste of effort; and to be liable to making the same tragic mistakes again and again.
And all this may be just the starting point of the evil that is possible when only the here and now is considered real and important.
Our God commands us to honor our father and mother, which means first of all our literal fathers and mothers but also all our ancestors, as it seems to me. We are to respect their humanity, their intellect, their worthy accomplishments, and not to do so is to commit the sin which traditionally has been considered the sin of sins, that of pride.
I guess I'm mostly preaching to the choir with this comment, but I would say to any "independent" Christian listening in: As a follower of Jesus, why would you ever want to be "independent" of all his followers who have gone before you?
--Dave R. (not to be confused with Other Dave, the Methodist turned Atheist turned Espiscopalian who eventually became me, a Roman Catholic)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home