Indeed, and by and large I agree with him. That said, my brother-in-law's parents who ran a Pentecostal mission in Splott in the 1970s (that delightfully named dock area of Cardiff now changed beyond recognition) were ripped off big-time by unscrupulous US evangelists again and again and again ...
They used to part with cash they could I'll afford to lose for mail-order 'anointed' handkerchiefs with putative wonder-working powers.
Then visiting evangelists would come to stay and eat them out of house and home.
Growing up in South Wales my impression of the Pentecostals would overlap with Walker's to some extent - but there was a Heck of a lot of credulity, naivety and loopiness there as well.
Probably no more than on the more middle-class charismatic scene but it was disguised there to some extent by a semblance of respectability.
I've often said that I'd have never become charismatic if all I'd seen of that end of things was working-class Welsh Pentecostalism. I liked the 'hwyl' and rough and readiness of it but as a Guardian-reading undergraduate it didn't really offer a viable fit.
For whatever reason - largely cultural - I found Anglican charismaticism and the then emerging 'restorationist' new churches more convincing. At least for a time.
I agree with Walker's adage that a charismatic is just a middle-class Pentecostal.
Indeed, and by and large I agree with him. That said, my brother-in-law's parents who ran a Pentecostal mission in Splott in the 1970s (that delightfully named dock area of Cardiff now changed beyond recognition) were ripped off big-time by unscrupulous US evangelists again and again and again ...
They used to part with cash they could I'll afford to lose for mail-order 'anointed' handkerchiefs with putative wonder-working powers.
Then visiting evangelists would come to stay and eat them out of house and home.
Growing up in South Wales my impression of the Pentecostals would overlap with Walker's to some extent - but there was a Heck of a lot of credulity, naivety and loopiness there as well.
Probably no more than on the more middle-class charismatic scene but it was disguised there to some extent by a semblance of respectability.
I've often said that I'd have never become charismatic if all I'd seen of that end of things was working-class Welsh Pentecostalism. I liked the 'hwyl' and rough and readiness of it but as a Guardian-reading undergraduate it didn't really offer a viable fit.
For whatever reason - largely cultural - I found Anglican charismaticism and the then emerging 'restorationist' new churches more convincing. At least for a time.
I agree with Walker's adage that a charismatic is just a middle-class Pentecostal.
The church as a whole is middle class. As a working class lad from a 60s council estate (proper houses lot of grassy areas) though attendance at my local church (RC) was reasonable, the RC working man’s club next door was much better attended. Many more f my working class peers would be agnostic at best, despite going to RC schools.
The “religious” (I don’t like that word) but people were midfl class. They ho
Sure. Most, but not all, RCs were working class when I was growing up in South Wales. We lived in a council house too.
But as far as the social pecking order went for the Protestant denominations the hierarchy was as follows.
Anglicans - predominantly middle-class and professional.
Methodists - almost but not quite the same.
Baptists - slightly lower and with occasional overlap with the Pentecostals at the 'convert' end.
Salvation Army - likewise.
Pentecostals - predominantly working class.
It was all changing by then and things were 'levelling up' to some extent (now where have I heard that before?).
But in relative terms that's pretty much how it was.
But yes, these days most churches are pretty middle-class other than those attracting people from migrant communities.
Walker was describing the situation in the 1980s. Things have changed since then. For instance, I'd suggest that most Pentecostal churches have become more pentecostal-lite and most charismatic churches have become charismatic-lite.
It's also a lot more common these days, I suggest, to find people attending Pentecostal or charismatic churches who don't 'speak in tongues' or feel the need to demonstrate charismatic credentials or tendencies.
I think that was always the case to some extent but I get the impression most traditional Pentecostals and the charismatics are less 'precious' about their distinctives than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
To adopt hippy speech for a moment, they are uh less likely to lay the tongues trip on people, man ...
I do get the impression that there's a lot less pressure for people to conform or perform than there used to be. Which is a good thing.
I'd be very surprised if there were as much 'tongues' and 'prophecy' and claims of miraculous healing around in 20 to 30 years time.
By then, most charismatic churches will have gone from charismatic-lite to charismatic-0.5 or charismatic-00.
There'll still be the odd heavy brew around, charismatic-XXX, but by and large the charismatic dimension will have receded into the background somewhat and have less of a big deal made of it.
You can come to the nursing home and tell me if I'm wrong. Or dance charismatically on my grave ...
For whatever reason - largely cultural - I found Anglican charismaticism and the then emerging 'restorationist' new churches more convincing. At least for a time.
I agree with Walker's adage that a charismatic is just a middle-class Pentecostal.
Yeah but as above, this is contingent rather than by design. At least in the UK the denominations that survived to latter become charismatic were middle class because religion had long been a middle class (and above) affair.
Sure. Most, but not all, RCs were working class when I was growing up in South Wales. We lived in a council house too.
But as far as the social pecking order went for the Protestant denominations the hierarchy was as follows.
Anglicans - predominantly middle-class and professional.
Methodists - almost but not quite the same.
Baptists - slightly lower and with occasional overlap with the Pentecostals at the 'convert' end.
Salvation Army - likewise.
Pentecostals - predominantly working class.
It was all changing by then and things were 'levelling up' to some extent (now where have I heard that before?).
But in relative terms that's pretty much how it was.
But yes, these days most churches are pretty middle-class other than those attracting people from migrant communities.
Walker was describing the situation in the 1980s. Things have changed since then. For instance, I'd suggest that most Pentecostal churches have become more pentecostal-lite and most charismatic churches have become charismatic-lite.
It's also a lot more common these days, I suggest, to find people attending Pentecostal or charismatic churches who don't 'speak in tongues' or feel the need to demonstrate charismatic credentials or tendencies.
Well historically Methodist are Working Class. Even today Upper working to lower middle. Think teachers, nurses, lower management, skilled engineers
Congregationalist were historically a bit of a wild card, you could get working class to Upper Class within the same chapel. Today those in the URC are lower middle class much the same as Methodist but this has been at the loss of the extremes.
The rise is due to the increase in the availability of university education and the stress on education within the upper working class, it means while fathers did skilled blue collar jobs, children do lower skilled white collar. Also remember my grandfather and my nephew have similar sort of jobs, skilled engineering. My grandfather was definitely working class and my nephew is mid-middle class.
Presbyterians - Upper Middle class. Think University Professors, medical consultant (you do not shout for a doctor but for the specialism in some of these congregations), lawyers, accountants, senior managers, architects etc.
Congregationalist were historically a bit of a wild card, you could get working class to Upper Class within the same chapel. Today those in the URC are lower middle class much the same as Methodist but this has been at the loss of the extremes.
Yes, the ex-Congregationalist side of my last church was decidedly "posh" - not "county" (they were Anglicans) but "business". And I'd say that URC are generally "middle-middle".
Yes, I broadly agree with @Jengie Jon but we have to take a more 'granular' approach as @Baptist Trainfan has done.
The Wesleyans tended to be small business people and skilled tradespeople whereas 'The Prims' and 'Bible Christians' were textile workers, miners, labourers and so on.
But as @chrisstiles reminds us, the various churches have become more middle-class over time. I've come across material during some historical research that indicates church attendance was far lower than one might have expected in my native South Wales even in the 17th century. Poorer people didn't attend church in any great numbers, even in the more populated areas.
My great-great-grandfather was a Baptist minister from Cardiganshire who ministered in South-East Wales for a time, and over into the Forest of Dean and down into Somerset.
His family were generally tenant farmers and agricultural labourers but one branch over in West Wales became quite well to do.
The family he married into in Monmouthshire were 'unskilled' farm labourers who became tin-plate workers. But it's interesting to see how quickly some of them came to live on 'piano row' - the local nick-name for a terraced street where there was said to be a piano in each parlour.
They'd set up shop as drapers by that time or worked their way up to a management position in the timber yard.
What strikes me is how both their chapel attendance and their Welsh speaking both declined from about 1900 onwards. They'd largely become 'free thinkers' by that time but a residual and quite 'nominal' Baptist allegiance lingered on until mid-century.
Anyhow, that was then. This is now.
I'd be interested to hear whether others share my projections as to where the charismatic thing may go next - in a more quietist and 'Quakerly' direction as I suspect or whether people think it will take a different turn?
Diarmid McCullough suggests that Pentecostalism may surprise us yet and come up with unexpected evolutionary twists and turns.
I'm sure that might well be the case but wouldn't want to predict what that might involve.
I'd have never suggested, for instance, that some traditional Pentecostal churches would go in a more Calvinistic direction, for instance, but that does seem to have happened in some cases.
I'm not sure I can. It was a bit of a throw-away lone at the end of his History of Christianity in which he speculates what might happen next.
He suggested that Pentecostalism still has the capacity to adapt and evolve, but he doesn't give any indication of what form that may take.
FWIW my own expectation is that some sections will become completely heretical - the health/wealth end - others will become more mainstream and yet others will spin off in directions we've not yet anticipated.
I also grew up in South Wales (born in the mid 1960s) and moved back there in my late 20s. I wouldn’t have said there was anywhere near such a clear correlation between social class and denomination. There were class differences between different areas, so largely the Church in Wales congregations would reflect that (and generally still do); the non-conformists a little less so, as there was more of a tendency to commute to a church that suited you - provided you had transport.
I had the interesting experience of growing up in a Baptist church whose core congregation (those who lived in the surrounding streets and mostly didn’t have cars) was working class, but when I was about 9 we had a particularly inspirational pastor who attracted a lot of people from further away, and also a new student hostel was built which was just about within walking distance. So the congregation became much bigger and much more middle class. In my mid teens the pastor moved to England and it took the church several years to find a new pastor, mainly because its constitution required a two-thirds majority; in the interim most of the better off people with transport went elsewhere and the church became predominantly working-class again.
Student hostel? I'm guessing you grew up in Cardiff.
Things were different 'up the Valleys' and even around the fringe of the old coal field.
Sure, the demographic and socio-cultural differences I outlined were changing - and changing rapidly - during the period I'm talking about.
I'm not saying the conditions you describe were unknown outside of large conurbations like Cardiff, Newport and Swansea. Heck, I knew Brethren people, for instance, who drove to a Gospel Hall in Newport rather than attend the one on their doorstep.
Those changes were certainly happening.
What I am saying is that the kind of social-class demarcation I outlined still existed to a residual extent within the Valleys in the way they wouldn't have done at that time in places like Cardiff, or even Newport.
I'm suggest a 3 to 5 year time-lag between Cardiff and the Monmouthshire Valleys - the Eastern Valley, the Rhymney and Ebbw Valleys - and perhaps a longer one - 7 to 10 years even - in the fastnesses of The Rhondda Fach and Fawr.
All I'm saying is that I just about caught the tail-end of how things had been previously. I was born in 1961. I can just about remember 4-part harmonies in non-conformist chapels and 'hwyl' - but yes, metropolitan influence and cultural change had been transforming the Valleys for some time.
I'm not pretending that the Valleys were like the 1930s when Cardiff had entered the '60s and '70s.
What I am saying is that there was a bit of a time-lag but I wouldn't over-state that.
For those interested in social class, the Methodist Church that used to be opposite me was Kilhamite or New Connexion. Liturgically lowest of the low, but from the evidence of 19th century print of the building and where the church was I would say wealthy business.
For those interested in social class, the Methodist Church that used to be opposite me was Kilhamite or New Connexion. Liturgically lowest of the low, but from the evidence of 19th century print of the building and where the church was I would say wealthy business.
That's generally the pattern with Methodist churches isn't it ? Local (as opposed to national) business.
'The Trealaw Methodists
Have built a church,
The front looks like an abbey.
But thinking they can fool the Lord,
They've left the back part shabby.'
Up in the 'Heavy Woollen District' of West Yorkshire itvwas the Congregational Chapels that were most impressive.
Incredible examples in Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike with long vanished congregations.
Some of the old Wesleyan chapels were immense but were never, ever completely full, even in their heyday.
But which chapel to attend was often the only real 'choice' people in 'Cleck-Hudders-Fax' could exercise and even then, of course there was pressure to attend the one endowed or run by your employer, the local mill-owner.
The decline in chapel attendance was rapid from the 1920s onwards, although in some places it remained strong until the 1950s.
Bringing things back to 'contemplatives' and 'charismatics' I hope ...
It strikes me that 'neo-monastic' movements are very much a middle-class thing. I'm not sure what can be 'done' about that. More 'contemplative' forms of prayer and spirituality it seems to me, are always going to be the preserve of out-and-out monastics on the one hand or a somewhat consumerist approach on the other.
Which isn't to say that people shouldn't pursue or practice them.
The days when non-conformist chapels were a kind of one-stop shop for almost all non-work activity are long gone. Time was when in addition to three Sunday services there were Band of Hope meetings, prayer meetings, 'Christian Endeavour', magic lantern shows, talks, missions, chapel sports teams, amateur dramatics ...
The old-time Penties I knew were forever disparaging the Methodists and others for holding church bazaars and fetes, for laying on pantos and other forms of worldly and unspiritual entertainment.
The Established Church wasn't immune to this sort of thing either.
A 'son of the manse' I know remembers his uncle, who, like his father was an Anglican cleric railing about the cinema - which he pronounced 'Kinema' - for luring people away from Evensong.
My dear old mother in law who was thoroughly low-church Anglican - but with Pentecostal leanings and all sorts of whacky ideas about Israel and The End Times - remained suspicious of cinemas and pubs all her long life.
US-style megachurches of course, continue to act as 'one-stop shops' for their congregations' social needs - be it for babysitting or fellowship evenings down the local bowling alley or whatever else.
The same thing happens in largely migrant churches too, of course.
The charismatic thing depends on strong social networks and a sense of community. Take a charismatic out of that setting and the 'charismata' soon dries up. It is socially reinforced.
I'm not saying that as a criticism but as an observation.
If I attend Divine Liturgy irregularly then it follows that my daily discipline with the Hours or Daily Office is going to eventually wither away also.
Any form of spirituality depends on some form of community or 'plausibility structure' to keep it going.
Where the strength of the charismatic scene lies, I think, is the ability to create and maintain community. This may sound counter-intuitive given the fissaporous nature of many charismatic groups.
But the constant splitting and reforming somehow maintains a momentum despite the proliferation of smaller and smaller groups all pretty much singing the same songs and doing the same sorts of things.
I've often said on these boards that 'gathered' or intentional communities are where we are all headed irrespective of 'churchmanship' as Christendom crumbles about our ears.
Precisely what from this will take remains to be seen, but I'd like to see the 'skete', the 'base-community' and the monastery flourish alongside the congregation, the 'gathered community' and, where feasible, the parish in its traditional sense.
I reread peter hocken's "streams of renewal" a little while ago, it struck me that the early charismatic pioneers were a varied bunch in terms of their theological backgrounds and routes into the neo-pentecostal experience - Anglo Catholics with an interest in healing, brethren folk reinventing their eschatology whilst ramping up their separatist views of the true church, slightly shamanistic independent Pentecostal types, revival minded evangelical Anglicans and their baptist counterparts, methodist ministers trying to reconnect with the holiness fervour of the Wesley's, the stronly ecumenical emphasis of duplessis and harper, and so on.
I don't know how much these varied streams still feed into the charismatic scene and how they will influence what happens next.
I think they are important insofar as they tell us how we got to where things are, and as you say, the broad influences that went into the mix.
But like you, I'm not sure they indicate how things might develop or where things may go next.
I think all we can do is extrapolate from current trends rather than inputs from 30 or 40 tears ago.
Broadly, and at the risk of repetition, I think some sectors of charismatic-dom will become more charismatic-lite and 'quietist' - and with a more liberal and 'Quakerly' flavour.
I fully expect the wonkier health-wealth end of the spectrum to spin off into even more kooky territory.
I can see some less formally liturgical groups becoming more liturgical and some currently more liturgical groups becoming less so.
I don't see any let up in the ability of Pentecostal and charismatic groups to adapt to changing circumstances. They are good at that.
I don't see any let up in the ability of Pentecostal and charismatic groups to adapt to changing circumstances. They are good at that.
In many ways that is Bebingtons observation regarding evangelicalism as a whole.
Guessing what the wider cultural currents are and how they can be reflected in a Christian framework is tricky.
I may no longer be a card-carrying charismatic but that doesn't mean I no longer believe in the 'work' of God the Holy Spirit in the churches and out in 'the world'.
I retain an interest in the avowedly evangelical and charismatic groups because this is where much of the 'energy' comes from and where there appears capacity for adaptation and change.
Which again, may sound odd coming from someone who has shifted over to a highly sacramental and liturgical setting.
But essentially, for all our apparent and actual differences I think we are broadly heading in the same direction even if we are using different means to get there.
Community and intentionality are key from whichever direction we're coming from.
I don't know how much these varied streams still feed into the charismatic scene and how they will influence what happens next.
I think the difference is that the 'raw material' that fed those streams no longer really exist in the same way, or if they do they are much weaker than they once were; and at this point charismaticism is a known quantity and one that most arms of the church have taken a stance on, if only by omission.
The other thing that's happened is the geographic centre of Pentecostalism has shifted quite significantly, if you take the classification used by Pew and others of 'renewalists' (covering both pentecostals and 'neo-charismatics'), of the figure of 500m, around 80m are in Brazil with another 70m in China. Gradually these figures are starting to matter in institutional terms as they spin up their own seminaries and (especially) publishing houses. [Look, for instance, at how G12 spread among Pentecostal churches globally]
The 'sources' that fed into the initial charismatic renewal - outwith the traditional Pentecostal denominations, have either dried up to a trickle or dried up completely.
Here in the UK I think any significant developments on the charismatic scene will occur among migrant communities.
I know a few people involved with what remains of the non-New Frontiers restorationist 'new churches' here in the UK and a significant proportion of their congregations weren't born in the UK and have no interest whatsoever in the roots or 'heritage' of these groups.
They just want something charismatic and which provides a sense of community. I'm not knocking them for that.
For my sins, I did some work with one of these groups for a project commissioned by one of the leaders. I found that most people there, by and large, didn't give two hoots about what the leaders considered to be their particular 'distinctives'.
They either had a nostalgia for the early days, 'We used to see one another almost every day ...', 'My vicar wouldn't let us speak in tongues ...', 'we couldn't dance in the Baptist church ...' or were there because they enjoyed the fellowship.
All the 'noise' about 'restoring David's fallen tent' and such malarkey was irrelevant to them.
They just wanted close fellow and to be able to boogie on down on a Sunday morning.
I daresay the same would be true for the most part for those involved in churches of all stripes. 'I meet other Romanians there. 'I like the music.' etc etc
All the 'noise' about 'restoring David's fallen tent' and such malarkey was irrelevant to them.
They just wanted close fellow and to be able to boogie on down on a Sunday morning.
Yeah, but I think we need to be careful about this, absent detailed survey evidence. My own anecdotal evidence is that once a movement starts to grow beyond a certain size it's very hard to convey messages like the one you mention, the edges of most charismatic congregations tend to very fuzzy with lots of irregular attendees, a good number of church hoppers etc. often with a mix of interesting ideas.
The other point is that the 'heritage' changes over time, and in reality is basically a series of functional narratives rather than always something historical.
Sure. I completely agree, but the context of this - and I'm not claiming there was any detailed survey - was an attempt by the leadership of this particular group to remind people of their 'roots' and reinforce what they considered to be their particular distinctives.
My impression was that this wasn't of any great interest to anyone but a small handful of people at the heart of things. Nobody else was that bothered.
Sure. I completely agree, but the context of this - and I'm not claiming there was any detailed survey - was an attempt by the leadership of this particular group to remind people of their 'roots' and reinforce what they considered to be their particular distinctives.
But that could be because even their own 'core' view their distinctives in different and more recent terms, it doesn't mean they don't have any distinctives.
Sure. My point was that what the leadership regard as their 'distinctives' didn't appear to mean that much to the rank and file.
But yes, I would say that this particular group does have some key and interesting distinctives and is far more 'benign' if I can put it that way than some others I could mention.
I'm not sure I can. It was a bit of a throw-away lone at the end of his History of Christianity in which he speculates what might happen next.
I dug up my copy and had a look, the closest I found find was this (in Chapter 25):
"There is no special reason why a form of Christianity which emphasizes the renewal brought by the gifts of the Spirit should be allied to Evangelical Fundamentalism, which demands adherence to a particular set of intellectual or doctrinal propositions or a particular way of understanding texts from the past. There has indeed been a considerable 'Charismatic' movement within a very different variety of Western Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church. Pentecostalism might grow into an alliance with other forms of Christianity which have seen the Bible in more flexible and arguably more creative ways - as stories whose truth is not that of the Highway Code or a car maintenance guide. It was certainly the experience of the Quakers, from their first extrovert demonstrations in the seventeenth century, that Evangelical Christianity was a very inexact fit for their exploration of the spiritual; so it may prove with Pentecostalism."
Ah, I think you've found it @chrisstiles and it's different from how I remembered it and even more intriguing I think.
I commend you for your research and meticulous attention to detail. Perhaps you should work for 'BBC Verify'? 😉
Although he doesn't speculate as to which direction Pentecostalism may take, the comparison with Quakerism is intriguing.
Subsequent generations of Quakers didn't find evangelicalism a 'good fit'- although there are evangelical Friends in some parts of the world of course.
Mind you, it's arguable whether Pentecostalism has ever been a 'good fit' with evangelicalism in its 'traditional' form. As recently as the 1950s and '60s 'The Pentecostals' were included in evangelical books about cults and sects.
The brief convergence and confluence between white-led Pentecostalism and forms of evangelicalism in the late 20th century may proof to have been a passing phase.
But then 'evangelicalism' itself has become a more slippery term.
Any ideas on what other forms of Christianity Pentecostalism may ally itself with in future?
Although he doesn't speculate as to which direction Pentecostalism may take, the comparison with Quakerism is intriguing.
Subsequent generations of Quakers didn't find evangelicalism a 'good fit'- although there are evangelical Friends in some parts of the world of course.
So I would push back on MacCulloch somewhat; the preservation of the belief in 'renewal via the (visible) gifts of the Spirit' requires in turn a certain set of beliefs about how the Biblical text should be interpreted, and this is where there's some association with Evangelicalism as traditionally practised.
In turn Evangelical Fundamentalism as practised no longer has the shape he attributes to it - if it ever did - in terms of a distinctive set of intellectual and doctrinal propositions. This was never sustainable past a short period of time where denominational presses were still important, and what replaced it was a much slimmer set of propositions which themselves have ended up as mostly culture war fodder [As a side note; it may be instructive in this context to note that one of Trump's first rallies since he was convicted was at an AoG megachurch in Phoenix].
Mind you, it's arguable whether Pentecostalism has ever been a 'good fit' with evangelicalism in its 'traditional' form. As recently as the 1950s and '60s 'The Pentecostals' were included in evangelical books about cults and sects.
If you believe MacCulloch then it wasn't until the 50s that most rank and file Evangelicals had much awareness of Pentecostals, and to the extent I've followed his foot notes it seems this was traceable to the expansion of the suburbs and the rise of various radio/text ministries (more so in the US/Canada than elsewhere).
The brief convergence and confluence between white-led Pentecostalism and forms of evangelicalism in the late 20th century may proof to have been a passing phase.
I think this was fuelled by both immediate doctrinal and geographic contingencies, and to that point I see no reason why Pentecostalism in Brazil, Nigeria and China (to take the three areas where its strongest) would continue to develop in parallel with each other. They are likely to have different folkways if nothing else.
Yes. I'll buy that, although I get the impression that here in the UK, Elim at least began to have a more positive relationship with some sections of evangelicalism from around the mid-1930s.
But in general terms, yes, I reckon you're on the money.
I can certainly see Brazilian, Nigerian and Chinese Pentecostalism developing in all sorts of different directions.
I think a lot will turn on how information spreads among the rank and file in an environment where the traditional mediators of information have been replaced by a mix of platforms and super influencers.
I've been thinking a lot about this interface between Charismatics and Contemplatives.
I was born into and grew up in a catholic tradition with a strong emphasis on contemplation and some experience of the charismatic within it too.
But I married into an evangelical family and thereafter spent considerable time in evangelical/ charismatic church circles before returning to my roots.
It seems to me that the crossover point between Charismatics and Contemplatives is about the inward work of connection to God and our resulting transformation.
I think there will be aspects of both church traditions that foster that and there will be other stuff that probably doesn't! And it will depend on the praxis of individual church congregations as to how much that can happen.
The other stuff may or may not be profitable and will certainly contribute to people feeling at home in their tradition but the inner life is I believe where the two traditions possibly intersect.
I’m sort of wishing i could hear more about that, the inner life stuff, especially from a contemplative point of view. Does anybody talk about that? This rarely gets discussed where I come from, though the whole “are tongues real” debate is so old and widespread even i have gotten tired of it, and find it discouraging, to me at least.
I’m sort of wishing i could hear more about that, the inner life stuff, especially from a contemplative point of view. Does anybody talk about that? This rarely gets discussed where I come from, though the whole “are tongues real” debate is so old and widespread even i have gotten tired of it, and find it discouraging, to me at least.
Two practices which form a regular part of my life are Lectio Divina and Centering Prayer. Father Thomas Keating is good to read on the latter but obviously he comes from a catholic approach. However I know a couple of people from an evangelical background who have found his book "Open heart, Open mind" helpful.
The other thing which has helped me and many others enormously is seeing a spiritual director.
Something which I firmly believe is essential to all this is becoming comfortable with silence.
Not long ago I bumped into a man I haven't seen for years- very much from an evangelical/ charismatic background and he told me about how he had embraced contemplative practices and how enriched he'd been by them. He was still expressing himself with ideas and language from his own tradition but he'd clearly found something new and he shared his new strapline (for want of a better word) with me:
"If you want to go deep, go silent!"
Do you think this is a universal? ie it applies to everyone.
The reason I ask is that I constantly find that spiritual practices advocated by others just don't resonate with me - so I'm looking at the thread title here and asking "is there a third way? And does it also start with a C?". Well, the last one not so much.
It's made me increasingly aware of and wondering about just how much people differ in how they function mentally and emotionally.
So that's why I ask "is silence something that everyone will benefit from?"
I am not saying this is authoratitative but it is my take. First some claim for a Biblical basis. I have heard from several sources the linking with silence with the 1 Kings 19:9-12. An alternative translation of the "a low whisper" is a "a thin silence". The voice of God is therefore in the silence for Elijah. Whether that is because God is speaking quietly and wants Elijah to listen carefully or whether it is because God's language is silence, I will leave up to the individual interpreter and many hedge their bets between the two options.
This is the generalised to be the case generally. Other links are made to Jesus seeking times alone for prayer, we only sometimes hear Jesus' words at such times. Spending time with God away from the distractions around us is seen as one way of making yourself more open to God and going into silence is one way to get rid of the distractions.
What is also the case is that in many religions, silence is seen as a place of encounter with the spiritual. Perhaps more than absence of physical noise the silence is seen as the quietening of internal self chatter. So monks may chant "Om" to quieten the chatter or repeating a mantra can equally quieten the chatter. This is not ruling out using a mantra as a focus of prayer which would be a different application of the process. Repetitive action can also quieten a mind.
Often the process is linked to an idea similar to the Quaker "inner light" or God dwelling in the centre of the person, or the divine spark in the individual and thus you are able to hear more clearly if you still the noise of normal consciousness. There is a slip into Freudian psychology where the noise of normal consciousness is seen as synonymous with the ego.
All these theories tend to be universalist in their idea of the state of humanity. So it is hardly surprising that there arise universal claims from those accepting those ideas. I think the most telling was when someone challenged Jesuitical Lad to prove the spiritual existed and he replied by suggesting spending time regularly in silence for a few weeks. The person refused to try that experiment.
As you might gather I find the explanations on semi-persausive. I think they get at some truth but not all. No I do not have anything better but I sometimes wonder if in the need for explanation they are universalising the specific.
My own experience and I am someone who is naturally drawn to silence. My parents talked of me doing this at the age of 3. Firstly if you try to go into the inner silence, your noise of normal conciousness will become almost overwhelming, and so will the desire to go and do something else instead. Thus discipline and persistence is required to establish a routine contemplative practice. Due to this, in Catholic tradition which is where I am most read, it is seen that it is something someone is drawn to at certain stages of the Christian life. Again I might mix personality in with that rather than just stage.
For me the inner noise will drop away with Lectio Divina but rarely with Centering prayer. I also ever so often fall into silence. Most commonly this happens around Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament but not that is never necessary or sufficient. It would be hard to explain my state of mind except in the negatives. I am not in trance, I am not saying a mantra, I am still but not unconcious, aware of what is going on but no pressure to react. I am not going to claim God speaks to me at such times, it feels more like resting.
I do claim to have heard God speak twice. The first time he used utter silence but the second time he used English and spoke quite loudly. Neither time was I in the state of silence and God does seem to be monosyllabic in his instructions with me, if two times is enough to go on. Both times they were personal revelations, clear instructions and not more widely applicable. As God is averaging on word every thirty years or so I am not going to wait for his next one. Actually I just must get on with the latest.
Do you think this is a universal? ie it applies to everyone.
The reason I ask is that I constantly find that spiritual practices advocated by others just don't resonate with me - so I'm looking at the thread title here and asking "is there a third way? And does it also start with a C?". Well, the last one not so much.
It's made me increasingly aware of and wondering about just how much people differ in how they function mentally and emotionally.
So that's why I ask "is silence something that everyone will benefit from?"
Why silence? A brief starting point answer could be- Because people who have gone before us in the exploration of deepening their inner life have discovered that silence is an important part of that. I fully accept that it is an exercise in trust though.
I do think that silence is profitable for everyone but I also know that some people find it much easier to engage with than others.
The important thing is allowing the strength of thoughts, feelings and outward distractions to recede and to simply be, welcoming God's presence and activity in one's life. Also this engaging with silence might not necessarily seem to be achieving anything much in the moment but people often say they realise after some time that the continued practice of it leads to a deeper spiritual engagement.
If someone finds silence impossible to engage with then I'd encourage exploration of other practices.
I'd also add that commitment to the practice despite there being no immediate result is important.
But most of all I'd say discussion of this with a spiritual director is one of the best things anyone could do.
Some spiritual directors (full disclosure: I'm one of them) are very happy to accompany people for whom faith is a tenuous thing. I'm firmly of the belief that we bring ourselves, the people, to the direction process not just our beliefs, opinions or experiences.
Do you think this is a universal? ie it applies to everyone.
The reason I ask is that I constantly find that spiritual practices advocated by others just don't resonate with me - so I'm looking at the thread title here and asking "is there a third way? And does it also start with a C?". Well, the last one not so much.
It's made me increasingly aware of and wondering about just how much people differ in how they function mentally and emotionally.
So that's why I ask "is silence something that everyone will benefit from?"
Why silence? A brief starting point answer could be- Because people who have gone before us in the exploration of deepening their inner life have discovered that silence is an important part of that. I fully accept that it is an exercise in trust though.
I do think that silence is profitable for everyone but I also know that some people find it much easier to engage with than others.
The important thing is allowing the strength of thoughts, feelings and outward distractions to recede and to simply be, welcoming God's presence and activity in one's life. Also this engaging with silence might not necessarily seem to be achieving anything much in the moment but people often say they realise after some time that the continued practice of it leads to a deeper spiritual engagement.
If someone finds silence impossible to engage with then I'd encourage exploration of other practices.
I'd also add that commitment to the practice despite there being no immediate result is important.
But most of all I'd say discussion of this with a spiritual director is one of the best things anyone could do.
Some spiritual directors (full disclosure: I'm one of them) are very happy to accompany people for whom faith is a tenuous thing. I'm firmly of the belief that we bring ourselves, the people, to the direction process not just our beliefs, opinions or experiences.
Do you think the majority of Christians now or in history have had the time or opportunity to adopt these spiritual disciplines, or to have access to spiritual direction? It seems unlikely to me.
Do you think this is a universal? ie it applies to everyone.
The reason I ask is that I constantly find that spiritual practices advocated by others just don't resonate with me - so I'm looking at the thread title here and asking "is there a third way? And does it also start with a C?". Well, the last one not so much.
It's made me increasingly aware of and wondering about just how much people differ in how they function mentally and emotionally.
So that's why I ask "is silence something that everyone will benefit from?"
Why silence? A brief starting point answer could be- Because people who have gone before us in the exploration of deepening their inner life have discovered that silence is an important part of that. I fully accept that it is an exercise in trust though.
I do think that silence is profitable for everyone but I also know that some people find it much easier to engage with than others.
The important thing is allowing the strength of thoughts, feelings and outward distractions to recede and to simply be, welcoming God's presence and activity in one's life. Also this engaging with silence might not necessarily seem to be achieving anything much in the moment but people often say they realise after some time that the continued practice of it leads to a deeper spiritual engagement.
If someone finds silence impossible to engage with then I'd encourage exploration of other practices.
I'd also add that commitment to the practice despite there being no immediate result is important.
But most of all I'd say discussion of this with a spiritual director is one of the best things anyone could do.
Some spiritual directors (full disclosure: I'm one of them) are very happy to accompany people for whom faith is a tenuous thing. I'm firmly of the belief that we bring ourselves, the people, to the direction process not just our beliefs, opinions or experiences.
Do you think the majority of Christians now or in history have had the time or opportunity to adopt these spiritual disciplines, or to have access to spiritual direction? It seems unlikely to me.
I don't have any exact data but this is what I do know.
Lectio Divina has been a spiritual practice for a very long time in more catholic settings and as I said previously was something I learned in my early years. Centering Prayer started to become more widely practised after Christians began to revisit the whole silent prayer scenario (which dates back many years in the church) after encountering eastern prayer and meditation.
From the early centuries of the church spiritual direction was a thing but I think mainly amongst those in religious communities so not necessarily available to the average church member. Over recent time it became a more normal thing. Evangelical/ charismatic churches have IME had a long association with mentoring which is a very different thing! Also I seem to recall lots of discipleship courses?
The whole time thing is an interesting question. Once someone becomes aware of the opportunities for spiritual disciplines and direction then I personally don't see that it needs to be any more time consuming that the things people give their time to in churches like small groups, services, prayer meetings, Bible studies to name but a few.
Assuming people do do all those things. Taking a broad historical view I doubt they did. It's only ever a small minority of the congregation I've seen at prayer meetings and Bible studies and so on, even in more evangelical congregations. The "keenies" if you will.
I'm trying to imagine the average farm labourer in say 1740 and struggling to believe he was doing Lectio Divina, centring, Bible Study, attending a cell group or prayer meeting. I can only imagine he dragged himself in on a Sunday morning and that was about it.
I'm not sure quite where I'm going with this, beyond thinking that what many consider normal now in terms of individually motivated religious practice almost certainly isn't, taking 2000 years of Christianity as a whole.
@MrsBeaky - yes, I think you've touched on something I've been struggling to articulate and I had been hoping to avoid a 'tongues tangent' - but that was always going to be difficult in a thread with 'charismatic' in the title.
It's the 'inner life' and 'orientation' where the overlap occurs - the 'intentionality' too, if you like.
As counter-intuitive as it may sound, I believe the genuinely 'charismatic' side of things has little to do with the pursuit of apparently supernatural endowments and gifts but the growing recognition that 'God is everywhere present and filleth all things.'
If spiritual gifts help us get there, then great. If they're a distraction or an end in themselves then that's a problem.
@KarlLB - on the silence thing ... I think you've raised an important point. All of the more meditative or contemplative forms of prayer developed in monasteries and convents where people have time to devote themselves to such things.
There's never been an expectation within those Christian traditions which practice forms of monasticism that people who live 'in the world' should practice the same levels of stillness or contemplation available within the cloister as it were.
That's why there are sacraments and liturgies and so on and so forth.
People can 'apprehend' these things as and when and how they can.
Things like 'Centering Prayer' are more modern developments from older practice and have grown in popularity since the 1960s.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone should adopt these practices, nor that everyone is in a position to be able to do so.
I don't really know much about 'Centering Prayer', but I've read about it. It's not something the Orthodox tend to do. The late Fr Thomas Hopko had discussions and disagreements with Fr Thomas Keating about it, I gather. I'm not out to take sides and I don't know much about the actual debate.
In essence, though, I suspect that what Orthodox 'hesychasts' and Western proponents of 'Centering Prayer' are aiming at is pretty much the same, only by different routes.
We can only do what we can do. I sang with the choir again this morning and was glad to do so, but I didn't find anything particularly 'meditative' about it and my mind began to wander just as it does when I'm not with the choir.
On another occasion it may well feel very different.
I'm not sure it's a case of whether 'silence' or 'stillness' is or should be the goal, but more an issue of 'orientation' or intention.
What 'end' do we have in view?
What's most likely to help us achieve that?
Do you think this is a universal? ie it applies to everyone.
The reason I ask is that I constantly find that spiritual practices advocated by others just don't resonate with me - so I'm looking at the thread title here and asking "is there a third way? And does it also start with a C?". Well, the last one not so much.
It's made me increasingly aware of and wondering about just how much people differ in how they function mentally and emotionally.
So that's why I ask "is silence something that everyone will benefit from?"
Why silence? A brief starting point answer could be- Because people who have gone before us in the exploration of deepening their inner life have discovered that silence is an important part of that. I fully accept that it is an exercise in trust though.
I do think that silence is profitable for everyone but I also know that some people find it much easier to engage with than others.
The important thing is allowing the strength of thoughts, feelings and outward distractions to recede and to simply be, welcoming God's presence and activity in one's life. Also this engaging with silence might not necessarily seem to be achieving anything much in the moment but people often say they realise after some time that the continued practice of it leads to a deeper spiritual engagement.
If someone finds silence impossible to engage with then I'd encourage exploration of other practices.
I'd also add that commitment to the practice despite there being no immediate result is important.
But most of all I'd say discussion of this with a spiritual director is one of the best things anyone could do.
Some spiritual directors (full disclosure: I'm one of them) are very happy to accompany people for whom faith is a tenuous thing. I'm firmly of the belief that we bring ourselves, the people, to the direction process not just our beliefs, opinions or experiences.
Do you think the majority of Christians now or in history have had the time or opportunity to adopt these spiritual disciplines, or to have access to spiritual direction? It seems unlikely to me.
I think this is a good point—in fact, it’s where i am right now, as my denomination has minimal access or exposure to contemplation, mysticism, etc. or even spiritual direction, and yet i seem to be getting dragged into this a bit since early spring—and it’s an area I know little about. And to be honest i have a certain suspicion of programs and systems and so forth, and so one way around all these difficulties is the one I’ve taken, mostly by accident—which is to ask Christ to teach me. Which makes for a really odd experience so far, but I’m glad of it.
Assuming people do do all those things. Taking a broad historical view I doubt they did. It's only ever a small minority of the congregation I've seen at prayer meetings and Bible studies and so on, even in more evangelical congregations. The "keenies" if you will.
I'm trying to imagine the average farm labourer in say 1740 and struggling to believe he was doing Lectio Divina, centring, Bible Study, attending a cell group or prayer meeting. I can only imagine he dragged himself in on a Sunday morning and that was about it.
I'm not sure quite where I'm going with this, beyond thinking that what many consider normal now in terms of individually motivated religious practice almost certainly isn't, taking 2000 years of Christianity as a whole.
I think you're right- for that farm labourer in the past but also for people today struggling to survive in many a setting, time is precious and those of us with more time are deeply privileged.
The one thing I'd return to is the practice of Brother Lawrence who learnt the discipline of allowing his outward work to help him deepen his inner life and I'd hope for some people that might become a fruitful possibility.
Well, if he tells you anything different to what he apparently seems to tell people in those traditions that do have the sort of practices you say you don't have access to, @Lamb Chopped, tell us about it. .
No, I'm not being facetious.
But there's a collective thing going on as well an individual one. But you know that already ...
More seriously, many of @KarlLB's 1740 farm labourers wouldn't have attended church regularly in the first place.
Domestic servants in pious households would have attended daily prayers led by the householder and would have accompanied them on Sundays unless their duties dictated otherwise.
But even during the Great Awakening of the 18th century most converts - as far as we can tell - came from the 'middling sort' -artisans and tradespeople rather than the labouring poor.
But no, nobody is saying that a 17th century Russian peasant would have followed exactly the same spiritual practices as the monks in the nearest skate. But they may have followed some kind of adapted version.
It wasn't uncommon for Russians of all classes to spend time in solitary prayer in 'poustinha' or simple cabins in the woods, for instance.
These days, I think 'contemplative prayer' appeals to a particular 'constituency' but that doesn't mean there aren't echoes or equivalents elsewhere, or that people from other traditions, such as evangelicalism, don't avail themselves of these things from time to time.
RC retreat-house leaders have told me how they get plenty of evangelicals turning up these days.
I think silence helps quieten the mind, and I've found that beneficial spiritually. I have a tendency to be intellectual, and this is rubbish really. Of course, this is my own view, true for me.
Do you think this is a universal? ie it applies to everyone.
The reason I ask is that I constantly find that spiritual practices advocated by others just don't resonate with me - so I'm looking at the thread title here and asking "is there a third way? And does it also start with a C?". Well, the last one not so much.
It's made me increasingly aware of and wondering about just how much people differ in how they function mentally and emotionally.
So that's why I ask "is silence something that everyone will benefit from?"
Why silence? A brief starting point answer could be- Because people who have gone before us in the exploration of deepening their inner life have discovered that silence is an important part of that. I fully accept that it is an exercise in trust though.
I do think that silence is profitable for everyone but I also know that some people find it much easier to engage with than others.
The important thing is allowing the strength of thoughts, feelings and outward distractions to recede and to simply be, welcoming God's presence and activity in one's life. Also this engaging with silence might not necessarily seem to be achieving anything much in the moment but people often say they realise after some time that the continued practice of it leads to a deeper spiritual engagement.
If someone finds silence impossible to engage with then I'd encourage exploration of other practices.
I'd also add that commitment to the practice despite there being no immediate result is important.
But most of all I'd say discussion of this with a spiritual director is one of the best things anyone could do.
Some spiritual directors (full disclosure: I'm one of them) are very happy to accompany people for whom faith is a tenuous thing. I'm firmly of the belief that we bring ourselves, the people, to the direction process not just our beliefs, opinions or experiences.
Do you think the majority of Christians now or in history have had the time or opportunity to adopt these spiritual disciplines, or to have access to spiritual direction? It seems unlikely to me.
I think this is a good point—in fact, it’s where i am right now, as my denomination has minimal access or exposure to contemplation, mysticism, etc. or even spiritual direction, and yet i seem to be getting dragged into this a bit since early spring—and it’s an area I know little about. And to be honest i have a certain suspicion of programs and systems and so forth, and so one way around all these difficulties is the one I’ve taken, mostly by accident—which is to ask Christ to teach me. Which makes for a really odd experience so far, but I’m glad of it.
I too am wary of some programs and systems. I'm also aware that the name "Spiritual Direction" is a misnomer. It's the name we're stuck with but many people use the term "spiritual accompaniment" instead.
It is never about telling someone what to do. It's about being a sounding board and asking questions and helping people to discern for themselves what as you say Christ is teaching them.
Gamaliel, I’m childish enough that I doubt my experiences being taught will go beyond the stunningly obvious for a long, long time. I just wanted to mention that this is an alternate source of instruction available… and I’m grateful for the customization, as he knows exactly where my personal issues lie. Including the “I’m not built that way” stuff.
@quetzalcoatl - from what I can see much of the 'contemplative prayer' stuff is largely - but not exclusively - the preserve of the intellectual types.
@Lamb Chopped - and I'm childish enough to be provocative and suggest that nobody's spiritual tradition is as DIY as all that. I don't profess to know a great deal about Lutheranism but it's never struck me as offering a more direct hot-line to heaven than any of the others.
I'm not going to go all Big Church on you and say that as Christ is Head of the Church and as Holy Church is his Body then it follows that he will lead and direct us through such means and programmes as Holy Church in her great wisdom provides ...
Heh heh heh ...
But I am saying that none of us are in the business of receiving special Gnostic techniques tailored exclusively for ourselves and nobody else.
Which isn't the same as acknowledging that we are all different and that God doesn't deal with us individually as it were.
I know you're not saying, 'Stuff these programmes, I don't need none of that shit, I'm going straight to the Big Boss myself, he'll show me what to do ...'
Nor am I advocating a kind of arid institutionalism.
There is, I think, a kind of creative tension between the 'contemplative' and the institutional, and the 'charismatic' and the institutional, irrespective of which Christian tradition we inhabit.
Comments
They used to part with cash they could I'll afford to lose for mail-order 'anointed' handkerchiefs with putative wonder-working powers.
Then visiting evangelists would come to stay and eat them out of house and home.
Growing up in South Wales my impression of the Pentecostals would overlap with Walker's to some extent - but there was a Heck of a lot of credulity, naivety and loopiness there as well.
Probably no more than on the more middle-class charismatic scene but it was disguised there to some extent by a semblance of respectability.
I've often said that I'd have never become charismatic if all I'd seen of that end of things was working-class Welsh Pentecostalism. I liked the 'hwyl' and rough and readiness of it but as a Guardian-reading undergraduate it didn't really offer a viable fit.
For whatever reason - largely cultural - I found Anglican charismaticism and the then emerging 'restorationist' new churches more convincing. At least for a time.
I agree with Walker's adage that a charismatic is just a middle-class Pentecostal.
The church as a whole is middle class. As a working class lad from a 60s council estate (proper houses lot of grassy areas) though attendance at my local church (RC) was reasonable, the RC working man’s club next door was much better attended. Many more f my working class peers would be agnostic at best, despite going to RC schools.
The “religious” (I don’t like that word) but people were midfl class. They ho
But as far as the social pecking order went for the Protestant denominations the hierarchy was as follows.
Anglicans - predominantly middle-class and professional.
Methodists - almost but not quite the same.
Baptists - slightly lower and with occasional overlap with the Pentecostals at the 'convert' end.
Salvation Army - likewise.
Pentecostals - predominantly working class.
It was all changing by then and things were 'levelling up' to some extent (now where have I heard that before?).
But in relative terms that's pretty much how it was.
But yes, these days most churches are pretty middle-class other than those attracting people from migrant communities.
Walker was describing the situation in the 1980s. Things have changed since then. For instance, I'd suggest that most Pentecostal churches have become more pentecostal-lite and most charismatic churches have become charismatic-lite.
It's also a lot more common these days, I suggest, to find people attending Pentecostal or charismatic churches who don't 'speak in tongues' or feel the need to demonstrate charismatic credentials or tendencies.
I think that was always the case to some extent but I get the impression most traditional Pentecostals and the charismatics are less 'precious' about their distinctives than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
To adopt hippy speech for a moment, they are uh less likely to lay the tongues trip on people, man ...
I do get the impression that there's a lot less pressure for people to conform or perform than there used to be. Which is a good thing.
I'd be very surprised if there were as much 'tongues' and 'prophecy' and claims of miraculous healing around in 20 to 30 years time.
By then, most charismatic churches will have gone from charismatic-lite to charismatic-0.5 or charismatic-00.
There'll still be the odd heavy brew around, charismatic-XXX, but by and large the charismatic dimension will have receded into the background somewhat and have less of a big deal made of it.
You can come to the nursing home and tell me if I'm wrong. Or dance charismatically on my grave ...
Yeah but as above, this is contingent rather than by design. At least in the UK the denominations that survived to latter become charismatic were middle class because religion had long been a middle class (and above) affair.
Well historically Methodist are Working Class. Even today Upper working to lower middle. Think teachers, nurses, lower management, skilled engineers
Congregationalist were historically a bit of a wild card, you could get working class to Upper Class within the same chapel. Today those in the URC are lower middle class much the same as Methodist but this has been at the loss of the extremes.
The rise is due to the increase in the availability of university education and the stress on education within the upper working class, it means while fathers did skilled blue collar jobs, children do lower skilled white collar. Also remember my grandfather and my nephew have similar sort of jobs, skilled engineering. My grandfather was definitely working class and my nephew is mid-middle class.
Presbyterians - Upper Middle class. Think University Professors, medical consultant (you do not shout for a doctor but for the specialism in some of these congregations), lawyers, accountants, senior managers, architects etc.
Yes, the ex-Congregationalist side of my last church was decidedly "posh" - not "county" (they were Anglicans) but "business". And I'd say that URC are generally "middle-middle".
The Wesleyans tended to be small business people and skilled tradespeople whereas 'The Prims' and 'Bible Christians' were textile workers, miners, labourers and so on.
But as @chrisstiles reminds us, the various churches have become more middle-class over time. I've come across material during some historical research that indicates church attendance was far lower than one might have expected in my native South Wales even in the 17th century. Poorer people didn't attend church in any great numbers, even in the more populated areas.
My great-great-grandfather was a Baptist minister from Cardiganshire who ministered in South-East Wales for a time, and over into the Forest of Dean and down into Somerset.
His family were generally tenant farmers and agricultural labourers but one branch over in West Wales became quite well to do.
The family he married into in Monmouthshire were 'unskilled' farm labourers who became tin-plate workers. But it's interesting to see how quickly some of them came to live on 'piano row' - the local nick-name for a terraced street where there was said to be a piano in each parlour.
They'd set up shop as drapers by that time or worked their way up to a management position in the timber yard.
What strikes me is how both their chapel attendance and their Welsh speaking both declined from about 1900 onwards. They'd largely become 'free thinkers' by that time but a residual and quite 'nominal' Baptist allegiance lingered on until mid-century.
Anyhow, that was then. This is now.
I'd be interested to hear whether others share my projections as to where the charismatic thing may go next - in a more quietist and 'Quakerly' direction as I suspect or whether people think it will take a different turn?
Diarmid McCullough suggests that Pentecostalism may surprise us yet and come up with unexpected evolutionary twists and turns.
I'm sure that might well be the case but wouldn't want to predict what that might involve.
I'd have never suggested, for instance, that some traditional Pentecostal churches would go in a more Calvinistic direction, for instance, but that does seem to have happened in some cases.
There may be other surprises in store.
He suggested that Pentecostalism still has the capacity to adapt and evolve, but he doesn't give any indication of what form that may take.
FWIW my own expectation is that some sections will become completely heretical - the health/wealth end - others will become more mainstream and yet others will spin off in directions we've not yet anticipated.
I had the interesting experience of growing up in a Baptist church whose core congregation (those who lived in the surrounding streets and mostly didn’t have cars) was working class, but when I was about 9 we had a particularly inspirational pastor who attracted a lot of people from further away, and also a new student hostel was built which was just about within walking distance. So the congregation became much bigger and much more middle class. In my mid teens the pastor moved to England and it took the church several years to find a new pastor, mainly because its constitution required a two-thirds majority; in the interim most of the better off people with transport went elsewhere and the church became predominantly working-class again.
Things were different 'up the Valleys' and even around the fringe of the old coal field.
Sure, the demographic and socio-cultural differences I outlined were changing - and changing rapidly - during the period I'm talking about.
I'm not saying the conditions you describe were unknown outside of large conurbations like Cardiff, Newport and Swansea. Heck, I knew Brethren people, for instance, who drove to a Gospel Hall in Newport rather than attend the one on their doorstep.
Those changes were certainly happening.
What I am saying is that the kind of social-class demarcation I outlined still existed to a residual extent within the Valleys in the way they wouldn't have done at that time in places like Cardiff, or even Newport.
I'm suggest a 3 to 5 year time-lag between Cardiff and the Monmouthshire Valleys - the Eastern Valley, the Rhymney and Ebbw Valleys - and perhaps a longer one - 7 to 10 years even - in the fastnesses of The Rhondda Fach and Fawr.
All I'm saying is that I just about caught the tail-end of how things had been previously. I was born in 1961. I can just about remember 4-part harmonies in non-conformist chapels and 'hwyl' - but yes, metropolitan influence and cultural change had been transforming the Valleys for some time.
I'm not pretending that the Valleys were like the 1930s when Cardiff had entered the '60s and '70s.
What I am saying is that there was a bit of a time-lag but I wouldn't over-state that.
That's generally the pattern with Methodist churches isn't it ? Local (as opposed to national) business.
'The Trealaw Methodists
Have built a church,
The front looks like an abbey.
But thinking they can fool the Lord,
They've left the back part shabby.'
Up in the 'Heavy Woollen District' of West Yorkshire itvwas the Congregational Chapels that were most impressive.
Incredible examples in Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike with long vanished congregations.
Some of the old Wesleyan chapels were immense but were never, ever completely full, even in their heyday.
But which chapel to attend was often the only real 'choice' people in 'Cleck-Hudders-Fax' could exercise and even then, of course there was pressure to attend the one endowed or run by your employer, the local mill-owner.
The decline in chapel attendance was rapid from the 1920s onwards, although in some places it remained strong until the 1950s.
From the 1960s the decline has been precipitous.
It strikes me that 'neo-monastic' movements are very much a middle-class thing. I'm not sure what can be 'done' about that. More 'contemplative' forms of prayer and spirituality it seems to me, are always going to be the preserve of out-and-out monastics on the one hand or a somewhat consumerist approach on the other.
Which isn't to say that people shouldn't pursue or practice them.
The days when non-conformist chapels were a kind of one-stop shop for almost all non-work activity are long gone. Time was when in addition to three Sunday services there were Band of Hope meetings, prayer meetings, 'Christian Endeavour', magic lantern shows, talks, missions, chapel sports teams, amateur dramatics ...
The old-time Penties I knew were forever disparaging the Methodists and others for holding church bazaars and fetes, for laying on pantos and other forms of worldly and unspiritual entertainment.
The Established Church wasn't immune to this sort of thing either.
A 'son of the manse' I know remembers his uncle, who, like his father was an Anglican cleric railing about the cinema - which he pronounced 'Kinema' - for luring people away from Evensong.
My dear old mother in law who was thoroughly low-church Anglican - but with Pentecostal leanings and all sorts of whacky ideas about Israel and The End Times - remained suspicious of cinemas and pubs all her long life.
US-style megachurches of course, continue to act as 'one-stop shops' for their congregations' social needs - be it for babysitting or fellowship evenings down the local bowling alley or whatever else.
The same thing happens in largely migrant churches too, of course.
The charismatic thing depends on strong social networks and a sense of community. Take a charismatic out of that setting and the 'charismata' soon dries up. It is socially reinforced.
I'm not saying that as a criticism but as an observation.
If I attend Divine Liturgy irregularly then it follows that my daily discipline with the Hours or Daily Office is going to eventually wither away also.
Any form of spirituality depends on some form of community or 'plausibility structure' to keep it going.
Where the strength of the charismatic scene lies, I think, is the ability to create and maintain community. This may sound counter-intuitive given the fissaporous nature of many charismatic groups.
But the constant splitting and reforming somehow maintains a momentum despite the proliferation of smaller and smaller groups all pretty much singing the same songs and doing the same sorts of things.
I've often said on these boards that 'gathered' or intentional communities are where we are all headed irrespective of 'churchmanship' as Christendom crumbles about our ears.
Precisely what from this will take remains to be seen, but I'd like to see the 'skete', the 'base-community' and the monastery flourish alongside the congregation, the 'gathered community' and, where feasible, the parish in its traditional sense.
I don't know how much these varied streams still feed into the charismatic scene and how they will influence what happens next.
But like you, I'm not sure they indicate how things might develop or where things may go next.
I think all we can do is extrapolate from current trends rather than inputs from 30 or 40 tears ago.
Broadly, and at the risk of repetition, I think some sectors of charismatic-dom will become more charismatic-lite and 'quietist' - and with a more liberal and 'Quakerly' flavour.
I fully expect the wonkier health-wealth end of the spectrum to spin off into even more kooky territory.
I can see some less formally liturgical groups becoming more liturgical and some currently more liturgical groups becoming less so.
I don't see any let up in the ability of Pentecostal and charismatic groups to adapt to changing circumstances. They are good at that.
In many ways that is Bebingtons observation regarding evangelicalism as a whole.
Guessing what the wider cultural currents are and how they can be reflected in a Christian framework is tricky.
I may no longer be a card-carrying charismatic but that doesn't mean I no longer believe in the 'work' of God the Holy Spirit in the churches and out in 'the world'.
I retain an interest in the avowedly evangelical and charismatic groups because this is where much of the 'energy' comes from and where there appears capacity for adaptation and change.
Which again, may sound odd coming from someone who has shifted over to a highly sacramental and liturgical setting.
But essentially, for all our apparent and actual differences I think we are broadly heading in the same direction even if we are using different means to get there.
Community and intentionality are key from whichever direction we're coming from.
I think the difference is that the 'raw material' that fed those streams no longer really exist in the same way, or if they do they are much weaker than they once were; and at this point charismaticism is a known quantity and one that most arms of the church have taken a stance on, if only by omission.
The other thing that's happened is the geographic centre of Pentecostalism has shifted quite significantly, if you take the classification used by Pew and others of 'renewalists' (covering both pentecostals and 'neo-charismatics'), of the figure of 500m, around 80m are in Brazil with another 70m in China. Gradually these figures are starting to matter in institutional terms as they spin up their own seminaries and (especially) publishing houses. [Look, for instance, at how G12 spread among Pentecostal churches globally]
The 'sources' that fed into the initial charismatic renewal - outwith the traditional Pentecostal denominations, have either dried up to a trickle or dried up completely.
Here in the UK I think any significant developments on the charismatic scene will occur among migrant communities.
I know a few people involved with what remains of the non-New Frontiers restorationist 'new churches' here in the UK and a significant proportion of their congregations weren't born in the UK and have no interest whatsoever in the roots or 'heritage' of these groups.
They just want something charismatic and which provides a sense of community. I'm not knocking them for that.
For my sins, I did some work with one of these groups for a project commissioned by one of the leaders. I found that most people there, by and large, didn't give two hoots about what the leaders considered to be their particular 'distinctives'.
They either had a nostalgia for the early days, 'We used to see one another almost every day ...', 'My vicar wouldn't let us speak in tongues ...', 'we couldn't dance in the Baptist church ...' or were there because they enjoyed the fellowship.
All the 'noise' about 'restoring David's fallen tent' and such malarkey was irrelevant to them.
They just wanted close fellow and to be able to boogie on down on a Sunday morning.
I daresay the same would be true for the most part for those involved in churches of all stripes. 'I meet other Romanians there. 'I like the music.' etc etc
Yeah, but I think we need to be careful about this, absent detailed survey evidence. My own anecdotal evidence is that once a movement starts to grow beyond a certain size it's very hard to convey messages like the one you mention, the edges of most charismatic congregations tend to very fuzzy with lots of irregular attendees, a good number of church hoppers etc. often with a mix of interesting ideas.
The other point is that the 'heritage' changes over time, and in reality is basically a series of functional narratives rather than always something historical.
My impression was that this wasn't of any great interest to anyone but a small handful of people at the heart of things. Nobody else was that bothered.
But that could be because even their own 'core' view their distinctives in different and more recent terms, it doesn't mean they don't have any distinctives.
But yes, I would say that this particular group does have some key and interesting distinctives and is far more 'benign' if I can put it that way than some others I could mention.
I dug up my copy and had a look, the closest I found find was this (in Chapter 25):
"There is no special reason why a form of Christianity which emphasizes the renewal brought by the gifts of the Spirit should be allied to Evangelical Fundamentalism, which demands adherence to a particular set of intellectual or doctrinal propositions or a particular way of understanding texts from the past. There has indeed been a considerable 'Charismatic' movement within a very different variety of Western Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church. Pentecostalism might grow into an alliance with other forms of Christianity which have seen the Bible in more flexible and arguably more creative ways - as stories whose truth is not that of the Highway Code or a car maintenance guide. It was certainly the experience of the Quakers, from their first extrovert demonstrations in the seventeenth century, that Evangelical Christianity was a very inexact fit for their exploration of the spiritual; so it may prove with Pentecostalism."
I commend you for your research and meticulous attention to detail. Perhaps you should work for 'BBC Verify'? 😉
Although he doesn't speculate as to which direction Pentecostalism may take, the comparison with Quakerism is intriguing.
Subsequent generations of Quakers didn't find evangelicalism a 'good fit'- although there are evangelical Friends in some parts of the world of course.
Mind you, it's arguable whether Pentecostalism has ever been a 'good fit' with evangelicalism in its 'traditional' form. As recently as the 1950s and '60s 'The Pentecostals' were included in evangelical books about cults and sects.
The brief convergence and confluence between white-led Pentecostalism and forms of evangelicalism in the late 20th century may proof to have been a passing phase.
But then 'evangelicalism' itself has become a more slippery term.
Any ideas on what other forms of Christianity Pentecostalism may ally itself with in future?
So I would push back on MacCulloch somewhat; the preservation of the belief in 'renewal via the (visible) gifts of the Spirit' requires in turn a certain set of beliefs about how the Biblical text should be interpreted, and this is where there's some association with Evangelicalism as traditionally practised.
In turn Evangelical Fundamentalism as practised no longer has the shape he attributes to it - if it ever did - in terms of a distinctive set of intellectual and doctrinal propositions. This was never sustainable past a short period of time where denominational presses were still important, and what replaced it was a much slimmer set of propositions which themselves have ended up as mostly culture war fodder [As a side note; it may be instructive in this context to note that one of Trump's first rallies since he was convicted was at an AoG megachurch in Phoenix].
If you believe MacCulloch then it wasn't until the 50s that most rank and file Evangelicals had much awareness of Pentecostals, and to the extent I've followed his foot notes it seems this was traceable to the expansion of the suburbs and the rise of various radio/text ministries (more so in the US/Canada than elsewhere).
I think this was fuelled by both immediate doctrinal and geographic contingencies, and to that point I see no reason why Pentecostalism in Brazil, Nigeria and China (to take the three areas where its strongest) would continue to develop in parallel with each other. They are likely to have different folkways if nothing else.
But in general terms, yes, I reckon you're on the money.
I can certainly see Brazilian, Nigerian and Chinese Pentecostalism developing in all sorts of different directions.
I was born into and grew up in a catholic tradition with a strong emphasis on contemplation and some experience of the charismatic within it too.
But I married into an evangelical family and thereafter spent considerable time in evangelical/ charismatic church circles before returning to my roots.
It seems to me that the crossover point between Charismatics and Contemplatives is about the inward work of connection to God and our resulting transformation.
I think there will be aspects of both church traditions that foster that and there will be other stuff that probably doesn't! And it will depend on the praxis of individual church congregations as to how much that can happen.
The other stuff may or may not be profitable and will certainly contribute to people feeling at home in their tradition but the inner life is I believe where the two traditions possibly intersect.
Two practices which form a regular part of my life are Lectio Divina and Centering Prayer. Father Thomas Keating is good to read on the latter but obviously he comes from a catholic approach. However I know a couple of people from an evangelical background who have found his book "Open heart, Open mind" helpful.
The other thing which has helped me and many others enormously is seeing a spiritual director.
Something which I firmly believe is essential to all this is becoming comfortable with silence.
Not long ago I bumped into a man I haven't seen for years- very much from an evangelical/ charismatic background and he told me about how he had embraced contemplative practices and how enriched he'd been by them. He was still expressing himself with ideas and language from his own tradition but he'd clearly found something new and he shared his new strapline (for want of a better word) with me:
"If you want to go deep, go silent!"
Do you think this is a universal? ie it applies to everyone.
The reason I ask is that I constantly find that spiritual practices advocated by others just don't resonate with me - so I'm looking at the thread title here and asking "is there a third way? And does it also start with a C?". Well, the last one not so much.
It's made me increasingly aware of and wondering about just how much people differ in how they function mentally and emotionally.
So that's why I ask "is silence something that everyone will benefit from?"
This is the generalised to be the case generally. Other links are made to Jesus seeking times alone for prayer, we only sometimes hear Jesus' words at such times. Spending time with God away from the distractions around us is seen as one way of making yourself more open to God and going into silence is one way to get rid of the distractions.
What is also the case is that in many religions, silence is seen as a place of encounter with the spiritual. Perhaps more than absence of physical noise the silence is seen as the quietening of internal self chatter. So monks may chant "Om" to quieten the chatter or repeating a mantra can equally quieten the chatter. This is not ruling out using a mantra as a focus of prayer which would be a different application of the process. Repetitive action can also quieten a mind.
Often the process is linked to an idea similar to the Quaker "inner light" or God dwelling in the centre of the person, or the divine spark in the individual and thus you are able to hear more clearly if you still the noise of normal consciousness. There is a slip into Freudian psychology where the noise of normal consciousness is seen as synonymous with the ego.
All these theories tend to be universalist in their idea of the state of humanity. So it is hardly surprising that there arise universal claims from those accepting those ideas. I think the most telling was when someone challenged Jesuitical Lad to prove the spiritual existed and he replied by suggesting spending time regularly in silence for a few weeks. The person refused to try that experiment.
As you might gather I find the explanations on semi-persausive. I think they get at some truth but not all. No I do not have anything better but I sometimes wonder if in the need for explanation they are universalising the specific.
My own experience and I am someone who is naturally drawn to silence. My parents talked of me doing this at the age of 3. Firstly if you try to go into the inner silence, your noise of normal conciousness will become almost overwhelming, and so will the desire to go and do something else instead. Thus discipline and persistence is required to establish a routine contemplative practice. Due to this, in Catholic tradition which is where I am most read, it is seen that it is something someone is drawn to at certain stages of the Christian life. Again I might mix personality in with that rather than just stage.
For me the inner noise will drop away with Lectio Divina but rarely with Centering prayer. I also ever so often fall into silence. Most commonly this happens around Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament but not that is never necessary or sufficient. It would be hard to explain my state of mind except in the negatives. I am not in trance, I am not saying a mantra, I am still but not unconcious, aware of what is going on but no pressure to react. I am not going to claim God speaks to me at such times, it feels more like resting.
I do claim to have heard God speak twice. The first time he used utter silence but the second time he used English and spoke quite loudly. Neither time was I in the state of silence and God does seem to be monosyllabic in his instructions with me, if two times is enough to go on. Both times they were personal revelations, clear instructions and not more widely applicable. As God is averaging on word every thirty years or so I am not going to wait for his next one. Actually I just must get on with the latest.
Why silence? A brief starting point answer could be- Because people who have gone before us in the exploration of deepening their inner life have discovered that silence is an important part of that. I fully accept that it is an exercise in trust though.
I do think that silence is profitable for everyone but I also know that some people find it much easier to engage with than others.
The important thing is allowing the strength of thoughts, feelings and outward distractions to recede and to simply be, welcoming God's presence and activity in one's life. Also this engaging with silence might not necessarily seem to be achieving anything much in the moment but people often say they realise after some time that the continued practice of it leads to a deeper spiritual engagement.
If someone finds silence impossible to engage with then I'd encourage exploration of other practices.
I'd also add that commitment to the practice despite there being no immediate result is important.
But most of all I'd say discussion of this with a spiritual director is one of the best things anyone could do.
Some spiritual directors (full disclosure: I'm one of them) are very happy to accompany people for whom faith is a tenuous thing. I'm firmly of the belief that we bring ourselves, the people, to the direction process not just our beliefs, opinions or experiences.
Do you think the majority of Christians now or in history have had the time or opportunity to adopt these spiritual disciplines, or to have access to spiritual direction? It seems unlikely to me.
I don't have any exact data but this is what I do know.
Lectio Divina has been a spiritual practice for a very long time in more catholic settings and as I said previously was something I learned in my early years. Centering Prayer started to become more widely practised after Christians began to revisit the whole silent prayer scenario (which dates back many years in the church) after encountering eastern prayer and meditation.
From the early centuries of the church spiritual direction was a thing but I think mainly amongst those in religious communities so not necessarily available to the average church member. Over recent time it became a more normal thing. Evangelical/ charismatic churches have IME had a long association with mentoring which is a very different thing! Also I seem to recall lots of discipleship courses?
The whole time thing is an interesting question. Once someone becomes aware of the opportunities for spiritual disciplines and direction then I personally don't see that it needs to be any more time consuming that the things people give their time to in churches like small groups, services, prayer meetings, Bible studies to name but a few.
I'm trying to imagine the average farm labourer in say 1740 and struggling to believe he was doing Lectio Divina, centring, Bible Study, attending a cell group or prayer meeting. I can only imagine he dragged himself in on a Sunday morning and that was about it.
I'm not sure quite where I'm going with this, beyond thinking that what many consider normal now in terms of individually motivated religious practice almost certainly isn't, taking 2000 years of Christianity as a whole.
It's the 'inner life' and 'orientation' where the overlap occurs - the 'intentionality' too, if you like.
As counter-intuitive as it may sound, I believe the genuinely 'charismatic' side of things has little to do with the pursuit of apparently supernatural endowments and gifts but the growing recognition that 'God is everywhere present and filleth all things.'
If spiritual gifts help us get there, then great. If they're a distraction or an end in themselves then that's a problem.
@KarlLB - on the silence thing ... I think you've raised an important point. All of the more meditative or contemplative forms of prayer developed in monasteries and convents where people have time to devote themselves to such things.
There's never been an expectation within those Christian traditions which practice forms of monasticism that people who live 'in the world' should practice the same levels of stillness or contemplation available within the cloister as it were.
That's why there are sacraments and liturgies and so on and so forth.
People can 'apprehend' these things as and when and how they can.
Things like 'Centering Prayer' are more modern developments from older practice and have grown in popularity since the 1960s.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone should adopt these practices, nor that everyone is in a position to be able to do so.
I don't really know much about 'Centering Prayer', but I've read about it. It's not something the Orthodox tend to do. The late Fr Thomas Hopko had discussions and disagreements with Fr Thomas Keating about it, I gather. I'm not out to take sides and I don't know much about the actual debate.
In essence, though, I suspect that what Orthodox 'hesychasts' and Western proponents of 'Centering Prayer' are aiming at is pretty much the same, only by different routes.
We can only do what we can do. I sang with the choir again this morning and was glad to do so, but I didn't find anything particularly 'meditative' about it and my mind began to wander just as it does when I'm not with the choir.
On another occasion it may well feel very different.
I'm not sure it's a case of whether 'silence' or 'stillness' is or should be the goal, but more an issue of 'orientation' or intention.
What 'end' do we have in view?
What's most likely to help us achieve that?
I think this is a good point—in fact, it’s where i am right now, as my denomination has minimal access or exposure to contemplation, mysticism, etc. or even spiritual direction, and yet i seem to be getting dragged into this a bit since early spring—and it’s an area I know little about. And to be honest i have a certain suspicion of programs and systems and so forth, and so one way around all these difficulties is the one I’ve taken, mostly by accident—which is to ask Christ to teach me. Which makes for a really odd experience so far, but I’m glad of it.
I think you're right- for that farm labourer in the past but also for people today struggling to survive in many a setting, time is precious and those of us with more time are deeply privileged.
The one thing I'd return to is the practice of Brother Lawrence who learnt the discipline of allowing his outward work to help him deepen his inner life and I'd hope for some people that might become a fruitful possibility.
No, I'm not being facetious.
But there's a collective thing going on as well an individual one. But you know that already ...
More seriously, many of @KarlLB's 1740 farm labourers wouldn't have attended church regularly in the first place.
Domestic servants in pious households would have attended daily prayers led by the householder and would have accompanied them on Sundays unless their duties dictated otherwise.
But even during the Great Awakening of the 18th century most converts - as far as we can tell - came from the 'middling sort' -artisans and tradespeople rather than the labouring poor.
But no, nobody is saying that a 17th century Russian peasant would have followed exactly the same spiritual practices as the monks in the nearest skate. But they may have followed some kind of adapted version.
It wasn't uncommon for Russians of all classes to spend time in solitary prayer in 'poustinha' or simple cabins in the woods, for instance.
These days, I think 'contemplative prayer' appeals to a particular 'constituency' but that doesn't mean there aren't echoes or equivalents elsewhere, or that people from other traditions, such as evangelicalism, don't avail themselves of these things from time to time.
RC retreat-house leaders have told me how they get plenty of evangelicals turning up these days.
I too am wary of some programs and systems. I'm also aware that the name "Spiritual Direction" is a misnomer. It's the name we're stuck with but many people use the term "spiritual accompaniment" instead.
It is never about telling someone what to do. It's about being a sounding board and asking questions and helping people to discern for themselves what as you say Christ is teaching them.
@Lamb Chopped - and I'm childish enough to be provocative and suggest that nobody's spiritual tradition is as DIY as all that. I don't profess to know a great deal about Lutheranism but it's never struck me as offering a more direct hot-line to heaven than any of the others.
I'm not going to go all Big Church on you and say that as Christ is Head of the Church and as Holy Church is his Body then it follows that he will lead and direct us through such means and programmes as Holy Church in her great wisdom provides ...
Heh heh heh ...
But I am saying that none of us are in the business of receiving special Gnostic techniques tailored exclusively for ourselves and nobody else.
Which isn't the same as acknowledging that we are all different and that God doesn't deal with us individually as it were.
I know you're not saying, 'Stuff these programmes, I don't need none of that shit, I'm going straight to the Big Boss myself, he'll show me what to do ...'
Nor am I advocating a kind of arid institutionalism.
There is, I think, a kind of creative tension between the 'contemplative' and the institutional, and the 'charismatic' and the institutional, irrespective of which Christian tradition we inhabit.
I suspect that's necessary and all part of it.