» The rise and rise of Pentecostalism

6 Responses to “The rise and rise of Pentecostalism” »»

1. Brigid Walsh
   Comment by Brigid Walsh | 07/12/05 at 9:09 am

   In some sense, the why might never be answered satisfactorily. In other ways there are quite clear answers:

   The version of Pentecostalism that is attracting huge numbers does not encourage its adherents to choose between God and Mammon; God and a worldly life style. It has become identified with the upwardly mobile (not a new idea in the Christian tradition – i.e. the Jesuits educating elites in distant lands). In the first half of the century, this situation was far from being the hallmark of Pentecostalism. Recent comments on an ABC Encounter program, indicate some changes. Asked about Speaking in Tongues, Brian Houston said that he believed that God gave a personal prayer language. So much for the identification of Pentecostalism with the ministry gift of speaking in tongues and no mention whatsoever of that other minisry gift of interpretation of tongues. As well, a change in the constitution of the AOG was mentioned. A little noted clause in the AOG constitution supported conscientious objection to war. This appears to have been deleted. One of the changes Houston made at Christian Life Centre (City Hillsong) on the takeover of that congregation on the retirement of his father, Frank, was the removal of microphones used by those in the congregation who felt lead of the Holy Spirit to deliver a message. So the modern ‘Pentecostal’ generation is not challenged by the ministry of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which have often challenged many. No more guilt feelings if you don’t speak in tongues. The barriers and the controversial elements of traditional Pentecostalism have been lowered. While old time Pentecostalism was definitely counter-cultural, modern Pentecostalism is not. It accepts market dominated economics and politics. It networks strongly with leading US figures in the Pentecostal movement and in the politics of the American right. There has been a lot of long term planning, networking and ambition undergirding the present day “success”. What the current “success” is not taking to account is the fact that while huge numbers in a church (and Hillsong is not alone in having large numbers) are great in the context of the largest city in the nation, there is sadness and sometimes tragedy in what happens in smaller contexts when pastors and congregations feel the need to emulate Hillsong. People who can produce perfectly good music for a Sunday service beat their breasts because they are not as good as Darlene. Congregations are dragged into huge commitments and financial obligations to establish property and profile befitting clerical ambition based on the Houston model. One must not forget to mention the uniform – the Bobbi Houston uniform. Muslim women have the hijab. Hillsong women imitate Bobbi. Not sure what is being worn at the moment – but it was trousers with a knee length coat. Just yesterday, I lunched with a peson who had been a member of an independent church whose senior pastor had taken the church by deceit into affiliation with the AOG. The church then found that the collegiate pastorate in the church was overtaken by the top down pipeline from the AOG and the Hillsong model and doctrine. The prosperity gospel was rampant and this person estimates her family’s loss as they gave heavily, with expectations of reaping one hundred fold, at close to $1m. So perhaps we should see all this as a set of scales. Things that are considered positive or successful are on one side – but let us look carefully to see what is on the other side: clerical ambition, dominance, and power; the footholds for Mammon; the personal and congregational tragedies; the faithful-to-the-gospel souls who continue to labour as a minority in the vineyard (many of them are my friends in AOG churches); the failure to preach the good news of the Kingdom of God.

2. Steve
   Comment by Steve | 07/12/05 at 10:32 am

   Brigid, you’ve picked some of the important trends and challenges facing modern Pentecostalism. I’m not as black and white as you in your assessment. Pentecostalism is facing some of the same challenges as movements that have gone before them. History shows that eventually dynamic faith leads to prosperity in this life which in turn tames that faith. I’ve already looked at this trend for the early church and I think there are some lessons for Pentecostalism.

   http://www.steveaddison.net/2005/07/07/how-it-was-undone.html

   Hope to do some future posts on the Quakers and Methodists who suffered from the same pattern.

   I don’t know Brian and Bobbi Houston or Darlene Zschech personally but I feel your judgements of them are harsh. Those Pentecostal leaders I do know, mostly here in Melbourne, I have tremendous respect for. My hope and prayer is to help them wrestle with the lessons of movements that have gone before them and to make their unique contribution to the Kingdom.

3. Brigid Walsh
   Comment by Brigid Walsh | 07/13/05 at 4:55 am

   Steve,

   Just want to comment on your remark “History shows that eventually dynamic faith leads to prosperity in this life”. This blew my mind – while there are individuals who prosper, history also shows that dynamic faith is not a co-relative of prosperity – in fact the opposite is threaded right through the history of the church: Paul, who knew who how to be abased and how to abound; those who gave everything to follow Jesus; Francis of Assissi; Mother Teresa and hosts of labourers in the vineyard. Their dynamic faith did not even consider prosperity. I am sure you too, Steve, could add a list of people you know where prosperity bears no relationoship to the dynamic of faith except thankfulness for provision when it comes. The ultimate is to look at the life of Jesus who had nowehre to lay his head. If prosperity is so linked to faith then why did Jesus die in poverty at the age of 33. Why were the 12 Apostles not millionaires and why, even in this day and age, do people – even in a protestant tradition – like the Urban Neighbours of Hope take vows of poverty, odebience, and service to live and work side by side with the poor and marginalised. And remember how our Master told us that it would be difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The choice between God and Mammon is still a distinct one as Jesus said it always would be and if we cannot understand that choice and make it singlemindedly things will always be blurred, roadblocks will arise, and the poor will not have the good news preached to them.

4. Steve
   Comment by Steve | 07/13/05 at 6:01 pm

   Brigid, you’re right, dynamic faith does not lead to individuals always becoming successful or prosperous in this life. What I meant to say is that the trend of history is that dynamic movements become sucessful and then settle down. The despite the foundations that Jesus, then Paul laid, the early church prospered and then declined as a missionary movement. Check out my post http://www.steveaddison.net/2005/07/07/how-it-was-undone.html

   The monastic movement including the Franciscans has gone through recurring cycles of growth and decline. http://www.steveaddison.net/2005/04/10/disappearing-nuns.html

   The same story for every Protestant renewal movement.

   John Wesley predicted it of his own movement and provided an antidote which few movements have taken:

   “I fear, wherever riches have increased (exceeding few are the exceptions), the essence of religion, the mind that was in Christ has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality; and these cannot produce riches.

   But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.

   What way then can we take that our money may not sink us to the nethermost hell? There is one way, and there is no other under heaven. If those who “gain all they can,” and “save all they can,” will likewise “give all they can,” then the more they gain, the more they will grow in grace, and the more treasure they will lay up in heaven.”

5. Brigid Walsh
   Comment by Brigid Walsh | 07/14/05 at 8:45 am

   Thanks Steve for Wesley’s words of wisdom. I would like to make a further point about choosing between God and Mammon and that is the consequences of that choice, or the further choices we are led to. The friend I had lunch with on Monday bore this out for me. In opting for the Prosperity Gospel and giving in an extraordinary way so that 100-fold returns might be received then other decisions followed. Risky financial investments or even scams promising high returns were entered into. Surprise, surprise – she and her husband had been Amway distributors. You see, the high returns (which never materialised either) looked as if they were in the realm of the expected 100-fold. So when choosing these false notions of prosperity (which don’t particularly relate to the sort of industry and frugality mentioned by Wesley) one is also making other choices in advance. The path is chosen. Not only do people enter into risky financial areas, they are determined to look like they are prospering so there is the car, the house, the clothes to be considered – as a generality, everything has to look new and shiny. Vintage clothes and furniture don’t usually fit. Similarly, when God is chosen rather than Mammon, there are consequences. There is a path to follow which has consequential choices. This path has one overriding guarantee – that we will never be left on our own without protection. That is more than Mammon ever gives.

6. annette
   Comment by annette | 12/24/05 at 8:51 am

   I am just wanting to get in touch with Brigid Walsh who writes about her friend she had lunch with who lost heaps of money.I am interested in hearing more about that friends story. Are you able to pass my email address on to Brigid so she may contact me if she wishes?

Leave a Reply »»

Name

Email

Website

• Comment Preview