Rapid growth of Pentecostal churches and the increasing prosperity of Pentecostals after the Second World War probably contributed to this growing acceptance. Vinson Synan asserts that these events, plus the influence of such programs as the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship International and the advent of Oral Roberts’ television ministry in the early sixties, set the stage for widespread recognition and acceptance of the modern Charismatic Movement. 1

     As early as the fifties, constructive dialogue was underway between the Pentecostal movement and mainline Protestant denominations. Churches involved in the ecumenical movement, especially, began to recognize the charismata in all their manifestations as a legitimate Christian expression. This positive dialogue has continued through the development of the Charismatic renewal of the sixties and seventies. 2

     In the last two decades many church groups have taken steps to make peace with the growing Neo-Pentecostal Movement. Several denominations issued guarded pronouncements of acceptance and recognition of the significance of the Charismatic renewal. These included the Lutheran Church in America, 3 the Presbyterian Church in the United States, 4 and the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. 5

     The United Presbyterian report is particularly insightful in that it “requests tolerance on the part of ministers, sessions, and presbyteries toward Neo-Pentecostalism in their churches; urges that charismata always be practiced ‘decently and in order’ (the Pauline injunction); and expresses its approval of the renewing work of the Holy Spirit wherever such activity is to be found.” 6 The United Presbyterian Church’s guidelines on how to deal with Pentecostal phenomena may also be useful to churches in the Wesleyan tradition:

     1. Be tolerant and accepting of those whose Christian experiences differ from your own;

     2. Continually undergird and envelop all discussions, conferences, meetings, and persons in prayer;

     3. Be open to new ways in which God by his Spirit may be speaking to the Church;

     4. Recognize that even though spiritual gifts may be abused, this does not mean that they should be prohibited;

     5. Remember that like other new movements in church history, Neo-Pentecostalism may have a valid contribution to make to the ecumenical Church. 7

     A Committee on Doctrine appointed by the Roman Catholic bishops of the United States also concluded that the Charismatic (Neo-Pentecostal) Movement should “not be inhibited but allowed to develop,” and indicated in its report that “theologically the movement has legitimate reasons for existence. It has a strong biblical basis.” 8

     The evangelical community, theologically closer to the Pentecostals than mainline ecumenical Christians, has made hesitant but sincere attempts at reconciliation, as indicated in an editorial in Eternity in 1973:

     More and more evangelical scholars today feel that the traditional, supposed biblical arguments for the cessation of the gifts after completion of the New Testament, cannot be sustained by the Holy Scriptures.

     The new stress is on the church as the body of Christ with its various members endowed by the Spirit with differing gifts. The gifts are “apportioned to each of us as the Spirit chooses” (1 Cor. 12:11, Goodspeed). And who would rule out tongues as one of these gifts? Certainly Paul didn’t. 9

     I accept as a fact that some of God’s people are filled or baptized with the Holy Spirit, and that nomenclature is purely a secondary matter that should not keep us from appropriating what lies behind differing terms for the same experience. It is also a fact that God, through His Spirit, does perform miracles and healings. Speaking in tongues does happen and is a bona fide gift of the Spirit. . . . These gifts have not ceased. 11

     Although the roots of the renewal in some ways lay in the Methodist tradition, the United Methodist Church belatedly produced its first major evaluation of the movement in 1976. While noting that Pentecostalism had emerged from the Wesleyan tradition, the report stated that Pentecostalism “has little to do with Wesley’s theology.”

     Nevertheless, tongues-speakers were welcomed in Methodist churches, as was dramatically demonstrated in 1969 when Oral Roberts was admitted to the Boston Avenue Methodist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Roberts was also admitted as a local preacher in the Oklahoma Conference by Bishop Angie Smith after promising the bishop and his thousands of “partners” that he would change neither his pentecostal theology nor his divine healing methods. The Graduate School of Theology of Oral Roberts University, headed by Methodist theologian Dr. Jimmy Buskirk, was approved by the United Methodist Church in 1982 as a seminary for the training of Methodist ministers. 12

     More legitimate and discerning appraisals of Pentecostal experience are now coming from evangelical and Holiness groups. John Stott, the respected Church of England evangelical, makes this mild criticism of Pentecostal and Charismatic theology—which, incidentally, could equally be seen as a criticism of the Wesleyan teaching on entire sanctification:

     It is spiritual graces which should be common to all Christians, not spiritual gifts or spiritual experiences. The gifts of the Spirit are distributed among different Christians (I Cor. 12); it is the fruit of the Spirit which should characterize all. . . . I would appeal to you not to urge upon people a baptism with the Spirit as a second and subsequent experience entirely distinct from conversion, for this cannot be proved from Scripture. 13

     To some extent this kind of leavening is already happening. Peter Wagner of Fuller Theological Seminary writes,

     I see myself as neither a Charismatic nor a Pentecostal. I belong to the Lake Avenue Congregational Church. . . . My church is not a charismatic church, although some of our members are charismatic. There is a charismatic prayer group. . . . Our pastor gives an invitation after every service for people who need physical healing and inner healing. . . . We have teams of people who know how to pray for the sick. We like to think that we are doing it in a congregational way; we’re not doing it in a charismatic way. But we’re getting the same results. 14

     But his life changed in a remarkable way. He went to the United States on a lecture tour, and he met a group of charismatic Christians who led him into an experience of the Holy Spirit that revolutionized his theology. No longer narrow, this man is an open Christian, expressing great joy and love in a liberated life. His love of the Bible is just as great as before, and his hold on biblical doctrines such as justification by faith is just as strong. But his charismatic experience is a bridge which has brought him closer to other Christians. 15

     Wesleyans have a choice. God seems to be restoring his gifts to the church today in considerable magnitude. Will Wesleyans respond with greater openness to the Spirit’s gifts? Or will they maintain the stalemate that has divided most Wesleyans from their Pentecostal and Charismatic sisters and brothers for decades?

1. It’s interesting that Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Catholic churches have been more open to Charismatic renewal than have some evangelical churches which are theologically closer to Pentecostals and Charismatics. Why is this the case?
2. What do Evangelicals stand to gain by embracing the Charismatic Movement as a legitimate expression of the church?
3. Peter Wagner says his church practices the gifts of grace but does so “in a congregational way, not in a charismatic way.” If the exercise of charismatic gifts is part of your church life, has this changed the church’s doctrine or organization in any way? If your church does not practice such gifts, could they be a part of your church’s life without being disruptive to doctrine or organization?
4. Never in church history has there been such emphasis on the gifts of grace as today, or so much acceptance of the charismata by church authorities. Because of this new openness, dramatic changes are possible, and likely. Try to picture your own church and community ten years from now. What changes will have occurred by then if the gifts of grace are freely exercised?
5. Joel prophesied, “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people . . .“ (see Joel 2:28—32 and Acts 2:16—21). Although this has happened here and there throughout the history of the church, it appears to be happening on a larger scale in the twentieth century. Would you draw any conclusions about the Charismatic Movement based on this observation?
6. What do you think accounts for the greater emphasis on, and acceptance of, spiritual gifts today?

1 See Synan, In the Latter Days, pp. 83—86.

2 See Quebedeaux, pp. 166—74.

3 The Charismatic Movement in the Lutheran Church in America: A Pastoral Perspective (New York: LCA, 1974).

4 Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (Oklahoma City: Presbyterian Charismatic Communion, 1971).

5 United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., The Work of the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: UPCUSA, 1970).

6 Quebedeaux, p. 164.

7 United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., p. 23.

8 Kilian McDonnell, “Catholic Pentecostalism: Problems in Evaluation,” Dialog (Winter 1970): 54.

9 ”Tongues: Updating Some Old Issues,” Editorial, Eternity (March 1973): 8.

10 “The Gift of Tongues,” Editorial, Christianity Today (April 11, 1969),: 27—28.

11 Synan, In the Latter Days, p. 137, quoted from Harold Lindsell, The Holy Spirit in the Latter Days (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983).

12 Synan, In the Latter Days, p. 124.

13 John R. W. Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1964), p. 59.

14 Quoted in Synan, In the Latter Days, pp. 136—37, from Pastoral Renewal VIII, no. 1 (July—August 1983): 3—4. By “in a congregational way” Wagner apparently means incorporating gifts without any major change in doctrine or polity.

15 George Carey, p. 17.

16 Ibid