The Theology of Gender

Originally published on -  https://inklesspen.blog/2017/11/02/theology-of-gender/

Reblogged from the Inkless Pen.

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female …” (Mat 19:4).

True Christianity has always confessed that mankind is the creation of God, the work of His hands. To be truly human means to live according to the revelation, the way of life, instituted by our Creator God. Humanity is infused with an essential nature. This nature is an existent reality established by God Himself and is shared in common by every human person. God Himself is the originator of human nature; in Him alone does it truly comprehend itself. (Human nature was deformed and damaged by sin but subsequently restored and healed in Christ Jesus. Thus, when referring to human nature I am referring to its lofty purpose as revealed by God.)

Under the influence of Karl Marx, secular human ideology took a “leap” in its evolutionary process. He distilled (together with Engels) secularism to much of its current state. One of his major influences on modern thought is that every social, governmental, moral, religious, (and so forth) entity is but a structure, the result of external historical constructs (something akin to the evolutionary idea of “chance”); they are simply determined by the development of conditions. Everything, even possibly humanity itself, is but a result of these constructs and conditions. No essential value exists in anything. Marx taught: control the constructs and you can control and even remake, recreate humanity. Modern secular thought builds firmly on this Marxist ideology: to be human means nothing, to be male means nothing, to be female means nothing, all of these are but external constructs which bear no innate substance. This is the basic foundation of modern gender ideology. Gender, they would say, is but an external construct and condition. Another vital proposition of Marx was: to remake the world the “old” constructs and conditions need to be removed and even destroyed.

Orthodox Christianity has always proclaimed that humanity has essential value and professed that gender is quintessential to humanity. Humanity and gender are elemental qualities of being and are not dictated by external conditions. Outside conditions may warp one’s understanding and use of gender (and other things) but it can never fundamentally alter the essential reality. Besides the very obvious and glaring biological and physical realities of gender, Christianity teaches that gender, male and female, was established and created by God Himself in the very beginning,“From the beginning [He] made them male and female.” It is not an outside condition but an essential and intrinsic reality of existence for humanity. Indeed, human nature is expressed in male and female. Both share the common nature of humanity and thus are equal (note: not egalitarian) in essence but vary according to their definitive expression in gender. Female is not male, and male is not female. One is not superior to the other. Each bears a unique expression, distinct from the other, within the greater common nature of humanity. Here is God’s created diversity.

Inevitably my modern secular friends will be grinding their teeth. For them, gender has no part in a person’s role or expression in society, life, family, and so forth. They have labored hard to construct an androgynous society, faithfully hammering out Marxist ideology. At this point, the extremes are cast in ones face: “you think women should sit at home knitting! You think women should not vote! You’re a male chauvinist!” Just wait, calm down, and keep reading.

True Christianity defends that which is truly feminine and masculine. It confirms the uniqueness of each gender, a uniqueness that modernity is attempting to deconstruct and destroy. Women have been told that they must do everything a man does, effectively making man the standard of woman. Not much of a victory for women. Christianity, rather, encourages a woman to live according to her God-given gender, to grow in its unique attributes; likewise, it encourages a man.

Gender itself is an icon, an image. In the beginning, God made mankind in His image and likeness. Gender itself bears a participation in this image. According to revelation, male participates in the icon of Christ and female participates in the icon of the Church. St. Paul elaborates this theology in Ephesians 5:22 and following. There he expounds upon the relationship of a husband and wife. Ultimately he tells us that marriage itself is an icon of the mysterious relationship of God with His Church, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church” (Eph. 5: 32).

St. Clement further says, “Now I do not suppose that you are ignorant of the fact that the living church is the body of Christ, for the Scripture says, ‘God created them male and female.’ The male is Christ; the female is the Church … For the flesh is a copy of the Spirit. No one, therefore, who corrupts the copy will share in the original” (2ndClement). The deepest spiritual mysteries and principles are interwoven into creation by God Himself, gender not excluded. Gender itself and the proper interaction of male and female most of all in the divinely instituted state of marriage is a reflection of God with His most beloved creation. Gender has vast and deep significance. This is one of the reasons that moderns are seeking to deconstruct gender.

St. Symeon the New Theologian teaches, “This mystery is great – and beyond great! – and so it will always be, because the same sort of communion, and union, and intimacy, and kinship, which the woman has with the man and the man with the woman, such – understood in a manner adequate to God and as transcending our reason – it the relation which the Master and Maker of all has with the Church, as with a single Woman: blamelessly, ineffably, inseparably, and indivisibly united to her, being and living with her as with the one whom He loves and holds dear” (On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses).

St. Symeon is clear, such things must be understood in a manner proper to God. Clearly, gender is of the created order. God is the only uncreated and eternal One. Although it is evident that Christ Jesus was incarnate as a male, thus holding true to the image of gender that He had created. Gender is a physical image created by Him to convey eternal spiritual principles. In our time gender has also been tragically reduced to sexual function, but in the Gospel view gender is so much more. Proper sexual function is but one of the aspects of gender. Thus, we must never sexualize the imagery that God has established. This is difficult for modern people. The base sexualization of gender has resulted in all sorts of problems, the objectifying of women, an epidemic of porn addiction, the horrendous growth of sex trafficking, all sorts of sexual perversions and misuses, to list but some. The attempted abolition of true gender identity, male and female, through the application of Marx’s nihilistic principles (or lack thereof) is responsible for the excessive sexual violence of our times.

True Christianity empowers persons to live in and strive towards the full beauty and potential of their God-given and created gender, which is unique. It acknowledges that womanhood bears its own special quality as does manhood. It never tells a man to act like a woman or a woman to act like a man. The nihilistic gender experimentation of modern secularism is nothing short of abusive. It is an ideology and nothing more, one that is being implemented forcefully without any thought of the long-term effects on society and humanity. Its message is clear: humanity is nothing, gender is nothing, you are nothing, so nothing really matters. Oh, and yes “sexual revolution” and experimentation is a fundamental goal of secular Marxist ideology. ( For more on this see – http://thefreedomsproject.com/from-russia-with-love/ )

True Christianity proclaims that every person is created with purpose, even down to their very clear biological gender. Humanity is indued with substantial divine meaning. Living within our God-given image and purpose is what the true Christian life is about. Only within God can humanity reach its ultimate meaning and reality.

Orthodoxy: Tradition Not of This World

By Constantine Cavarnos

"Orthodox always regarded the unchanging persistence of the Orthodox Church in Sacred Tradition as her boast. On the contrary, the heterodox — with exceptions, especially in recent times — regarded this persistence as a sign of decline, as a sign of deficiency in her inner life. In particular, the Protestants hurled the reproof that the Orthodox Church is 'dead' and likened her to a 'petrified mummy.' This demonstrates the ignorance which the heterodox customarily have about the true essence of Christianity, and shows to what degree they confuse the revealed faith with the different worldly systems, with the different human contrivances and creations. Since in the crafts and the sciences there is a continuous development and perfection, they think that the same thing ought to happen in the Christian religion, that here too there should be a continuous revision, change, and replacement of the old by the new—in a word, 'modernization.' Looking at Christianity rationalistically, they misunderstand its revelatory character and demote it to the level of the systems which the mind of man has formed on the basis of reason and the observations of the five senses.

If strict perseverance in Tradition does not entail the deadening of the Church, but on the contrary is absolutely necessary for the preservation and fruitfulness of the life of the Church, as much again the disregard for and even partial abandonment of Tradition entails the slackening of her life and her gradual decomposition. The most persuasive witness to this is borne by the history of the Western Church, which introduced one novelty and "modernization" after the other, chiefly from the time of the Schism and after. This Schism of the Western Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church was a result of Western innovations. And the very revolution of the Protestants, which split the Western Church into warring parties, was a result of the downfall of the Western Church, a downfall which occurred as a consequence of her distortion of Sacred Tradition.

Nevertheless, the introduction of innovations continued. At the end of the nineteenth century, for example, there appeared in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church the movement of "Modernism" or Modernization, which set as its goal the renovation of Christian teaching by adapting it to contemporary worldly thought. The representatives of this movement inflicted one damage after another on Christian doctrine, and thought that in this way they would revivify their Church. But the result of this spurious Christianity of discarding truths of the Faith and making 'adaptations' was that large numbers of persons left the churches and became complete unbelievers (cf. P. Melitis, Let the Way be Cleared [Athens, 1957], p. 28).

Protestantism, having denied the unwritten Tradition, was quickly divided into different confessions, and they again into others, and so on, so that there exist today countless Protestant confessional groups ... a result of the different innovations and adaptations to each 'contemporary spirit.'"

A True Heart

By St. John of Kronstadt

The Christian has no reason to have in his heart any ill-feeling whatever against anyone - such ill-feeling, like every evil, is the work of the devil; the Christian must only have love in his heart; and as love cannot think of evil, he cannot have any ill-feeling against others ... We must not let evil in any form nestle in our heart; but evil generally appears in too many forms.

When on your way to God you meet obstacles raised up by the devil: doubt and unbelief of heart, also a thorough ill-feeling, sometimes towards persons worthy of absolute respect and love, as well as other passions. Do not be disturbed by them, but know it is but the smoke of the enemy, which will be dispersed at a sign from our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Last Judgment, by St. John Maximovich

St. John Maximovich

The Day Of the Last Judgment! That day no one knows -- only God the Father knows -- but its signs are given in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse of the holy Apostle John the Theologian. Revelation speaks of the events at the end of the world and of the Last Judgment primarily in images and in a veiled manner. However, the Holy Fathers have explained these images, and there is an authentic Church tradition that speaks clearly concerning the signs of the approach of the end, and concerning the Last Judgment. Before the end of life on earth there will be agitation, wars, civil war, hunger, earthquakes... Men will suffer from fear, will die from expectation of calamity. There will be no life, no joy of life but a tormented state of falling away from life. Nevertheless there will be a falling away not only from life, but from faith also, and "when the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" (St. Luke 18:8). Men will become proud, ungrateful, rejecting Divine law. Together with the falling away from life will be a weakening of moral life. There will be an exhaustion of good and an increase of evil. 

Of these times, the holy Apostle John the Theologian speaks in his God-inspired work, the Apocalypse. He says that he "was in the Spirit" when he wrote it; this means that the Holy Spirit Himself was in him, when under the form of various images, the fate of the Church and the world was opened to him, and so this is a Divine Revelation. 

The Apocalypse represents the fate of the Church in the image of a woman who hides herself in the wilderness: she does not show herself in public life, as today in Russia. In public life, forces that prepare the possibility for the appearance of Antichrist will play the leading role. 

Antichrist will be a man, and not the devil incarnate. "Anti" means "old," and it also signifies "in place of" or "against." Antichrist is a man who desires to be in place of Christ, to occupy His place and possess what Christ should possess. He desires to possess the attraction of Christ and authority over the whole world. Moreover, Antichrist will receive that authority before his destruction and the destruction of the world. 

What is known of this man -- Antichrist? His precise ancestry is unknown: his father is completely unknown, and his mother a foul pretended virgin. He will be a Jew of the tribe of Dan. He will be very intelligent and endowed with skill in handling people. He will be fascinating and kind. The philosopher Vladimir Soloviev worked a long time at presenting the advent and person of Antichrist. He carefully made use of all material on this question, not only Patristic, but also Moslem, and he worked out a brilliant picture. 

Before the advent of Antichrist, there was a preparation in the world, the possibility of his appearance. The mystery of iniquity doth already work (II Thes. 2:7). The forces preparing for his appearance fight above all against the lawful Imperial authority. The holy Apostle Paul says that Antichrist cannot be manifested until what withholdest is taken away (II Thes. 2:6-7). St. John Chrysostom explains that the "withholding one" is the lawful pious authority: such an authority fights with evil. For this reason the "mystery," already at work in the world, fights with this authority; it desires a lawless authority. When the "mystery" decisively achieves that authority, nothing will hinder the appearance of Antichrist any longer. 

Fascinating, intelligent, kind, he will be merciful — he will act with mercy and goodness; but not for the sake of mercy and goodness, but for the strengthening of his own authority. When he will have strengthened it to the point where the whole world acknowledges him, then he will reveal his face. 

For his capital, he will choose Jerusalem, because it was here that the Savior revealed His Divine teaching and His person. It was here that the entire world was called to the blessedness of goodness and salvation. The world did not acknowledge Christ and crucified Him in Jerusalem; whereas, the whole world will acknowledge the Antichrist’s authority and Jerusalem will become the capital of the world. 

Having attained the pinnacle of authority, Antichrist will demand the acknowledgement that he has attained what no earthly power had ever attained or could attain and then demand the worship of himself as a higher being, as a god. 

V. Soloviev describes the character of his activity well, as "Supreme Ruler." He will do what is pleasing to all -- on the condition of being recognized as Supreme Authority. He will allow the Church to exist, permit her Divine services, promise to build magnificent churches…. on the condition, that all recognize him as "Supreme Being" and worship him. Antichrist will have a personal hatred for Christ; he will see Him as a rival and look upon Him as a personal enemy. He will live by this hatred and rejoice in men's apostasy from Christ. 

Under Antichrist, there will be an immense falling away from the faith. Many bishops will change in faith and in justification will point to the brilliant situation of the Church. The search for compromise will be the characteristic disposition of men. Straight-forwardness of confession will disappear. Men will cleverly justify their fall, and gracious evil will support such a general disposition. There will be the habit of apostasy from truth and the sweetness of compromise and sin in men. 

Antichrist will allow men everything, as long as they "fall down and worship him"; and the whole world will submit to him. Then there will appear the two righteous men, who will fearlessly preach the faith and accuse Antichrist. According to Church tradition, they are the two Prophets of the Old Testament, Elijah and Enoch, who did not taste of death, but will taste it now for three days, and in three days they must rise. Their death will call forth the great rejoicing of Antichrist and his servants. Their resurrection will plunge them into great confusion and terror. Then, the end of the world will come. 

The Apostle Peter said that the first world was made out of water — an image of the primordial chaos, and perished by water — in the Flood. Now the world is reserved unto fire. The earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up (II Peter 3:5-7, 10). All the elements will ignite. This present world will perish in a single instant. In an instant all will be changed. 

Moreover, the Sign of the Son of God, the Sign of the Cross, will appear. The whole world, having willingly submitted to Antichrist, will weep. Everything is finished forever: Antichrist killed, the end of his kingdom of warfare with Christ, the end, and one is held accountable; one must answer to the true God. 

"The end of the world" signifies not the annihilation of the world, but its transformation. Everything will be transformed suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye. The dead will rise in new bodies: their own, but renewed, just as the Savior rose in His own body and traces of wounds from the nails and spear were on it, yet it possessed new faculties, and in this sense it was a new body. It is not clear whether this new body will be the same as Adam was made, or whether it will be an entirely new body. 

Afterward, the Lord will appear in glory on the clouds. Trumpets will sound, loud, with power! They will sound in the soul and conscience! All will become clear to the human conscience. The Prophet Daniel, speaking of the Last Judgement, relates how the Ancient of Days, the Judge sits on His throne, and before Him is a fiery stream (Daniel 7:9-10). Fire is a purifying element; it burns sin. Woe to a man if sin has become a part of his nature: then the fire will burn the man, himself. 

This fire will be kindled within man: seeing the Cross, some will rejoice, but others will fall into confusion, terror and despair. Thus, men will be divided instantly. The very state of a man's soul casts him to one side or the other, to right or to left.

The more consciously and persistently man strives toward God in his life, the greater will be his joy when he hears: "Come unto Me, ye blessed." Conversely: the same words will call the fire of horror and torture to those who did not desire Him, who fled and fought or blasphemed Him during their lifetime! 

The Last Judgment knows of no witnesses or written protocols! Everything is inscribed in the souls of men and these records, these "books," are opened at the Judgment. Everything becomes clear to all and to oneself. 

Moreover, some will go to joy, while others — to horror. 

When "the books are opened," it will become clear that the roots of all vices lie in the human soul. Here is a drunkard or a lecher: when the body has died, some may think that sin is dead too. No! There was an inclination to sin in the soul, and that sin was sweet to the soul, and if the soul has not repented and has not freed itself of the sin, it will come to the Last Judgment with the same desire for sin. It will never satisfy that desire and in that soul there will be the suffering of hatred. It will accuse everyone and everything in its tortured condition; it will hate everyone and everything. "There will be gnashing of teeth" of powerless malice and the unquenchable fire of hatred. 

A "fiery gehenna" — such is the inner fire. "There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Such is the state of hell.

Originally published in the Orthodox Word, 1966, Vol. 2, No 5 (11). Nov - Dec. 

Morality is Higher Than Law

"At the present time it is widely accepted among lawyers that law is higher than morality - law is something which is worked out and developed, whereas morality is something inchoate and amorphous. That isn't the case. The opposite is rather true! Morality is higher than law! While law is our human attempt to embody in rules a part of that moral sphere which is above us. We try to understand this morality, bring it down to earth and present it in a form of laws. Sometimes we are more successful, sometimes less. Sometimes you actually have a caricature of morality, but morality is always higher than law. This view must never be abandoned. We must accept it with heart and soul."

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Last Days Great Revival? The Charismatic Experience and Orthodoxy, the perspective of one Orthodox Priest, part 3

This is a continuation of a series, the reader may find links to part 1 & 2 below:

Part 1: http://orthodoxpueblo.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-charismatic-experience-and-orthodox.html

Part 2: http://orthodoxpueblo.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-charismatic-movement-and-orthodox.html

As previously indicated (see part 1), the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement (P/C movement) is heavily premised upon a very particular doctrine: the Church (again using this word loosely) fell into darkness just after the year 300AD. Beginning with the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's the Church, it states, has been in the process of being rebuilt and restored; in the last days, there will be a great revival (move of God, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit with signs and wonders). The expectation is that this last times event may even surpass the events recorded in the book of Acts.

Between roughly 300 and 1500AD, sterile form and ritual became the substitute for the dynamic living experience of the early Church, so the teaching goes. Every group within the P/C movement, regardless, claims a unique reconstitution of the “Early Church.” A profound ignorance of Church history is manifested; moreover, a deep ignorance of the real intent and significance of Liturgical worship, priesthood, sacraments, and so forth is revealed. Purportedly, Liturgical worship is “dead religion;” priests “stand in our way of God,” and on their objections would go. They war against the very nature of Christianity while claiming to do so for the sake of Christianity. All such groups claim to be restoring the power of the Early Church, be they my former Bible school, Brownsville Revival School of Ministry, or The Last Reformation, Morning Star, Bethel, and so forth. All teach that the Church went astray and is/was in need of restoration. They all hold, in basic, to the previously outlined historical timeline. They all teach a “last days great revival," move of power, and a super-abundance of miracles. And they all claim to be the ones chosen to bring such a grand event to fruition. (Signs and wonders may be a broad term, in this article it is used as a synonym for miracles, events of a seemingly supernatural quality worked at the hands of a person.)

One must understand that Protestantism is a movement with change in its DNA. Its whole original claim and premise were to restore authentic Christian practice. It has ever debated what precisely that is down to this day. Nevertheless, a founding idea of Protestantism is “Sola Scriptura:” the teaching that the Bible alone is the only genuine and reliable source for Christian doctrine (teaching). So, holding them to their own standards, the central doctrine, for a doctrine it is, of the P/C movement regarding the corruption of the Church and “last days great restoration revival” should be evident in the Bible. If not, according to Protestantism's own standards, it should be rejected. Of course, the Orthodox Church has never taught Sola Scriptura. Nevertheless, one may rightly expect that such a purportedly paramount happening as the corruption of the church, its downfall and subsequent restoration in a “last days revival” would be clearly revealed, if not plainly indicated, in the Scriptures. One would also expect Early Church Fathers to foresee such a catastrophic happening.

First, we must ask, did Christ Jesus ever indicate that His Church (Ekklesia)¹ would be overcome by the world? No. Rather we do have an indication (moreover a promise!) that the Lord will protect and keep His Church. "I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Mat. 16:18). We may safely deduce two things: 1) Christ is the source of the Church, 2) hell will not prevail against it. Hell is the very personification of corruption. It is safe to understand this to mean that the Church will never fail in Her essence. Clearly, Church history is full of ignominious and glorious events. She has welcomed the good and the evil in the hopes that all may repent and be saved. Because evil men have been a part, at least nominally, of the Church, does not mean that she is corrupt. This would be akin to insinuating that Jesus failed as a teacher because Judas failed to apply His teaching. The Church (using that word specifically) is always pure and true as is Her Lord.

Did St. Paul ever indicate the coming (from his perspective) fall of the Church? No. St. Paul tells us that Christ is the head and the Church is His body (cf. Eph. 1:21-23). This imagery is potent. Physically we understand that the head and the body are inseparable; a perfect union connects them. Separation of the head from the body is physically unnatural. One does not find a bodiless head, or vice versa, only if they are dead. But Christ is alive, as is His Church. Thus, to assume a failure of the body is to imply a failure of the Head. If the Church, the body, went corrupt, then one could plausibly lay blame on the head, Christ. This is madness, yet this is the madness that is insinuated in such teachings. We are further told that we have received an unshakable kingdom (cf. Heb. 12:28), it is no leap to understand this kingdom to be the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church is also called “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Clearly, the Church shares in the virtue of Her Lord. More examples could be given, but these suffice to show that the Biblical vision is not that of the P/C movement. Christ is the foundation of the Church, which shares in His life as the body does with the head. She is unmovable, and a sure foundation. In fact, to say that the Church fails is to call the Lord Jesus a liar, for He clearly says that the “gates of hell shall never prevail,” that is, the Church will never fail. The doctrine that the Church went corrupt is clearly against all sound Christian teaching. (People may separate themselves from the Church, but this does no violence to the essential and physical unity of the Church; the Church is always One. We are either united to Her or not. History is full of people disuniting themselves from the Church and uniting themselves. Simply because there are a plethora of groups claiming to be "Church" does not indeed mean that the Church is broken or split. The Church is One as is Her Lord, cf. Eph 4:4-6.)

The claim that the Church went "corrupt" must be used by the P/C movement because otherwise, they could not claim any similarity to, or continuity with, the "Early" Church. Thus a twister game like approach to Church History must be adopted (or it is altogether ignored). The testimony of Church life during the time period that they claim was corrupt and dark is so contrary to their vision, and thus it must be disregarded and degraded. Having no living continuity they must claim an ephemeral "spiritual" unity. Rather than listen and learn from the life of the Church they choose to disregard it so as to justify their own way of life, but it is not the Life of the Church.  

Secondly, is a “last days revival” at least indicated in the Scriptures? Let's see. I will limit myself to the Words of our Lord Jesus regarding the Last days in, Mat. 24, Lk. 21, and Mk. 13. St. Paul's epistle of 2 Thessalonians, a spattering of other Pauline references, and the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation). Clearly, since this is a short(ish) article, space does not allow an exhaustive study.

In all the accounts of our Lord Jesus' instruction regarding the last days, the picture is not all that bright. Persecution. War. Betrayal. Godlessness, and so forth. Of interest for the topic at hand are the opening words of our Lord in Matthew, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray” (v. 4). “Christ” simply means “anointed one,” thus it is possible to understand that many will come claiming to be anointed ones. The Lord continues, “If anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (v. 23-24). In Christ Jesus' teaching concerning the last days the only signs and wonders spoken of are false ones. No other signs and wonders are mentioned. Christ clearly does not indicate a last days revival as described by the P/C movement. Rather the picture presented is one of an increase of sin and evil together with many false christs (anointed ones) moving with spiritual power; signs so great that even the elect could be seduced, if possible (but by God's grace the Church will stand even this!). The situation seems so dire that Christ Jesus tells His disciples, “Be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand” (Mk. 13:23). What did He tell us? In the Last days false anointed ones will abound and they will use signs and wonders to justify themselves, “See we are from God!” but, "Do not believe it" (Mat. 24:23).

St. Paul prophesies regarding the last days, “Understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Tim. 2:1-5). Again, not a rosy picture. There will be an appearance of godliness, and this correlates to the many false christs of which the True Christ warned. In 2 Thessalonians St. Paul instructs that in the last days a rebellion will come, a rebellion against God and His Church. Lawlessness will be revealed (cf. 2 Thess. 2: 3-4). Again, the only signs and wonders referenced are false ones, “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess. 2:9-10). Is it not significant that when speaking of the last days the only signs and wonders spoken of by both Christ and St. Paul are false ones? Clearly, they are telling us to be vigilant; there is no indication of a last days revival as taught by the P/C movement. The only last days revival is a revival of sin and evil, together with a “spirituality” free from the “constraint” of the Church. And what is the guard against deception? Love of the truth; St. Paul told us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, thus we may conclude that a love and holding to the Church as it has manifested for 2,000 years is a love and holding to truth.

In St. John the Theologian's revelation of the Apocalypse we see a general vision of the rise of sin and lawlessness, brutal persecution of the righteous, war, suffering, and so forth. Clearly, this book is cryptic and requires great wisdom. Of interest for this article is not the specific meaning of each character and image, but merely whether or not a great last days revival is evident. We see the two witness, who testify against the Antichrist and his system. They are given the power to work wonders (cf. Rev. 11). Besides this positive reference to signs and wonders, the other reference is to the Antichrist himself and the beast (cf. Rev. 13). They use great signs and wonders to deceive the multitudes. Yet there is no clear and explicit teaching that the Church will fail and be in need of a last days restoration. Indeed the Church is persecuted and attacked throughout Revelation (cf. Rev. 12:17). Signs and wonders are predominately used to lead the multitudes astray. The culmination of all things is the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, which will truly be glorious (cf. Rev. 19).

A Charismatic Meeting

Nowhere are Christians instructed to seek a last days “restoration” of power. Indeed, the Church has always taught that obsession (the P/C movement is obsessed with power) with signs and wonders will only act to predispose people to accept false christs and ultimately the Antichrist. The power of the P/C movement has great emotional charge, I know I have moved in it. “The willingness of our fallen human nature to mistake illusion for truth, emotional comfort for spiritual experience, is much greater than you think,” astutely observes Fr. Seraphim (Rose).² True Christianity has always had miracles and always will, but they are not an end-all indicator of truth. They may be mimicked, and thus the underlying principles of the one working the miracles must be weighed and tested. Is the source true and sound? Is the fruit true unity in Christ Jesus and His body the Church? Many times power flatters us into thinking that we are spiritual people and that we deserve to have the “Holy Spirit;” that we are “anointed” and even to a degree special. In Orthodoxy, this is called prelest. Let us remember the mandate to test the spirits to see if they are from God (1 Jn. 4:1-3). The chief appeal of the P/C movement is to emotional experience, and all “truths” are subject to this experience. Most of the time the experience is never tested by some greater and abiding Truth; untested experience simply justifies the experience. The assumption is, “I experienced power, thus it must be from God.” The “I” is set as the great discerner of truth, and the safety of the pillar and ground of the Church is cast aside. A great arrogant assumption is made: I am spiritual; therefore I can discern correctly! Moreover, the power in the P/C movement is fairly easy to attain, one need not be bothered by pesky ideas like a life of repentance, humility, and self-denial. No, Christ wants me to be super! I have been there. I have done this. My hope is that people will also, by the mercy of God, come out of this prelest into the eternal freedom and Truth of Holy Orthodoxy. 

To what do the Scriptures call Christians, most of all those living in these times? Our Lord Jesus Christ says, "In your patience possess your souls" (Lk. 21:19). "The one who endures to the end will be saved" (Mat. 24:13). Christ revealed the way, the Apostles preached it, and we must patiently endure in it holding fast; not being led astray by false shows of power. “Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12). "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering" (Heb. 10:23). "Stand firm and hold the traditions that you were taught by us (the Apostles), either by our spoken word or by our letter" (1 Thess. 2:15). "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong" (1 Cor. 16:13). "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). We constantly see in the Scriptures an exhortation to stand in what was given once for all and never do we see a teaching telling us to look for a coming "new" work and revelation. Christ Jesus is the only New and Eternal Revelation of God, the job of a Christian is to hold fast to that revelation. This is the Faith of Jesus. (How can one hold fast to a faith that is in constant change due to ever-evolving experiences and new "words" and teaching, many times contradicting former ones, as in the P/C movement? To what teaching should one hold fast? The conundrum multiplies from here.) The Church has been founded on Christ once for all. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost affirmed the revelation of Jesus Christ to and in His Church. The Orthodox Church has proven through Her faithful and long endurance to be that very Church founded by our Lord. All other “new” revelations are condemned in the Scripture. Jude goes on to tell us, "certain people have crept in unnoticed ... who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). This denial is not so much a verbal one (they continue to teach in the name of Jesus), as one wherein they preach their own message in the Name of Jesus. Woe to such ones. In this way, they deny Christ and preach rather their own selves (but it sounds much more authoritative if someone says "Jesus told me!"). St. Paul tells the Galatians, "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema)" (1:8).

It is vital to note that the whole of Christian life and history for 2,000 years never expected a “last days revival.” To expound upon this would be very lengthy. Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that the teaching at hand is novel. The Christian Church, Orthodoxy, has never held it. In fact, all Her teachings regarding the last of the last days are in line with the Scriptures: they will be extremely difficult days, many will lose their faith, evil will abound as will false signs and wonders, but those faithful to the Revelation of Christ in His Church shall be saved.

In light of such testimony, one has but few choices: either accept them as true and proven by the True Church for over 2,000 years or throw them out and listen to what the new “spirit” is saying.

There is something indeed new at work, but it is neither from the wellspring of the Holy Spirit nor the pillar and ground of truth in the Church.

Let it be briefly noted that this is in no way a denial of signs and wonders per se, for truly they have been at work in the Church since the day of Pentecost. It is a refutation of a novel doctrine that asserts the “restoration” of the church which, so it alleges, was corrupted; the primary justification it provides for such a teaching is an emphasis on signs and wonders; power untested and accepted easily with the assumption that Christ is the source. As we have seen such a doctrine is not in Scripture nor the life and teaching of Christ's Church. Christianity has always understood that there exist false signs and wonders, and they are very deceptive; thus miracles are never the paramount ideal.

“How much, then, must Orthodox Christians walk in the fear of God, trembling lest they lose His grace, which by no means is given to everyone, but only to those who hold the true Faith, lead a life of Christian struggle, and treasure the grace of God which leads them heavenward. And how much more cautiously must Orthodox Christians walk today above all, when they are surrounded by a counterfeit Christianity that gives its own experiences of 'grace' and the 'Holy Spirit' and can abundantly quote the Scriptures and Holy Fathers to 'prove' it. Surely the last times are near, when there will come spiritual deception so persuasive as to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect (Mat. 24:24).” Fr. Seraphim (Rose).

Please keep in mind that this series is an examination of a system. While I cannot but reject what is a faulty system, I understand that there are persons within it. The persons I leave to God. May He grant them enlightenment, repentance, and salvation. This is an examination of a novel system and teaching that claims to be from God.

1 It is good to note that our English word church does not come etymologically from the Greek word ekklesia, but from the Greek word Kyriacon, “of the Lord” or loosely “the Lord's house.” In old English it was Cirice from the west German Kirka, which is the same in old Saxon, from these words we have our word “church.” The word ekklessia is more properly “the gathering, or the community” the Greek is a compound of ek – out, away from; and a derivative of kaleo – to call. Thus literally it means “to call out from.” I will use the word Church in its current common usage as the translation of ekklesia.

2Fr. Seraphim (Rose). Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. St. Herman Press, p. 141.

The Charismatic Movement and the Orthodox Church: the perspective of one Orthodox Priest, part 2

This article is part two in a series. 

A “Charismatic” Movement in the Early Church

In the town of Phrygia, central Asia Minor, about the year 160AD, a man named Montanus claimed to be “seized” by the Holy Spirit. He began to receive “special” messages, “speak in tongues,” prophesy, and so forth. Two women “prophetesses” soon join him: Priscilla and Maximillia.

This occurrence takes place well before the above given general date of 311AD (according to the Emerging Church scheme, when the Church allegedly enters a time of “darkness;” see part one of this series). Thus, even for a person subscribing to an Emerging Church philosophy, this incident should bear weight. It transpired when the Church, according to such thought, was still “being led by the Spirit.”

The History of the Early Church by Eusebius gives these details, “There is said to be a certain village called  Ardabau in that part of Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. There first, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of  Asia,  a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning … Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person already mentioned. And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises. But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a wise and faithful manner, that he might seem to be a reprover. But those of the Phrygians that were deceived were few in number … And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor from it nor entrance into it.”¹

The Montanists, based on the brief description above, experienced similar manifestation to those of the P/C movement, and the Universal Church at that time condemned it as heresy and delusion. As the Scriptures profess and caution, and as the Church indicated in Her dealings with the Montanists, not all “Charismatic” experiences are from God.

The Montanists declared that they were ushering in the age of the Holy Spirit, and with it renewed focus on prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the other gifts of the Spirit. To reject their message was, they claimed, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Montanists prophesied in the first person, something unheard of in the Old and New Testament. It appears that Montanus would say, “I, the Holy Spirit, say to you ...” Whereas the Old and New Testament prophets all spoke in this manner, “Thus says the Lord ...” (cf. Act. 21:11; Is. 8:1). They also fervently expected the immediate return of Christ, even professing to know location and date. One author states, Montanists, “Claiming to receive revelation directly from God that fulfilled and superseded the revelation given to the Apostles, Montanus emphasized direct, ecstatic, and highly emotional spiritual experiences for all believers … (they) did not claim to be messengers of God but rather claimed that God 'possessed' them and spoke directly through them.”²

I will interject here a little personal experience: first, I remember at various meetings (while I was still a Charismatic) hearing people speak in the first person “I, the Lord, say ….” Second, when I first encountered the Montanist account, even before I was Orthodox, I was struck by its similarity to what I had hence experienced. One has but a few options: either push the date when the Church enters “darkness” back before 160AD so as to disregard the response of the Church to this movement, or admit that my experiences, and their strong resemblance to Montanism, had been at best very questionable. I went with the latter option.

Further testimony of the early Church has also come down to us in a letter of one Miltaides. He duly witnesses, “But the false prophet falls into an ecstasy, in which he is without shame or fear. Beginning with purposed ignorance, he passes on, as has been stated, to involuntary madness of soul. They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was thus carried away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Agabus, or Judas, or Silas, [Acts 15:32] or the daughters of Philip, or Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus, or any others not belonging to them … For the apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming. But they [i.e. Montanists] cannot show it [i.e. continuity with the Universal Church]...”³

Evidently, Montanus also used his newfound power to take up large-scale collections of money. He, “named Pepuza and Tymion, small towns in Phrygia, Jerusalem, wishing to gather people to them from all directions; who appointed collectors of money; who contrived the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings; who provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching might prevail through gluttony."⁴ Obviously Christian ministers have throughout the ages received their “due wages,” in earthly terms, for their labors. What is being decried here is the turning of “ministry” into a money making racket. This was also done at Asuza though extensive mailing lists.

Based upon the available accounts regarding Montanism, the small reconstructed picture bears a remarkable similarity, most of all, to that of the Azusa Street movement, which, keep in mind, was the catalyst for the whole modern “Pentecostal” experience, and its subsequent fruit.

The early Church decisively condemned Montanism at several local councils in Asia Minor, and Bishop Zephyrius of Rome condemned it around the year 200. Although the movement lingered on for a number of years, the answer of the Christian Church was clear: such “charismatic experiences” do not have their source in God. It is false charisma. It has its origin in another spirit. The Christian Church has never known such “manifestations.”

I by no means claim that every aspect of Montanism parallels the P/C movement, but there exist sufficient similarities to cause pause, most of all in the realm of "spiritual" gifts and manifestations.

The carefully deliberated response of the early Christian Church to Montanism and its self-professed “spiritual” gifts and power should cause circumspection for the modern Christian. Are the very recent and current (one hundred years is not that long ago) claims to “spiritual” renewal and power be trusted? Have people put faith in a power, because undoubtedly there is a power involved in the P/C movement, without trying and testing it? Has much of modern Christendom failed to, as St. Paul admonishes, “Prove all things, and hold fast to the good” (1 Thess. 5:21)? Are signs and powers in and of themselves an end-all proof that something is of God? Or are we to test signs and wonders, so as to see where they lead? “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, and serve them, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet ...” (Deut. 13:1-3).

It is no critical statement to simply say, the “Christianity” introduced by the P/C movement has a fundamentally different orientation from that of the Ancient Christian Church. Are its signs and wonders worth heeding? And is it restoring the long lost Church? Are Christians to expect a great last “revival” and the final restoration of the Church?

In the next series, I will undertake to test these claims.

1Eusebius, The History of the Church, 5.16. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

2Damick, Andrew. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, Conciliar Media Ministries. Chesterson, IN. p. 21.

3Eusebius, The History of the Church, 5.17. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

4Ibid. 5. 18.

The Charismatic Experience and the Orthodox Church: the perspective of one Orthodox Priest

How does a person acquire the Holy Spirit? Does the Orthodox Church believe in the gifts of the Spirit? How do they operate in the life of a believer? Now that I am Orthodox how do I process the experiences that I had while in Evangelical Charismatic groups?

These are a few of the questions that I have asked and been asked after fourteen years in the Orthodox Church, six of which I have spent as a priest. Not long ago, I had another very productive conversation with a few parishioners about "Charismatic" topics, both pertaining to the Orthodox Church and things outside of Her. This conversation became the final impetus for me to address the subject in writing. Not that I am a brilliant fellow, mind you, but I have mulled over these and like questions in my personal life and experience within the Orthodox Church.

These themes will be addressed in multiple parts. This is part one.

I am a former Evangelical Charismatic. I was raised in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship, where my dad was a minister for a time. As a young boy, I remember running around the offices of the Anaheim Vineyard. I remember goofing around with John Wimber. I grew up in a "prophetic, charismatic" environment. Lonnie Frisbee, Bob Jones, Paul Cain, etc. …. Some of them I knew fairly well because of my dad's position as a minister (keep in mind this was the time of my childhood and adolescence).¹ If these names mean nothing to you, don't worry about it. Suffice for you, the reader, to know that back in the day these were big names in their circles. I was supposedly part of the generation that would change the world for Jesus. It all seemed pretty exciting at the time. I spent three years in the mission field, in Kharkov, Ukraine. From there I went to Brownsville Revival School of Ministry, located at an Assemblies of God church in Brownsville, Florida. I was part of the "pioneer class." Manifestations? Check. Speaking in tongues? Check. "Slain in the Spirit?" Check. Prophetic words? Check. Dreams? Check. Visions? Check. Anyway, you get the point. My faith was a very Pentecostal and Charismatic one (for now, I am using those words in a general way, I will define them in a more specified manner through the course of this article). Shortly after I graduated from BRSM, and while in the midst of pursuing Protestant Ministry, the discovery of the Orthodox Church delightfully sidetracked me. But that is another story.

I went from an environment that valued "spontaneity in the Spirit" to liturgical worship and tradition. It seemed like two different worlds. I had a lot to process. My focus at present is to offer some of the examinations and conclusions that I have worked through and arrived at, in the hope that some may gain benefit from them.

I will focus primarily on history, method, and underlying meaning. I will strive to avoid polemics, but in such an endeavor it will be difficult to evade entirely. Let me state from the start: my goal is to address systems. I leave all persons to the judgment of God. Nonetheless, we are called to test, discern, and pass judgment, as St. John says, Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are of God (1 Jn. 4:1). Moreover, there are concrete Christian standards by which to make such judgments.

Towards an understanding of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement

The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has penetrated almost every sector of modern Christendom. From Baptists to Roman Catholics. Only in the Orthodox Church has it not found a place to grow, although it has tried to find a foothold. Christianity Today states, “A 2011 Pew Forum study showed that almost 305,000,000 people worldwide … (are) part of the charismatic movement.”² The mindset that the movement holds has influenced much of the modern Protestant mind. In the following, I will briefly overview the historical roots of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement (referred to as P/C movement from here on for the sake of brevity). Ah, history. For many a modern it is not too horribly important. Nonetheless, we arrived where we are today by very distinctive paths. To begin to understand the Pentecostal experience, we must examine its roots and paths.

But, before we delve into history we must understand a particular principle that drives much of modern Protestantism, most of all those sectors formed by the P/C movement. Of late this mind has been called "Emerging Church" (it also has other names such as - Restorationism, Kingdom Theology, Third Wave, etc.; although there may exist surface differences the underlying essence and foundation of these philosophies are the same). I have before me notes from my BRSM days (yes, I am one of those people that save school notes), which present a basic sketch of the Emerging Church philosophy. It goes as follows: between the year 311AD and 1300AD is simply the word "Darkness." That is, the Church went into a time of captivity and darkness. 1300AD is labeled "Refreshing Starts," during this period such figures as John Huss, John Wycliffe, and others are considered the pioneers of refreshment. 1500AD – "Grace," clearly this refers to what is known as the Protestant Reformation. 1700AD – "Personal holiness and conversion." 1800AD – "Prayer and Evangelism." 1900AD – "Baptism of the Holy Spirit." 1950AD – "Charismatic." Late 1900's – "Combine them all!" The note below the diagram reads, "God is building, adding and adding, God is restoring His Church!" And with a note of surprised delight it comments, "In the 1950's and after charismatic gifts began to flow even in traditional churches." As one may already perceive, the clear conclusion is that the Church (using that word very loosely) was lost to darkness, but God stepped in and overthrew the "traditions of men" to reestablish His work. The clear implication is that most of the Church's work between roughly 300-1500AD was not of God. I remember it being explained through the analogy of a puzzle: the pieces were lost and scattered, but they are slowly being brought back together, and the result will be the restoration of the full picture. Not only will there be a complete picture, but it will even possibly surpass the original (that is the book of Acts). The notes read, "We can expect a last surge to parallel (or even surpass) the first." Clearly, there is not a substantial value for tradition in this mindset. Tradition, such a paradigm commonly holds, was the death of the early Church. It became, such a mindset maintains, the human supplement to the original power and freedom in the "Spirit" that was originally at work in the early Church but subsequently lost. The problem with such a teaching is: A) it is not in the Scriptures, nor was it taught by early Christians. I will substantiate this later on. B) It is a type of "Christian" Spiritual Evolution. It is, I would venture, influenced more by the Western European philosophy of Progress, which was developed during the "Enlightenment," than by anything else. Almost everything old is bad or out of date. The new is what we need! It is a christianized (if even possible) ubermensch. People, the church, are progressing toward the spiritual "superman." I will not at this point wander into the Scriptures that Emerging Church adherents use to substantiate their claims. I may address this later on. The focus at hand is historical formation.

The P/C movement certainly could be traced back to the "Revival Holiness" movements of the 1800's in American. I will not follow that stream at present but will focus on the visible birth of the movement at the turn of the 20^th century. Two key figures will be surveyed: Charles Parham, who is called "the father of Pentecost," and William Seymour, who is considered the catalyst of Pentecost. Clearly, numerous other individuals were involved in the movement, but for the sake of expediency I have narrowed it down to two.

Charles Parham

Mr. Parham

Mr. Parham began his ministry in the healing "revivals" of the late 1800's. As with many of his time, he professed to have a deep hunger for God, and a profound desire to see the power of God. Like other figures of that period, he became disillusioned with "denominationalism." (It is an interesting sidenote that similar sentiments were expressed by both Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, and Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. This is not to directly equate these three men, Mr. Parham clearly never denied the Divinity of Christ as did the latter two. But the reader should note that there existed a spirit of discontentment with "denominationalism" in the 1800's, and many figures arose claiming to restore "true" Christianity. All three of these men professed to be seeking a new and special coming of Christ and His Kingdom.) Mr. Parham states, " … Feeling the narrowness of sectarian churchism, I was often in conflict with the higher authorities, which eventually resulted in open rupture; and I left denominationalism forever, though suffering bitter persecution at the hands of the church … Oh, the narrowness of many who call themselves the Lord's own!" (Liardon, Robert. God's Generals, Albury Publishing, 1996. p. 115.) Through subsequent experiences, he became convinced that "there still remained a great outpouring of power for the Christians who are to close this age" (Ibid, p. 117).

Parham eventually opens a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, and later another in Houston, Texas. At one point he gave his students an assignment to diligently study the Scriptures (with a focus on the book of Acts) for evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. After three days, the account goes, all the students (forty in all) came to the same conclusion: the common manifestation of baptism in the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. Fixated on this manifestation, they resolved to pray until they received the gift of tongues. A student by the name of Agnes Ozman is reportedly the first to receive the gift. Accounts say that she spoke in Chinese. In the very early records of the P/C movement tongues are stated as being in some earthly language. Mr. Parham says that he received the gift of the Swedish tongue. I will not address here the gift of tongues and the Orthodox understanding of it, but it should be taken into account that the very early P/C movement did not claim to be speaking in unintelligible babble, but, as we will see, it soon turned into that very thing. Another striking point is that this "outpouring" takes place right at the start of the 20^th century, which will be a century of unparalleled change and world upheaval. Parham then begins to preach the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the evidence of tongues. His teaching is the root of the Pentecostal doctrine of tongues as the initial sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Such a doctrine was unheard of in Christianity before this time. Although isolated instances of "speaking in tongues" were recorded within Protestantism before Mr. Parham's movement, his movement is responsible for its growth and even explosion in the Protestant world.

Many phenomenal stories and accounts surround the life of Mr. Parham. He sincerely saw himself as restoring the apostolic faith, "Now that they [apostolic faith tents] are generally accepted, I simply take my place among the brethren ..." (Ibid. 128). Like many other Protestant leaders before him, he was sure that God had chosen and entrusted him with a unique task. He was willing to write off his opponents as narrow and opposed to the will of God (as he proclaimed it). Ironically, in his professed desire to escape the confines of "denominationalism," he created a new denominator: Pentecostalism. Thereby perpetuating the very fracturing that he allegedly wished to heal. Mr. Parham claimed that his authority was derived from the Bible and the power of the Holy Spirit. Like most Protestants, he subscribed to "Sola Scriptura" (the teaching that the Bible alone is necessary for establishing Christian Faith). But, as most of Protestant history shows, there was significant disagreement on what the Bible supposedly simply and clearly proclaimed. It was not so clear and simple after all. Pentecostalism would have an ever-evolving body of various teachings, many times contradicting each other. Accusations of sexual immorality plagued the end of Mr. Parham's ministry.

William J. Seymour

Mr. Seymour

Mr. Seymour was an African American Baptist minister turned holiness preacher who also professed a dissatisfaction with the Christianity of his day and sought a deeper experience. He had wandered through a few denominations before he stumbled upon Mr. Parham's meetings in Houston, Texas. He attended Parham's school in Houston. Due to the segregation of the times, Mr. Seymour was not able to sit in the classroom; instead, he listened to the lectures from the hallway. One writer states, "Though Seymour did not embrace every doctrine that Parham taught, he did embrace the truth of Parham's doctrine concerning Pentecost. He soon developed his own theology from it" (Ibid. p. 143). In 1906, Seymour made his way to Los Angeles, California, where he took a pastorate job. He immediately began to preach his newly found doctrine of speaking in tongues. As with the group in Topeka, Seymour and company spent hours seeking the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." At some point, a Mr. Lee began speaking in tongues, followed by others. People ran around purportedly prophesying and preaching; others claimed miraculous healings.

The group eventually found a building at 312 Azusa Street, and thus to this day it is frequently referred to as the "Azusa Street Revival." The meetings are described as "unique:" the seating was arranged so that the participants faced one another. The music was impromptu, no hymn books were used, the meetings had no program, leaving everything to the "direction of the Spirit." When the group thought that someone was not speaking from the "Spirit," they would begin to wail and sob. In a publication called The Apostolic Faith, "Seymour announced his intention to restore 'the faith once delivered' …" (Ibid. p. 154). As with Parham, the implication is obvious: the Apostolic Faith had been lost, and these men were chosen to restore it. At Azusa Street the alleged manifestations of the "Spirit" quickly began to take on unnatural symptoms: tongues became unintelligible babble, called a "prayer language;" participants also howled, writhed, shook, wailed, were seized by fits and spasms, and so forth. Asuza Street is the fount of most manifestations that are common today in the P/C movement, and most every Pentecostal denomination, whether directly or indirectly, can trace their founding to the participants of Azusa.³

Azusa Street Mission

Very quickly the move of the "Spirit" that was to unite all true believers began to fragment into rivaling groups. At some point, Mr. Parham traveled to the Azusa Mission, and there he relates in horror what he found, "I hurried to Los Angeles, and to my utter surprise and astonishment I found conditions even worse than I anticipated … manifestations of the flesh, spiritualistic controls, saw people practicing hypnotism at the altar over candidates seeking baptism, though many were receiving the real baptism … I found hypnotic influences, familiar-spirit influences, spiritualistic influences, mesomeric influences, and all kinds of spells, spasms, falling into trances, etc." (Ibid. 157,158). He also reproached it as “spiritual power prostituted.” At least Mr. Parham had the sense to understand, "The Holy Spirit does nothing that is unnatural or unseemingly, and any strained exertion of body, mind or voice is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but of some familiar spirit, or other influence. The Holy Spirit never leads us beyond the point of self-control or the control of others, while familiar spirits of fanaticism lead us both beyond self-control and the power to help others" (Ibid. p. 158). The "father of speaking in tongues" himself denounced the work at Azusa. One would think this to be a crushing blow to Seymour and followers, but it was not. Seymour merely banned Parham from the meetings stating, "Mr. Parham … is not the leader of this movement of Azusa Mission. We thought of having him to be our leader and so stated in our paper (The Apostolic Faith), before waiting on the Lord. We can be rather hasty, especially when we are very young in the power of the Holy Spirit …" Apparently, Seymour implies that he has now surpassed Parham in an understanding of the "Power of the Spirit." The Azusa Mission disregarded Parham's criticisms and claimed to have outgrown his immature thoughts. As with ensuing groups, they saw themselves as much more enlightened and filled with the "Holy Spirit," and thus were under no obligation to obey "men." Such a claim, of course, only becomes a convenient cover for pride and arrogance.

Most of the more stable and classic Evangelical ministers of the time denounced the movement: “G. Campbell Morgan, a highly respected evangelical preacher, called the Pentecostal movement 'the last vomit of Satan,' while R. A. Torrey claimed that it was 'emphatically not of God, and [was] founded by a Sodomite.' In his book, Holiness, the False and the True, Harry Ironside in 1912 denounced the movement as 'disgusting . . . delusions and insanities' and accused their meetings as causing 'a heavy toll of lunacy and infidelity.'”⁴

These fiercely denounced subjective experiences are the central bedrock of "theology" for the P/C movement.

The “Pentecostal” experience began in a way that would be somewhat acceptable to some Protestants, but once it gained traction it quick revealed its true nature: one that was unveiled at Azusa. Unaccountability, bizarre manifestations, and such things, all found a happy home under the excuse of “the Spirit is leading me.” Such “freedom” is irresistible.

The Azusa Mission quickly fell into distension. Seymour's various "disciples" rose up to claim a deeper "experience of the Spirit," much as Seymour had done with Parham. Seymour ended his days with a shell of a movement, after consecutive splits and fractures only about twenty people remained with him at the original Azusa Mission.

Charismatic movement

The Charismatic movement approximately marks the point when "Pentecostal" philosophy and style began to surface in "Mainline" denominations. Before the Charismatic movement "Pentecostals" were considered "fringe groups" by many Protestant denominations. Most sources consider a Mr. Dennis Bennett as the vanguard of the charismatic movement. He was an Episcopal minister in Van Nuys, CA. In 1960 he claimed to have experienced the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." Due to the conflict that this created in his congregation, he resigned and took another Episcopal church in Seattle, WA., named St. Luke's. This community became a center point in the early charismatic movement. “In a sense, Pentecostalism was entering the mainline (the Episcopal Church, no less) and this was news. This began the mainstreaming of continualist practices (like speaking in tongues, praying for healing, etc.) that were primarily found in Pentecostal churches that, up until now, were often on the fringe of Protestantism."⁵ Due to this movement, Pentecostalism quickly spread through “Mainline” Protestantism, and it did not stop there. It even made its way into the Roman Catholic Church. “Though much of the belief and practice of the Charismatic Movement came directly from the Pentecostals who had been around for nearly sixty years, the mainline churches who embraced such belief avoided the 'Pentecostal' label for both cultural and theological reasons.”⁶

“This new 'Charismatic' movement quickly spread to other mainline denominations and, by the mid-’60s ... The movement’s visibility and networks were further strengthened by the success of the Pentecostal-leaning “Jesus People” movement among American youth in the late ’60s and ’70s. In the 1980s, a vigorous, independent network of Charismatic churches and organizations (at times described as the “Third Wave”) emerged, including churches such as the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.”⁷

Thus, the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements are indeed one general movement. These novel and fringe movements have, through various means, become one of the most influential mindsets in modern Protestantism.

As we move forward, an important question to ask is: did the Ancient and early Church deal with any phenomenon similar to P/C movement? The answer is yes.

Part two is forthcoming ...

Part two may be found here: http://orthodoxpueblo.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-charismatic-movement-and-orthodox.html
And
Part three may be found here: http://orthodoxpueblo.blogspot.com/2017/03/last-days-great-revival-charismatic.html

1My father has since also come home to the Orthodox Church, where he serves as a Deacon.

2http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/october/charismatic-renewal-movement.html

3Cf. Ibid. 163

4http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/history-of-the-pentecostal-charismatic-movements/

5http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/october/charismatic-renewal-movement.html

6Ibid.

7http://www.wheaton.edu/ISAE/Defining-Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism