I’ve mentioned before how we arrived at our “Charismaniac” church after a lifetime spent in more traditional Bible-based Reformed/Evangelical churches.
I think a good part of the allure that Living Word Church (a pseudonym) had for us, at least at first, was that it WAS such a departure from what we’d grown up with. Instead of what had seemed like the resigned, passive, and even sometimes downright negative approach to Christianity that we’d known from our youth, we loved that Pastor Smith (another pseudonym) preached, for example, that we were on the verge of greatness. Or that we could “possess whatever we confessed.”
We loved the idea of “taking authority,” of faith that could move mountains, of healing for today, of a God whose plans are always to prosper us and keep us in good health.
When we were new to Living Word Church, we pretty much just projected everything we’d ever previously known about Christianity onto the place. We just sort of assumed that Pastor Smith valued everything that our prior pastors had valued and held to their same standards for pastoral behavior…just with a bit of a “Charismatic kick.” In other words, in addition to all those behaviors and character traits that the Bible attributes to a great leader – an attitude of servanthood, of kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, humility, patience, and so forth – Pastor Smith just had that added extra “oomph” of possessing the gift of faith.
In our wide-eyed newly Charismatic naivete, we figured that Pastor Smith was everything the Bible would say a leader should be…AND he had a direct pipeline to God, where God spoke to him directly and prophetically and had given him a special dose of miracle-working faith.
We gave his wife and the rest of the church staff and all the honored longtime members that same benefit of the doubt, too. We thought it was just sort of a “given” that they all valued Bible knowledge, honesty, integrity, humility, and long-suffering. After all, the fact that they all dressed fashionably and seemed to exhibit other traits of rich people didn’t automatically mean they wouldn’t exhibit other aspects of what we’d known to be Biblical Christianity.
But after we’d been at Living Word Church for awhile, we began to understand that for Pastor Smith and the rest of his “higher-ups” – which would include all the visiting celebrity pastors – regular rules for traditional Christian behavior did not always apply.
The Smiths cultivated such an air of celebrity around themselves that most of us, if we were honest, would have to confess to feeling a bit star-struck and tongue-tied on those rare occasions when they’d appear in the lobby after church. They’d never EVER walk around the church facility alone, either. They would always be accompanied by at least one or two members of their “security detail,” men who wore suits and walkie talkies and stood discreetly, if slightly menacingly, off to the side while we ordinary folks chatted with Pastor or Mary Smith.
People were desperately eager to please the Smiths, too. At first I thought this was just a by-product of their “anointing.” Later, though, I was dismayed to discover that Mary Smith in particular was known for her fits of temper if she were to be displeased by the slightest thing. When her group of ladies would put on one of her “Mary Events” for the women’s ministry, it was always a time of extreme stress and intense pressure to get every miniscule detail exactly right. I saw firsthand some of the most bizarre freak-outs over stuff as silly as the color and placement of napkins on tables.
After we’d been at Living Word Church for awhile – a year, maybe – and had seen for ourselves how things were, we began to understand that in Charismania, pastors and guest ministers were held to a very different standard of behavior than the simple Baptist preachers of our youth. By virtue of their gift of faith, their “anointing,” they were special. They were celebrities. They did not mingle with the regular people. They breathed a different kind of air. They needed body guards. They wouldn’t DREAM of serving – rather, they were to BE SERVED. At all times.
Yesterday, a very interesting message from J. Lee Grady arrived in my email. It was entitled, Reality Check: The Case For Relational Christianity. And here is how it begins:
A friend in Alabama recently told me about a preacher who came to his city in unusual style. The man arrived at a church in a limousine and was whisked into a private waiting room behind the stage area. The evangelist gave specific instructions to leave his limousine’s engine running (I guess he wasn’t concerned about rising gas prices) so that the temperature inside his car would remain constant.
This evangelist then preached to a waiting crowd, took up his own offering and retired to the waiting room for some refreshments. Then he left the church with his entourage without even speaking to the host pastor.
This guy’s “faith”—he is touted as a faith preacher—may have been inspiring, but his love was as cold as the air inside his oversized vehicle. His behavior that night represents why so many ministries today are in crisis. We’ve created a monster—a version of Christianity that is slick, marketable and event-driven but lacking in any authentic impact. It is as one-dimensional as a flat-screen TV—and a total turnoff to people who are starving for genuine relationships.
(You can access the full article by clicking here.)
As I read what Mr. Grady had to say about what I’d call “Charismatic attitude,” I was instantly transported back to our time at Living Word Church, reliving all those memories of the inappropriate haughtiness of the Smiths and other ministers who had passed through Living Word’s doors. I found myself – at least at first – nodding in agreement with Mr. Grady’s “Reality Check” article.
But then I began to think of how bizarre it is that he’d even need to write such an article for the audience of his Charisma magazine in the first place.
J. Lee Grady is right in his prescriptions, in his statements about how Charismania does need a “reality check.” But I don’t think he’s dug deeply enough.
I think there’s something inherent in Charismania itself – in the whole Charismatic movement – that has caused the crazy and totally unbiblical notion that pastors are celebrities.
I think the whole concept of “anointing” - that pastors are a cut above the “ordinary” folks because they enjoy some sort of special direct pipeline to God Himself – is what causes them to believe that they are celebrities, that they are in need of bodyguards, that they can walk around and display bad tempers and haughty attitudes…and that they need to keep themselves separate from the ”ordinary” people in their audiences. Because of their faulty theology, they really think that they have been given some special access to the Almighty God, a different and more immediate access than what all the rest of us “ordinary” Christians have. They really believe that they somehow have God “on tap,” where they can decide when and where to dispense the “anointing” through the laying on of hands.
Is it any wonder, then, that these pastors and evangelists and ministers begin to believe in their own “giftedness,” in their own “specialness,” in their own press, so to speak?
Until the Charismatic movement deals with this unscriptural notion of “anointing,” the bad attitudes and non-relational Christianity Mr. Grady speaks of will just continue. What he says is good. But it only deals with the symptoms of the problem, and not the cause.
Until they dig up the roots, there’s little point in dealing with the fruits.

Hello,
I just found this blog and appreciate your writing. My experience on the fringes of charismania, which lasted about 3 years, was very similar – I noticed the same sorts of double standards, although in a much tinier church with few rich people. I listened to most of the sermons on CD, (my husband refused to set foot in the church, which was a good thing), but when there noticed the people were all like Bobble-heads. Whatever the pastor said was automatically “that’s right” and “amen-ed”. These peeps clearly had no grasp of even basic biblical knowledge, but they claimed they were full of the Holy Spirit. They were full of something, that’s for sure.
It’s been a few years now, and like you, I don’t think about it quite so much. The wounds have begun somewhat to heal, but I’ve become a much more skeptical and cynical person.
I’m adding you to my blogroll – there’s much value in what you’re examining. Critical thinking is completely absent from the charismatic world, and you provide a reality check.
I find it odd that charismatics conveniently ignore the fabled “love chapter” which sits right between their two favorite chapters in 1 Corinthians which deal with spiritual gifts. The foundation of all of them should be love because they were meant for the common good.
Part of the celebrity mentality is probably due to the advent of television ministries. The rest of it is attributable to a few quirks of charismatic theology.
First of all, there is a common tendency among charismatics (and some pentecostals) to look down upon non-charismatic churches as somehow inferior because they do not exercise certain spiritual gifts regularly.
Second, when you divorce love from the spiritual gifts and forget the purpose of them -to edify the body of Christ and serve as a sign of the continuing redemptive work of Jesus- they eventually become self-serving and God is nothing more than a divine slot machine.
The final point I’ll make is speculation on my part. In general, charismatics seem to have no idea what the qualifications were to be an apostle in the first century. Because of these specific requirements (being an eye-witness of the resurrected Christ and having a direct commission from Him) apostleship is not a gift but an office. Spiritual gifts have no such requirements. According to the Bible’s standards, it isn’t possible for anyone in our era to be an apostle, yet many charismatics give these celebrity ministers the title of “apostle” which is completely unmerited and un-biblical. I’m pretty sure being called an apostle by throngs of people would go to just about anyone’s head and deceive one into thinking he/she has special privileges in the church.
First of all, there is a common tendency among charismatics (and some pentecostals) to look down upon non-charismatic churches as somehow inferior because they do not exercise certain spiritual gifts regularly.
Big, fat AMEN. One of the things that used to irk me (even when I was a charismatic wannabe) was their use of the term “Spirit-filled”, which somehow implied that cessationist churches and people were not ‘filled with the Spirit’. Being filled with the Spirit is something we are commanded to be (several times in Scripture); not a performance we’re to produce on demand. The more I’ve studied the theological holes in continuationism, the more staunchly convinced I am that the cessationist position is the only tenable one.
Question: what is the difference between “charismatic” and “Pentecostal”? Was is that the former came out of the Asuza Street ‘Revival’ and the latter had denominational streams before that, or is there an additional distinction? I tend to use the terms interchangeably.
Most people use the terms interchangeably, but the two movements actually have some critical differences.
Pentecostals and charismatics have different historical roots. Pentecostals trace their heritage back to the Azusa St. revival while the charismatic movement didn’t really begin until the 1950’s with Kenneth Hagin and Oral Roberts.
The two movements also have some theological differences. Without getting too complicated, the pentecostals seem to place a much higher value on the scripture as a guide for church behavior. In other words, everything done in a pentecostal church should agree with the scripture. The movement was originally based on a return to scripture so the scripture remains at the heart of it.
The charismatic movement was based more upon personal experiences with God. It tends to place a higher value on revelations, either prophetic or out of the scripture, rather than strict exegesis. It is also much more experience-based than pentecostalism.
Also, pentecostal denominations tend to follow traditional structures of church government within their denominations, whereas charismatic churches often are their own denominations or are only affiliated with a loose fellowship of similar churches. It’s harder to find well-defined accountability structures within the charismatic movement, probably because a bit of accountability would quickly defame many of their favorite celebrity preachers.
Thanks AJS,
That’s very helpful. So the Manifest Sons of God and Government of 12 (G12 structure) and similar dominionist doctrines would be more closely aligned with the charismatic side, correct?
A few years ago, I was researching the roots and beliefs pretty intensely, but there is so much variance within their churches that it’s hard to make general statements. For example, the Word of Faith heresy seems to be growing like wildfire, yet denominations like Assembly of God (Pentecostal) rejects W-F out of hand. As for Oneness Pentecostalism, it’s hard to figure out exactly where that came from – outside of the 3rd century heresy of Sabellianism (modulism). There are so many different branches that it confuses me. “Counterfeit Revival” and “Charismatic Chaos” were the two main books I read (“Christianity in Crisis” as well). Any others you’d recommend?
Although I can’t point you to any specific evidence, I would guess that the Manifest Sons and G12 stuff is more closely affiliated with charismatic churches. The problem, as you mentioned, is that there are so many groups out there with affiliations which are difficult to track historically. Pentecostal churches tend to have stronger denominational oversight (e.g. Assemblies of God) so they tend not to get quite as wrapped up in these sorts of theological oddities. But colloquially the terms ‘charismatic’ and ‘pentecostal’ are used almost interchangeably which makes distinctions more difficult.
The only book I can recommend that is remotely related to the subject is “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?” edited by Wayne Grudem. It contains four different scholarly positions on spiritual gifts: one cessationist, one open but cautious evangelical, a pentecostal perspective, and a third wave charismatic perspective. I found it to be useful in dividing which ideas actually have some scholarly merit to them and which ideas floating around the church are simply due to a lack of biblical education.
Most of the reading I’ve done on the charismatic movement has been through internet resources. Reading some church history helped me a fair bit because I ended up seeing certain patterns cropping up over and over again, especially with certain heresies that existed in the early church.
Thank you; I’ve heard of the book “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?” (and I’ve read an online review of it), but that’s one I haven’t read. I may check it out.
Reading Macarthur and, as you said, a bit of the historical heresies that infected the early Church from online sources helped me realize that most (if not all) of the groups who have practiced glossolalia and prophesy over the centuries have been quite aberrant. I believe that Montanism ===> charismania. There’s a gnostic influence, too.
I definitely think the enemy is recycling heretical streams in these last days, and part of the deception is that folks think this was the Christianity of the Early Church. All of the Church Fathers wrote about the miraculous gifts as having been in the past and obsolete by the second century. Try telling that to a charismatic.
Attention: AJS & MARIE
The following website has been a great help in wading thru teachings coming out of the charismatic/penticostal camp. You will find numerous articles addressing these teachings using the Bible as the plumbline for truth. http://cicministry.org/
I’m developing a blog focused on helping to unite people in every state that have left the Word of Faith teaching and are looking for other people in their area/state/region to be able to develop a support group. Check it out at bibletruthseekers.blogspot.com . We left the WOF teaching about 18 months ago (after being in it for 15 years for me and all of my husband’s life)… Thank you so much for sharing your journey. It’s so encouraging to know that we are not alone!
First of all, there is a common tendency among charismatics (and some pentecostals) to look down upon non-charismatic churches as somehow inferior because they do not exercise certain spiritual gifts regularly.
In fact, they considere a church without Charismatic tendencies DEAD. I disagree!
The following website has been a great help in wading thru teachings coming out of the charismatic/penticostal camp. You will find numerous articles addressing these teachings using the Bible as the plumbline for truth.
Listen to the 25 min radio interviews that go along with the commentaries as well. They are great.