Having grown up in and pastored in the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, people often ask if I am still a charismatic, now that I’m an Anglican. Fortunately, to be Anglican does not require one to cease being charismatic, and I feel I’ve continued in that.
But being Anglican has changed my understanding of what it means to be charismatic. I tend to tell folks that I believe that most of the charismatic experience and renewal over the past century has been a move of the Holy Spirit, and has had a miraculously good effect. And yet at the same time, I tend to not agree with much of the theology and practice of the charismatic movement. When I share that, though, the reaction is often “Wait a minute. Can you do that? Can you be a charismatic who doesn’t wholly subscribe to charismatic practice or theology?”
I think so. Let me explain.
For many years, I served as a spiritual adviser in Cursillo. I was involved once with a young woman whose rector claimed to be ultra-charismatic, and who taught that if one did not speak in tongues, there was no way that they knew the Holy Spirit. She was terribly distressed because she did not speak in tongues; she was sure that God was favoring her because she had not been given this gift. When I assured her, and showed her Paul’s teaching on the subject of gifts, she was so relieved I thought she was going to do song and dance (might have been her gift). Her priest was terribly put out with me for helping the young woman to escape his clutches. He was later defrocked.
Oops! Lines 3 & 4: she was sure that God was NOT favoring her….
I’m glad to learn of the existence of this blog through this thread. Thanks for posting it, Kendall. I see that several priests contribute to “The Anglican Pastor.” And the author of this particular piece, Greg Goebel, is Canon to the Ordinary for the young Bishop of the South in Atlanta.
Still, this sort of writing seems very shallow. I was hoping for something meatier.
David Handy+
“3-D Christian” (evangelical, catholic, and charismatic)