Examples of legalistic traditions in charismatic circles

[Josh]

I spent a lot of time in charismatic circles before I became a Mennonite, later born again, and then a conservative/plain Mennonite. I will offer my perpsective on various traditions (that might be good, or not good) and how they can devolve into legalism or just dead works. Most of my perspective is going to be specific to the "Toronto Blessing" flavour of charismaticism that was commonplace by 1995, and was equally present in Canada, the UK/Ireland, Australia/NZ, and the U.S., also called "The Refreshing":

- Lifting up one's hands during praise & worship being a sign of how "in the spirit" you are

- Trying to have "manifestations of the spirit" such as being:

- "slain in the spirit" (someone prays over you until you feel like you can't stand anymore, then you crumble to the floor, or if there is a designated catcher behind you, falling back into their arms

- "laughing in the spirit" where you laugh a lot, perhaps for no reason at all

- "drunk in the spirit" where one behaves like an inebriated person. (Having experienced both this and being actually drunk, the two are not quite the same but do share some similarities, basically, losing one's inhibitions.)

- "singing in the spirit" when the praise & worship team keeps going but there are no pre-set lyrics. The vocalists might sing normal words they make up on the fly, often repetitive, or they might actually sing in tongues. Here are some examples:

(at 5:35, singing in the spirit which is actually in tongues)

(at 7:29, spontaneous singing in the spirit but which is in a tongue we can understand)

- Pressure to speak in tongues at all, or pressure to do it more often in order to be closer to God / to experience more breakthroughts. This might also be called a "prayer language".

- Protracted meetings. Some of these went on for literally years. My family was part of a series of protracted meetings in Cleveland which started around March 3, 1995, and continued on for over a year meeting for the first month or so 7 days a week and then they cut back to 6 days a week. These meetings were adjacent to the "Toronto Blessing" sort of thing that was going on back then at Toronto Airport Vineyard Church. (My family was still attending these meetings well into 1997.) Toronto itself had protracted meetings that started in 1994

- Meetings with an indeterminate ending time; a meeting that starts at 6 PM may drag on until well past 9 PM, particularly on Fridays. Occasionally Sunday morning services would also drag on. Both the leadership and the membership expressing enthusiasm to "just keep going" was seen as a sign of being open to the Holy Spirit's direction.

- Dancing as a form of worship, including "dancing in the spirit" or people who simply choose to engage in creative movement, etc. as a form of expressing themselves. This is typically done in the back, behind the audience, so as not to be a spectacle.

- Carrying or flying flags and banners or ribbons, somewhat similar to dancing. This is also typically done in the back but may also go up and down the aisles or be done in the front, more often so than dancing. For an example of a worship leader acknowledging this phenomenon:

(at about 5:30)

- Engagement in the arts was encouraged, and there was always a desire to have more expression via arts like traditional visual arts, pottery, sculpting, and so on. I have been in a few services where some of the worshippers will be painting during the song service.

- Most people in these movements came from other Christian backgrounds. There was, generally speaking, a strong idea present that they came out of dead works / traditions and the reason they were dead was due to lack of acknowledging the "gifts of the spirit". The charismatic movement generally came out of mainline Protestant backgrounds. An example of this would be St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Cleveland, which transformed into a charismatic congregation (and eventually the congregation had to pay the Episcopal heirarchy to keep their building; they are affiliated with the ACNA now).

- Strong interest in a few historic figures, like the original "Azusa street revival", or stories about Smith Wigglesworth miraculously healing people.

- Almost zero interest in things like historic Anabaptism. Charismaticism is a "big tent", so you might have a charismatic church like St. Luke's that still practices infant baptism alongside one with people from a more Baptist background who would think adult baptism is the norm. The movement is characterised by its theological diversity in terms of being able to accommodate almost any mainline Protestant background, yet at the same time being mostly aligned with fundamental evangelicalism. (There were even Reformed charismatic movements going on at the time.)

- People in this movement tended to make regular "pilgrimages" to Toronto. My family went up there quite a few times. The protracted meetings in Toronto would have hundreds of attendees every single night, and sometimes thousands. If they held an explicit conference with a theme and arranged some guest speakers, attendance would be in the thousands.

A few things of note:

- There are similarities between these meetings and revivalism, including the style of revivalism that the most fundamentalist and strict present-day conservative Mennonites may practice; in particular, the protracted meetings.

- This movement had a strong daily spiritual and religious focus and many felt it could lead to outbreaks of revival. A lot of young people made a serious commitment to become born again and serve the Lord during these protracted meetings. However, the particular form did not endure and most these people either later lost their faith, or transitioned to a more "conventional" type of church.

- This movement attracted its fair share of plain people who were now ex-plain. During my time back then, my exposure to plain people was limited to ex-plain people who would simply state that at their prior conservative Mennonite church or whatever, they didn't understand that salvation is via faith/via grace and instead were trying to earn salvation via works. This is completely baffling to me now, as every conservative Mennonite church I have been in places a strong emphasis on salvation via grace. It leaves me wondering if these people were deluded, deceived, or being actively deceitful.

- This movement tended to focus a lot more on attracting people who were already Christians than trying to convert the unsaved. (One could criticise plain Anabaptists for often being guilty of the same thing.)

- Unlike the prior Holiness revivals in the 1800s and the Holiness Pentecostal movement, this "revival" or "refreshing" lacked a holiness component, so things like people quitting drinking alcohol, dressing modestly, getting rid of their TVs, and so on were noticably absent. As a general rule, people continued to live the same lifestyles they did before, except now they went to a lot more church meetings. This is probably the most heartbreaking aspect of the movement to me - a real opportunity was missed for a lot of people to choose to live holy lives unconformed to the world but conformed to Christ.

- The movement essentially continues to exist today in the form of Hillsong and Bethel and related movements (such as the aforementioned "DOVE USA" organisation that got some focus in another thread on here), although things like daily protracted meetings are not happening anymore.

- The movement seemed to result in a lot of people who eventually quit attending church at all - almost everyone I was around in these movements doesn't attend church anymore, including my family members who haven't converted to conservative Anabaptism. Simply put, the religious experiences they were accustomed to (and I was accustomed to) don't exist anymore in an easily accessible fashion.

[Sudsy]

So what are you looking for with this opening ?

For an opening response, I would question these as 'legalistic traditions' as I don't see them as either legalistic in nature or traditions in that many are too recent to be a tradition, imo.

I do have a varied perspective on some of these from my Pentecostal background.

[MaxPC]

- The movement seemed to result in a lot of people who eventually quit attending church at all - almost everyone I was around in these movements doesn't attend church anymore, including my family members who haven't converted to conservative Anabaptism. Simply put, the religious experiences they were accustomed to (and I was accustomed to) don't exist anymore in an easily accessible fashion.

There is/was a very real pressure to speak in tongues within charismatic circles. My friends spoke of it and I saw such expectations at Catholic Charismatic Renewal meetups. I recently checked on the status of Catholic Charismatic Renewal and it still exists. Many have commented that it has "matured" and "mellowed". Having not witnessed it recently I cannot explain nor attest further to that observation.

I am saddened to hear of those who have quit attending fellowships and churches. Many former charismatics have called it "burnout" due to the need to keep up an emotional high.

[Josh]

So what are you looking for with this opening ?

For an opening response, I would question these as 'legalistic traditions' as I don't see them as either legalistic in nature or traditions in that many are too recent to be a tradition, imo.

I'm in my 40s and these have been traditions I have grown up around my entire life.

And yes it's quite legalistic to think you can judge someone's spiritual life based on how enthusiastic they are about lifting their hands during worship or how much they dance around or "shake in the spirit".

More importantly, many of the young people I grew up with were not born again and did not have a true new birth experience, and fell away. That is one of the hallmarks of legalism - when young people do not understand the plan of salvation, but instead think they must earn it through dead works. And the charismatic circles were chock full of dead works.

[Sudsy]

So what are you looking for with this opening ?

For an opening response, I would question these as 'legalistic traditions' as I don't see them as either legalistic in nature or traditions in that many are too recent to be a tradition, imo.

I'm in my 40s and these have been traditions I have grown up around my entire life.

And yes it's quite legalistic to think you can judge someone's spiritual life based on how enthusiastic they are about lifting their hands during worship or how much they dance around or "shake in the spirit".

More importantly, many of the young people I grew up with were not born again and did not have a true new birth experience, and fell away. That is one of the hallmarks of legalism - when young people do not understand the plan of salvation, but instead think they must earn it through dead works. And the charismatic circles were chock full of dead works.

I guess I would call what you are talking about as one's spirituality based on certain ways they believe and practise their beliefs. To me, legalism is more a trait that some of the most conservative forms of Christianity fall into that requires very spelled out ways of believing and strict living requirements. I was never required to lift my hands in worship or dance or shake as you put it to belong to a Pentecostal church but rather encouraged to what was called being 'free in the Spirit' in how I worshipped. Some people were more openly demonstrative in their worship than others. In my earlier years there were certain expected norms like where you should or should not go or godly attire but none of these were put into some legalistic document that everyone was required to adhere to.

To me a hallmark of legalism is when a person tries to obey all the requirements of a church and has not been born again. They do what is required to belong but it is more an issue of belonging to a group than it is having a born again experience that begins them on a new path of wanting to serve the Lord. It is not that they have not been taught, in my case, what being born again means but rather they just have not allowed Jesus to be their Lord and Saviour. So, once they leave home, some go to the life their heart is desiring.

What I think can and does happen with some is that their church experience is overly focused on feelings that they enjoy and when the atmosphere is not heavy on the feelings, then they drift away. Those that stay involved in home bible study groups and witnessing and prayer groups, etc., in my experience, don't fall away. They may backslide for awhile but a good group will encourage one another through those periods.

[mike]

A former Charity church in my area has had some charismatic influences in the last number of years and has made numerous changes in the direction of what you could call more freedom and variety in its worship practices. Just the other day the pastor lamented on Facebook that so many people in his church show up late and just sit in the back benches. I badly wanted to comment that it most certainly couldn’t be the dead religion and legalism that he criticizes on his Facebook all the time, so I guess it’s just a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

[Neto]

It's interesting the things that took place in this general movement AFTER I was no longer directly involved. I had heard of the Toronto Blessing, but that came a number of years later. Also later heard of things like acting like babies by laying on the floor, soiling one's self, etc. Then there is the "gold dust from heaven", and the gold teeth that suddenly appeared in people's mouths. (My answer to that is that God doesn't do second-rate healings. Gold fillings would be like if POOF Jesus had just created crutches in the hands of the crippled, or given eye glasses to the guy who "saw people as trees walking".) This wouldn't be legalism, but the "demon mapping" also came later, along with the "prayer walks".

I was never in a service where they had to have nurses stationed up & down the isles, in case someone got so 'blessed' that they fell down and hit their head, etc.

Anyway, to your point of legalism, from the Brazilian Evangelical point of view, the "legalism" they criticized in the Pentecostal churches was things like
Women cannot cut their hair
Women must wear dresses or skirts of a certain length
Men must not wear shorts
No one may play 'futeball' (soccer).

Sound familiar?

[steve-in-kville]

The only thing I have seen is the hand raising.

[Josh]

Anyway, to your point of legalism, from the Brazilian Evangelical point of view, the "legalism" they criticized in the Pentecostal churches was things like
Women cannot cut their hair
Women must wear dresses or skirts of a certain length
Men must not wear shorts
No one may play 'futeball' (soccer).

Sound familiar?

Every single one of those things is a Wesleyan Holiness thing, and formerly was a Pentecostal thing.

Ironically, Pentecostals invented the traditions that charismatics hold near and dear, but charismatics don’t seem interested in the “holiness” side of things.

[Josh]

I guess I would call what you are talking about as one's spirituality based on certain ways they believe and practise their beliefs. To me, legalism is more a trait that some of the most conservative forms of Christianity fall into that requires very spelled out ways of believing and strict living requirements.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Sudsy, and I see something interesting here.

“Legalism” is a term reserved for criticising people who are more conservative. That seems to literally be all it is. The fact there are very legalistic structures inside charismatic circles doesn’t matter - well, unless you’re like an old friend of mine who grew up in such circles, and now claims she grew up with just legalism and works (she identifies as lgbt/nonbinary these days and is very big into “grace”).

This means accusations of “legalism” really are just a way to say that another person is more conservative than I am, and I don’t like it. It has no substance at all as to whether someone believes in salvation via faith and grace, and so on.