The theological shift of individuals

It seems that charismatic experience makes an individual’s inherited theology more fluid. In his spiritual pilgrimage over some years, theological lecturer, Andrew Walker, moved from Elim Pentecostalism to embrace Russian Orthodox spirituality. (Smail, Walker and Wright 1993). The early Anglican leader of renewal, Michael Harper, has moved slowly over from Anglican curate to Orthodox priest. There is a hint of this in This is the Day (1979), where he introduces his theme by talking of three sisters: Evangeline, Charisma, and Roma. These symbolise the threefold

coming together of the Evangelicals, Charismatics and Roman Catholics (:13). But he adds a fourth sister to the trio whom he calls ‘Orthodoxa’. (:52). Harper’s vision thus spans the whole spectrum and is a significant pointer for future study.

In this chapter, certain individuals are the subjects for closer scrutiny: David Pawson was chosen because of his provocative writings (his prophetic comments upon Israel, his views on baptism, the ‘male-ness’ of church leadership) and my personal discussions with him on baptism. David Watson was a charismatic pioneer and seminally influential Anglican evangelist from the early 1960s in Cambridge, through to a notable ministry in York. Tom Smail, who moved from being a Scottish Presbyterian Minister to an Anglican Rector, was a prominent early leader from the platform at Fountain Trust meetings in the 1960s. Stephen Abbot takes us into the 1980s and he connects with the modern ecumenical movement. David Tomlinson makes an interesting contrast, because of his radical approach and his move away from Restorationism. Colin Buchanan seems to have integrated several streams in his personal spirituality. Derek Lance is known through the pages of Good News.

These individuals are almost certainly the tip of a much larger iceberg, but as a sample they demonstrate the potential for theological change that charismatic renewal can cause; and hence the ecumenical significance. Buchanan and Abbot I would label as ‘apostles of unity’. Hollenweger comments (1997:357): ‘the charismatic renewal creates ecumenical facts which might force us theologians to rethink some of our denominational theologies.’ The first half of this chapter illustrates that process.

David Pawson has been an influential figure in charismatic circles for four decades. His work is strongly individual, born out of what could be described as ‘evangelical biblical radicalism.’ He was for a number of years a Methodist minister and during 1957, as a chaplain in the Royal Air Force, he became convinced in a new way of the

authority of the Bible. 'It became my judge in all matters of belief and behaviour.’ (1993:11). This was a definitive point at which Pawson says he became an evangelical. He later became a Baptist minister, when his biblical radicalism convinced him that believers' baptism was the only valid mode from the New Testament and that he could no longer 'christen' babies. In 1964 Pawson became a charismatic when he found himself praying fluently in a new language for a sick deacon (:11) In his introduction to Fourth Wave, Clive Calver describes Pawson as a writer ‘with penetrating logic’ and warns that both evangelicals and charismatics will be forced to re-examine their assumptions if they are to come together. This is where the significance and relevance of Pawson’s Fouth Wave theme emerges for the ecumenist. His main concern is to integrate evangelicals and charismatics; particularly exposing the shortcomings of non-charismatic evangelicals on one hand, and charismatics, who seem to have drifted from a scriptural centre on the other. He sees their coming together, as something like a Hegelian dialectic, in which is the solution to the evangelical-charismatic gap is not to be found at some mid-point of balance between them but in a new synthesis above them(:12) (emphasis original). Pawson indicates here just that kind of synthesis, which is required in any kind of ecumenical convergence. But the word 'ecumenism' hardly appears in his work, and he would not appear to see institutional unity as a priority.

However, in his prologue (:15) he refers to the important Smith Wigglesworth prophecy of 1947 in which, a week before the latter's death, he predicted two developments in the universal church. The first would be the restoration of the gifts of the Spirit. The second would be a revived emphasis on the Word of God. Wigglesworth added: 'when these two moves of the Spirit combine, we shall see the greatest move the Church of Jesus Christ has ever seen.' (Stormont1989) Pawson

declares that his manuscript was completed before he discovered this prophecy. Consequently he sees his proposal for integrating charismatics and evangelicals as a small fulfilment of it.

In The Anointing, (1998:202) RT Kendall makes a similar point on the Word and Spirit coming together, but he does not refer to the 1947 prophecy. A recent article by Pat Collins (2006b) also refers to Du Plessis and the Smith Wigglesworth 1947 prophecy; but the latter sees the beginning of a fulfilment in the Second Vatican Council.

Pawson alludes to the growing number of ‘non-evangelical charismatics mainly 'Catholic' but some ‘liberal’’(:11) Clive Calver in his introduction to Pawson (:8) also is aware of:

'in excess of six thousand Roman Catholics who would term themselves 'charismatic' or 'evangelical'. And that figure is increasing. Here again serious theological work is needed to reflect the opinions they hold. This book (Fourth Wave) begins that investigation...'

By 1992, when Calver's foreword was written, the Vatican/Pentecostal dialogue was well established, but Calver does not seem to be aware of it. Christian leaders inevitably tend to view the flow of events from the standpoint of the rightness of their own denomination or tradition, which they tend to assume is more faithful to the truth than others. This applies as much to evangelicals and charismatics as Roman Catholics. The process that Pawson advocated was already beginning to happen as he wrote Fourth Wave. Andrew Walker (1998:314) comments:

But what was beginning to happen, and this was to continue well into the 1990’s, was a networking that was far more inclusive of charismatics and evangelicals than was typical in the immediate past. For a short while–ten years at the most–the Restorationist movement had taken away much of the energy and ecumenical drive from the renewal. By 1989 the flow was going back into the mainstream, carrying much of Restorationism with it, but leaving some segments outside.

It would be interesting to know if Pawson’s convictions had any influence in this 'ecumenical' drift back into historic denominations. That was not his prime concern at

a time when many were almost 'a-denominational' in style. It seemed more likely to be a case of Christians, who were maturing and growing up from the quasi- dependency which many Restorationist churches had moulded them into, through to a re-assessing of what the historic denominations still had to offer, without casting away their charismatic experiences. There is a serious point here. At a time when probably a large number of charismatic Christians were drifting from Restorationist pastoral rigorism, who was to guide them and where were they to look? It was a critical time (early 1990s say) when many stood at a frontier of discovery, trying to be loyal to their experiences and yet uneasy with some aspects of Restorationism. It is easy to see also, that under such circumstances, far from returning to parent denominations (the 'ecumenical' direction) the possibilities of re-grouping with like- minded Christians of many different varieties could result in a new fragmentation. Personal pastoral evidence suggested that many individuals found it difficult to settle, after a period in a strong radical church of a restorationist kind. Either thy accepted the mould they were in, or they drifted from church to church seeking the ‘right’ place. Few countenanced a return to an older denomination, even if that church had something of charismatic renewal. Further field study in this area could be useful. (see esp. Tomlinson below)

Pawson is consistently faithful to his basic Reformed conviction of the supremacy of scripture in matters of faith. However, we move to a 'grey area' when he attempts to locate scriptural authority. Pawson acknowledges that the biblical writers were not mere word processors. Their different temperaments and style affect their writings– but this in no way prevents God from saying exactly what he wants to say through them. Neither does Pawson believe that all subsequent translations are infallible (not even the version 'authorised' by King James). ‘Above all, it is not to believe that our

interpretations (exegesis) and applications (hermeneutics) carry the same inspiration or authority.’(:77) The position advocated here, is not so different from the starting assumptions of more liberal scholars. (but cf. Francis Martin’s ‘hermeneutic of the Spirit) The moment one ceases to claim any kind of absoluteness in interpretation, the landscape opens up for meaningful dialogue.

Pawson locates biblical authority in its original inspiration (emphasis mine). This is an 'orthodox' view shared across a very wide range of confessions, but attempts to define how are difficult. Pawson recognises the process of the canon of scripture, which is effectively an acknowledgement of the authority of the church. The canonical process is defined in Pawson as selecting 'those writings recognised as communicating the original prophetic and apostolic revelations from God (there were many others not so recognised)' (:77) He later says that 'All scripture was originally prophecy.'(:83) His context is the exercise of correcting abuses of the 'gift' and mis- use of prophecy in charismatic meetings. He is at pains to resist the tendency of many charismatics to place 'prophecy' on a par or prior to scripture. Clearly if all scripture was originally 'prophecy' then such prophecies must have carried a higher status, by comparison with the 'word of prophecy' manifestations which are seen in contemporary charismatic services. Pawson's conclusion is that:

'Scripture is therefore an inspired collection of those prophecies, which are definitive for our faith, by which all others are to be judged. The selection is complete. It is neither right nor necessary to add any others to this standard revelation.’ (:84)

But does the Bible actually need defending with a particular theory? Pawson's claim of all scripture being originally prophecy is questionable, given the variety of types of literature contained in its corpus. If he is using the term ‘prophecy’ as a synonym for ‘inspired’ then it might carry some weight, though it may not actually be necessary in practice to subscribe to that theory. To recognise the 'orthodox' affirmation of the

inspiration of scripture may be all that is required of any Christian. The conviction of the inspiration and authority of scripture may grow in the pragmatism of 'doing' rather than in a prior mental assent to a particular theory. John 7 v 17 has: 'If any man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God…’ (RSV1963) suggests that revelation is a fruit of obedience as one goes, rather than an exercise solely for the mind. The argument thus moves on into the area of the revelatory value of 'experience'. Once again a lengthy quote from Pawson is relevant because it neatly focuses the issues that one has attempted to address in this thesis:

'The problem is an extreme reluctance in non-charismatic evangelicals to consider meeting with non-evangelical charismatics.' (And with obvious relevance to the present thesis he continues): 'The latter are gathered at the opposite end of the ecclesiastical spectrum, comprising some Anglo-Catholics and many, many Roman Catholics.

Evangelicals with a Reformed tradition find it virtually impossible to believe that a genuine move of the Spirit could be taking place among those who still embrace dogmas and duties which they consider to be so contrary to scripture....It must be freely admitted that many charismatics, with their weakness for exalting experience over theology, have been guilty of doctrinal indifference....given all this there is still one vital question for evangelicals: is doctrine the starting-point for Christian fellowship? Should I extend a hand only to those who share my theological position (which implies that I am totally orthodox) or to all those to whom my Lord has given his Spirit (even though they still hold what I would consider heterodox or even heretical views)?’(:73, 74)

Pawson has made an unwitting contribution to ecumenism in blue-printing a new charismatic and evangelical synthesis. It is the very kind of thing that will need to emerge in any future united church. His viewpoint takes in also the breadth of the theological and ecclesiastical spectrum, but his inference is that Roman Catholics, whilst experiencing the spirit 'genuinely' still need to 'adjust' doctrinally. As valuable as Pawson’s work is, one is still left with the sense that Pawson (and Calver in the foreword) are largely unaware of some of the serious theological work that has been done on the Catholic side.

David Tomlinson

Contrastingly, going in the reverse direction from Pawson, there has been much interest in the story of David Tomlinson, a former house church ‘apostle’ who wrote of his theological struggle in The Post-Evangelical (1995) and has since been ordained as a priest in the Church of England. This is quite significant in that for several years an increasing number of Anglican ordinands have originated from other denominational backgrounds. Such men and women bring a wealth of spiritual experience into a historic denomination, and represent a subtle but significant ecumenical trend.

Tomlinson is from a Brethren background, like several early Restorationist leaders, but has now moved out of the movement, though not the faith. He has set up an experimental church for seekers and ‘post-evangelicals’ in a South London public house, ‘Holy Joes.’ His movement seems primarily to be away from a fundamentalistic view of the inspiration of scripture. It is interesting to compare his exercise with that of David Pawson. Pawson works from a rationale, which preserves the inspiration and authority of the text as originally given. Tomlinson accepts the results of most critical study of the biblical text. His position is not far from that expounded in Peake’s Commentary or the majority of ‘new Evangelicals’, but given his starting point it seems, at least to him, new and alarming. What he recognises as crucial are the assumptions which lie behind the whole post-modernist way of thinking and approaching reality, and it is this which lies behind his movement on from Restorationism. He engages with the radical theologian Don Cupitt and discusses metaphors and the use of religious language. Many could identify with Tomlinson in the inspiration and use of the biblical text, but where he seems to have lost something in his new stance is precisely in the zone one would expect him to be

strong. viz. the pneumatological. Pawson recognises the Spirit as inspirer and interpreter(cf.Martin) and seeks to synthesise word and spirit. Tomlinson sounds a note of scepticism about individuals hearing ‘words from the Lord’ and the impression one gets from his book is that the Holy Spirit has somewhat faded from his personal view. This is surprising given that he was in house church leadership for twenty-five years. There is almost nothing in the book about the revelational value of the Spirit. Tomlinson has moved largely through his own personal growth in theological awareness. Is this saying something about the plateauing and theological dryness of 1990s Restorationism? Nevertheless, he has an interesting comment on ecumenism:

One of the great virtues of the early charismatic movement was its unselfconscious ecumenism. For a while it seemed as though theological and ecclesiastical differences were not the priorities; the focus was on a deeper sense of unity and kinship brought about by the Spirit; and huge psychological barriers and personal prejudices were swept away. Before long there were theological workshops, and the hope was that the whole ecumenical thrust could be re-centred and pushed forward by the renewal. Many things have stood in the way of this…..(:27)

Could it have been that Tomlinson sensed the ecumenical instinct in the early days of renewal as its central calling and purpose. Was his hope of ‘re-centring’ ecumenism a grasping of the vision of seeing ecumenism moving onto a pneumatological basis? Did he find Restorationist theology unconvincing ecumenically? What does seem to emerge from his story is the long overdue need for ‘ordinary’ Christians to have a fresh rationale for the inspiration and interpretation of scripture (a packaged version) which does justice to scholarship, inspiration and authority simultaneously.

Tom Smail

But others too were aware early on of the growing theological deficit in the renewal and attempted to fill the gap. Tom Smail in Charismatic Renewal, the Search for a

Theology(1993), speaks of his personal wrestling with his experience of renewal and

his previously honed Barthian theology which could not quite accommodate it.

It would have been easy to get out my sharp Barthian scissors, to cut up into little pieces all that Bennet (see Nine O Clock in the Morning 1970) had said and to dismiss it on the grounds of its doctrinal unacceptability and theological inadequacy. What stopped me...Bennet was moving in a dimension of joyful relationship to God and experiences of his presence, power and promises. (1993:14).

Smail is alert to the fact, that the renewal in the Roman Catholic Church has from the beginning attracted to itself some first rate thinkers (he mentions Heribert Muhlen in Germany and Yves Congar in France), who have helped the renewal to understand itself and what God was doing though it. He contrasts this with Anglo-Saxon Protestant circles, where he notes that theologians have generally not concerned themselves with the renewal, with the exceptions of J.V.Taylor and J.D.G. Dunn. It was mentioned in the introductory chapter, that Polman's 'ecumenical heart collided with his fundamentalistic head and that in the end he failed as an ecumenist.’ Smail does not refuse the similar exercise that beckons to many charismatics of rethinking their theology. Referring to his experience of spiritual renewal which he locates spread over a three week period in November 1965 (Smail does not use the term 'spirit-baptism' or 'charismatic'). His description is interesting (: 15)

It was not a change from unbelief to faith, or in the content of what I believed. There were those around at the time who tried to persuade me that what had happened was some kind of evangelical conversion, but to see it in that way would have been to slander the genuine work that God had already done in my life, when he drew me to trust Christ and called me to the ministry of the gospel that had Christ at its centre.

Hence Smail is pushed in the direction of a 'second blessing' approach to his experience, but he does not start from any ready made theologies. His determination to work things through radically, produces in the end a fulsome doctrine of the Cross and the Spirit (1993:49). It is interesting, that in the only reference to charismatic renewal in the recent Anglican–Orthodox report, this same point of the linkage with