A modern analogy to ancient Christian roots.
Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:12 am
I am always interested in historical analogies, and that between the modern (mostly evangelical) charismatic movement and early Christianity has long drawn my attention.
I think that one of the main takeaways from the historical study of early Christian roots is that the religion was, right from the very beginning, already complex and multifaceted. It may or may not stem from a single event or series of events (an unfortunate crucifixion, a series of mystic visions, or what have you), but the ideological/theological baggage already in play right at the start was, IMHO, immense. The reason is that the religion was derivative of religious traditions which had gone before it in the same way that the modern charismatic movement is derivative of its own set of previous religious traditions.
This complex derivation would explain why we are given so many (overlapping?) names for the earliest Christian movement(s): Nazarenes/Nazoraeans, the Way, the Twelve, the brethren of the Lord, the apostles, Galileans, and so on. Adjacent to those possibly formative groups lurk other groups which may or may not have had an input: Hemerobaptists, Gnostics, Essenes, the so called Fourth Philosophy, and others.
The complexity of early Christianity would owe itself to the complexity of the forms of Judaism from which it sprang, as well as from the complexity of the mystery cult phenomenon as the religion began taking on a more Gentile character, just as the complexity of the charismatic movement owes itself to the combination of Methodist, Evangelical, and Holiness traditions which had made themselves felt during century XIX.
Just as Christianity looks back on foundational events such as the crucifixion of Jesus, the visions of the resurrected Lord, and the event known as Pentecost (whether historical or not), so too the modern charismatic movement looks back on its own foundational events, such as the Topeka Outpouring (1901) or Azusa Street (1906).
The movements, developments, and influences of various groups on and into other groups in both cases look similar to me, as well.
In both cases, creative people inside the movement could draw upon inspirations from outside the movment. Early Christians, for example, could draw from pagan myths or from gnostic wisdom or from varieties of Judaism other than the kind(s) which had produced the movement in the first place; charismatics may draw (and have drawn) from the Catholic mystics or from Buddhist meditation. These borrowings do not alter the roots of the movement, but they certainly change the character of the most up to date manifestation of it.
I have two flow charts, gleaned from online, showing the development of the modern charismatic movement. The first is fairly simple (and aiming wider than the charismatic movement itself), the second more complex (and more uniquely focused upon the phenomenon of "holy laughter" in charismatic meetings), but neither is anywhere near as complex as the reality of the historical situation itself. If one were to chart out early Christian individuals and groups, including as many of them as are known to us, I bet it would have to be about as complex and messy as the following flow charts:
http://kingdomchange.org/wp-content/upl ... ments2.png
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-history-laughing.gif
Ben.
I think that one of the main takeaways from the historical study of early Christian roots is that the religion was, right from the very beginning, already complex and multifaceted. It may or may not stem from a single event or series of events (an unfortunate crucifixion, a series of mystic visions, or what have you), but the ideological/theological baggage already in play right at the start was, IMHO, immense. The reason is that the religion was derivative of religious traditions which had gone before it in the same way that the modern charismatic movement is derivative of its own set of previous religious traditions.
This complex derivation would explain why we are given so many (overlapping?) names for the earliest Christian movement(s): Nazarenes/Nazoraeans, the Way, the Twelve, the brethren of the Lord, the apostles, Galileans, and so on. Adjacent to those possibly formative groups lurk other groups which may or may not have had an input: Hemerobaptists, Gnostics, Essenes, the so called Fourth Philosophy, and others.
The complexity of early Christianity would owe itself to the complexity of the forms of Judaism from which it sprang, as well as from the complexity of the mystery cult phenomenon as the religion began taking on a more Gentile character, just as the complexity of the charismatic movement owes itself to the combination of Methodist, Evangelical, and Holiness traditions which had made themselves felt during century XIX.
Just as Christianity looks back on foundational events such as the crucifixion of Jesus, the visions of the resurrected Lord, and the event known as Pentecost (whether historical or not), so too the modern charismatic movement looks back on its own foundational events, such as the Topeka Outpouring (1901) or Azusa Street (1906).
The movements, developments, and influences of various groups on and into other groups in both cases look similar to me, as well.
In both cases, creative people inside the movement could draw upon inspirations from outside the movment. Early Christians, for example, could draw from pagan myths or from gnostic wisdom or from varieties of Judaism other than the kind(s) which had produced the movement in the first place; charismatics may draw (and have drawn) from the Catholic mystics or from Buddhist meditation. These borrowings do not alter the roots of the movement, but they certainly change the character of the most up to date manifestation of it.
I have two flow charts, gleaned from online, showing the development of the modern charismatic movement. The first is fairly simple (and aiming wider than the charismatic movement itself), the second more complex (and more uniquely focused upon the phenomenon of "holy laughter" in charismatic meetings), but neither is anywhere near as complex as the reality of the historical situation itself. If one were to chart out early Christian individuals and groups, including as many of them as are known to us, I bet it would have to be about as complex and messy as the following flow charts:
http://kingdomchange.org/wp-content/upl ... ments2.png
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-history-laughing.gif
Ben.