Sarah,
The basis of the charismatic renewal hope was that the more people who were empowered by the Holy Spirit (the baptism of or in the Holy Spirit as noted in Acts 2 and chapters following), the more the Church would be what it was meant to be. By looking to Jesus for that baptism, we could be assured of the promise of reception of the empowerment, speaking in tongues a major (but not always evident) sign.
The power of the Spirit was for all, and intended for every Christian. And of the spiritual gifts, prophesying could be for all. And tongues as a prayer language seems a part of the package.
However, an evangelistic gift was not always part of the gifting, nor the gift of administration (nor do I see a gift of politicking). Here, the problem of getting the baptism of the Spirit to an ever-increasing fellowship of new and old Christians ran into the same problems as it always had. First, with the problem of lack of evangelism becoming apparent, the charismatic renewal began to emphasize the Great Commission, in hopes that ALL would grasp the calling of becoming disciplers, one making one, Be a friend, make a friend, bring a friend to Christ, etc. As it should be. Alleluia.
And, yet, people weren’t picking up on that role by osmosis simply be receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Training was necessary. Who would do the training? Now this is for real, and not simply a sarcastic comment: since when did a diocesan Commission on Ministry, or a parish discernment group, regularly look only for those individuals who showed fruit of an evangelistic ministry? No, we looked for somewhat intelligent, potentially theologically articulate, converted to the truth of the ministry of the Body of Christ, showing fruit of Pastoral gifting, people (and then in the late 70’s beginning to show evidence of a shift toward 2nd career, wise in the world, candidates for ordination, thus the increase of avg age upon graduation). The evangelism training had to be procured from some other place, such as “Evangelism Explosion”, or “the Master’s plan”, or bring in someone to the parish staff from Campus Crusade or Young Life, etc.
Episcopal Clergy had not been and were simply not being recruited based on souls being saved, if you will. In fact, that was increasingly a phrase you wanted to avoid at discernment retreats. Along with, “Because the Lord spoke to me and told me to be a priest.” (part of my own story, for another time).
One year I asked potential deaconate ordinands as part of their oral exams, “Who was the last person you brought to Christ?” It literally caused a ripple of anxiety and terror. The third candidate that day of exams had already heard from the first one to expect the question. The next year people in the same situation knew me as the one who had asked ‘that’ question. I can only hope somebody was brought to the Lord if only to be able to answer the question somewhat affirmatively!
Now, from time to time, one of those evangelistic spiritual gifts would just simply show up in a priest, and it would be evident in the growth of a parish where growth was otherwise not warranted by demographics. Then some of these unsuspecting clergy would get elected bishop. Not knowing how to train anybody for what just came “naturally” to them, their evangelistic gifted ability didn’t bear much more fruit than annual visits to congregations – with followup left to the local clergy. Ooops.
Some of those gifted clergy did not become bishops, yet everywhere they served people were brought to the Lord, churched and unchurched alike. But rather than asking the question necessary about their evangelistic gifting and perhaps technique, they were simply categorized as “successful” parish priests. Much to the dismay and guilt of those non-evangelistically gifted clergy. Who were legion.
The charismatic renewal fared only slightly better in this regard. How ironic, eh? If you wanted evangelism training you had to go somewhere else than an Episcopal seminary, unless one of the faculty took on such training on their own. Usually, a local ECF or ERM regional conference might offer a workshop on evangelism. Too little time, hardly any follow-up.
Now, General Convention – or somebody with some clout – finally got an Evangelism officer into place. But as you can see it was like swimming up stream (thousands and thousands of miles). I will give Wayne Schwab credit for breaking a lot of ice in this area; Hugh Magers was the best. But even Hugh knew there was a second wave of resistance coming for trying to get the evangelism message out there, with the resurgence of universalism. The 20/20 plan took massive effort to get passed, and then it all just sort of went away in a haze of budgeting issues.
That was about the time I was waking up to the need for gifted evangelists myself. When I was at the GC Denver, I took the time to follow up on a project that was started in between Philadelphia GC and Denver, and that was asking for the names of anyone who was a known, gifted evangelist in the Episcopal Church, other than Lee Buck. I asked every knowledgable person I could find there: at AAC meetings and lunches, in the crowds walking back and forth to conference center, working through an intentional list of renewal leaders there, attending Evangelism committee meetings. Nobody had a name that came to the top of their brain quickly (except Lee Buck). I explained I wasn’t looking for people who knew the value of evangelism, or could preach evangelistically (John Guernsey’s name came up a few times, and others you would probably recognize), but someone in the parish, someone known to the diocese, who regularly reported on the names of individuals who as adults had just given their lives to the Lord, and were being baptized. A dearth of names. Really, only the names of folks someone else had heard about, or by implication of association.
Finally, I think the next to the last day of Denver GC, I was walking back to the conference center in step with another priest who had come from the lunch. I didn’t know him, and hadn’t met him until then. In desperation I told him about my little research project. He said, simply, “Well, I have that gift.” And from what he told me briefly then, and later sitting down with him so I could interview him, I knew he was telling the truth. I’m sorry to say that even before I could arrange to have him come out to my parish and the diocese to share his gift, he went AMiA. I still envision him coming out to talk and share and maybe do a Parish Retreat for the community.
I was glad for that moment of discovery the Lord provided. And it is sad – is it not – that there is still not – in general, because I know some dioceses have gotten the message – a demand for evangelists to be ordained. Certainly, that’s what every parish search committee WANTS, is someone who will grow the parish or mission. They just don’t know that there is a difference between how a gifted administrator grows a church, and a Spirit-gifted evangelist.
The charismatic renewal was right on target – the frozen chosen needed to be reminded about the power of the Lord to accomplish the building up of His Kingdom. God knew what He was doing in that fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, needed constantly in the Church, over and over. And the charismatic renewal leadership was right to look to the evangelical awakening for necessary refreshment in evangelical theology, but even more so for the evangelistic work which brought the evangelical movement alive. Reasserters are made up quite a bit by these folks. Even many revisionists are aware of and desperate for the power of the Holy Spirit and the ministry of evangelism.
And, in case you didn’t see this coming or get it by now, both CP’ers and CC’ers will go nowhere without these elements in their life. Here is some confusion, too. CP’ers are generally in agreement that these things – empowerment in the Holy Spirit, and the need for gifted evangelists and the fruit of evangelism to bring people inside and outside the church to Jesus – is exactly “the inside strategy.” That is the Mission no matter where you are called, is it not? And CC’ers are of the tendency to call “the outside strategy” something structural – but at the same time fully cognizant of the elements that many CP’ers have perhaps reluctantly termed the inside strategy. Once we get that straightened out, we can get back to the fight about whether staying in TECUSA is really just being deceived.
In the meantime, I still want to know who the gifted evangelists are. I have maybe one in my congregation, but she is gunshy, has never been encouraged in that direction, and needs drawing out and training to accentuate the gift. Otherwise, I have been praying…
What about you? Anybody reading this post, that is. Who do you know in your parish, or in your diocese, perhaps yourself (don’t be shy), who shows the fruit of a Spirit-gifted evangelist? Just let us know whether TECUSA or non, so the appropriate people can immediately contact them for potential ministry!
