A History of the Charismatic Movement: A Response to Michael Brown


Michael Brown is a well known author and flamecontributor to charismanews, an online Pentecostal and Charismatic magazine. Recently though, Brown has been increasingly agitated by John MacArthur’s anti-Charismatic comments and the upcoming Strange Fire Conference. In his most recent article, An Appeal to John MacArthur to Embrace God’s True Fire on July 5, 2013, Brown tries to defend the Charismatic movement against MacArthur’s claim that it is “bizarre and unintelligible.” According to Brown, it is generated by true, sound, biblical teaching.

This claim though, could not be more unmerited.

In another article Brown wrote, he stated, “I am far more concerned about denying the true fire than I am about putting out every aberrant charismatic brush fire.” What’s funny is that to refer to the problems of the Charismatic movement as merely a “brush fire” just might be the understatement of the century. Brown makes it seem as though MacArthur is identifying those on the extreme fringe of Charismaticism to represent the whole, while these select few poorly represent all of Charismatic Christianity. MacArthur, in Brown’s opinion, shouldn’t be painting with such a broad brush stroke. Unfortunately, reality is not in Brown’s favor and if Brown doesn’t identify himself with the “many abuses in the charismatic movement—including our flesh-exalting personality cults; our carnal prosperity message; our manifestation mania; our superficial sensationalism; our mindless gullibility; our cheapening of the word ‘apostolic’; our constant fascination with the latest trend,” then he is the one on the fringe of the movement – not the other way around.

Brown declares, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.” The only trouble is, it’s all bathwater! To help prove my point, let’s take a 33,000 ft. view of the history of the Charismatic Church, and I’ll let you determine for yourself if the Charismatic movement bears any credibility.


Although many in the Charismatic church would like to think that the miraculous gifts have continued throughout church history, this has not been the case. Pentecostal theology was first given a foothold due to certain teachings of John Wesley (which were unorthodox), especially that of the “second blessing” experience subsequent to justification. Much of the Pentecostal “second filling of the Holy Spirit” is derived from the unbiblical second blessing theology. Wesleyanism (or Methodism) and his teachings quickly became established in the United States, and it was later even more established by the Keswick Higher Life Movement, which taught a modified form of the second blessing experience. In Keswick theology, the second blessing doesn’t accomplish perfect sanctification, but there is a higher level of Christian living brought on by a sort of “crisis” event in the Christian’s life. Firmly rooted in American thinking, America was then ripe for the birth of Pentecostalism in the early 20th century.

The First Wave
Pentecostalism had its official beginning in 1901 at Charles Parham’s Bible school in

Ozman's Chinese Writing, 1901

Ozman’s Chinese Writing, 1901

Topeka, Kansas. Parham, who was a former Methodist pastor, led his students to pray for the gift of tongues when one of his students, Agnes Ozman, began writing and speaking in Chinese. While there are an infinite number of discrepancies in the account, there was one mistake Ozman made that had a serious affect on her credibility: she wrote in Chinese, making it incredibly easy to disprove that she was, in fact, speaking in tongues. She did no such thing, but this was nevertheless the beginning of the First Wave.

The Second Wave
The Second Wave of Pentecostalism began in 1960 in Van Nuys, CA when Pastor Dennis Bennett of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church began praying in tongues. If legitimate, this would be the first church considered “respectable” to speak in tongues since the close of the first century. Nevertheless, this opened the gateway for Pentecostalism to spread to other mainline denominations such as the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and even the Roman Catholics. However, what made the Second Wave especially unique from the first, was that the Greek term glossolalia was no longer viewed as being an actual spoken language. Instead, many adopted an alternative view that the word referred to some sort of spiritual or angelic language. This was only too convenient, since speaking in tongues is one of the identifying factors of the “second filling” experience, and glossolalia was redefined from its Biblical usage, to suit the agenda of the Charismatic movement. “Tongues” was always taught throughout church history (except by notorious heretics) to be real spoken languages. Advancement in technology and television helped the new meaning of the term to spread faster than ever before. This led to the Third Wave in the 1980s.

The Third Wave 
The Third Wave of the Charismatic movement consists mainly of those who do not want to be associated with the first and second waves, having recognized their utterly bizarre behavior, the lack of personal holiness by its leaders, their lack of credibility in the interpretation of Scripture, and their gross exaggeration of so-called “miraculous” events. This group now views speaking in tongues as mainly a prayer language, and they view decisiveness on the matter as something to be avoided at all cost. No one, it is believed, has the authority to question the experience of someone else. Apparently, they understand the importance of accuracy in defining the work of Christ, but view the work of the Holy Spirit with much less importance. This movement was largely established by the “Vineyard Christian Fellowship” and the “Signs and Wonders Movement (SWM),” whose leaders are notorious for having an unprecedented amount of immorality, deception, adultery, and fornication of gross measure. This begs the question, if these are representative men who are the most filled with the Spirit, how could they at the same time be identified by rampantly wicked behavior? However, the Third Wave has a strong foot-hold in the United States and around the world, and is rapidly growing today.

But what about those in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement who have proven themselves to be men of integrity? Do they at least make strong biblical case for their practice? Watch the video below. It’s long, but well worth it (and BTW… it will take a few seconds to start)! So get out the pop-corn or T.V. dinner. Observe Wayne Grudem making the best defense of the gift of prophecy I believe I’ve heard, and ask yourself, is he making a biblical defense? I’ll let you make your decision and tell me what you think.

EMA 2010: discussion about prophecy from The Proclamation Trust on Vimeo.

  • Karl Heitman

    Great post, brother. This was a very well-written synopsis of what most are ignorant about. If I were a charismatic, I would repent after learning of this history. 😉

    • Matt Tarr

      Thanks Karl! Did you get a chance to watch the video? That’s what was particularly surprising to me. I appreciated that Hamilton was so willing to point out that Grudem was simply just exegetically wrong where he sought Scriptural support for his view. What’s interesting is that it seems Grudem knew that, since he didn’t quarrel with Hamilton’s claim, but then instead began appealing most strongly to his personal experiences. Whichever way you cut it, it’s clear by the video that Grudem (and this is also true of other Charismatics) has redefined the gift of prophecy to something other than it was in the NT.

  • Love it! Thanks for this, Matt! Really did a very good job handling that article by Michael Brown. This is a well written and detailed response.

  • Matt, You are wrong! 107 years after Miss Agnes Ozman’s speaking, on Jan 1, 2008, I was also inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote 449 pages, of which 107 pages written on notebook paper, the rest were on printing paper. Photos of all my writings can be found at above link.
    The whole writing detail I put in my Chinese blog. http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_8fb52cf401016ugs.html

    If you want know the details, pls write to me at zhy232@hotmail.com.

  • Photos of my writings under influence of the Holy Spirit

    • Ekkie Tepsupornchai

      Yi, in addition to Matt’s question, I would also ask what your drawings revealed about God? Who, aside from you, can translate it? How do you know it came from the Holy Spirit? Many people have had visions, but Scripture teaches us to test everything (1 John 4:1).

  • Matt Tarr

    Thank you for taking the time to respond Yi! Unfortunately I cannot read your blog since it’s in Chinese, but I looked at your pictures. I don’t deny the experience you had, but I would reject that it was of the Holy Spirit and the reason is because I define the ability to speak in tongues according to how it’s presented in the NT as real and spoken human languages that were unknown to the speaker, but were clearly understandable to those who spoke those languages. This was the understood usage of the Greek word γλωσσα. I think we would both agree that what you did is not a real human language and if this is the case, then you would at least have to admit that what you did is inconsistent with what occurred in the NT. My question would then be, why then do you call this speaking in tongues, and where do you find Biblical credibility for it?

  • Ekkie Tepsupornchai

    Matt, well-written counter to Michael Brown and a good summary of the major movements. To add to your point regarding the immorality that has plagued the leaders of the third movement, Jesus tells us simply that we shall know a prophet by its fruit (Matt 7:15-20).

    It absolutely confounds me that such gifted and godly men such as Grudem, Piper, and Carson would defend the apostolic gifts based upon extra-biblical rationale.

  • Pingback: Strange Fire: to be or not to be? | ParkingSpace23ParkingSpace23()

  • onassis

    Thanks, Matt. Just as you wouldn’t accept my $3 bill or recommend me to any of your kids if I offered it to them, your pointing out the fake Chinese at the very foundation of the Charismatic movement is decisive (or should be) to the evangelical world. And just as it’s pointless to sit around and discuss the relative merits of a $3 bill, so too is all this theological ado over what’s an obvious fraud that’s had more than its share of attention. It’s time to rebuke and reject it, and move on. More people need to look at Agnes Ozman’s infamous handiwork.


    Matt, 1 Corin 13:1 “If I speak in tongues of men and of angels,…” Apostle Paul here makes crystal clear that speaking in tongue not only of men but also of angels. In my opinion, your definition of speaking in tongue is too narrow. In my twice experiences of speaking in tongue, I spoke my native language which I know the meaning under the influence of the Holy Spirit. In my first experience, I suddenly spoke unknown languages when praying in my fasting time, and I was scared, and I repeated saying, “thank the Lord Jesus”, but each time sounded in different language in my ears. Then I twice spoke Apostle Creed without ” I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” under the influence of the Holy Spirit, first in perfect Mandarin, then repeated in my hometown dialect. Another experience occurred only a couple months ago, I visited a sister’s home whose husband treated her badly with 2 other sisters. When one sister was praying, I was filled with the Holy Spirit with my body shaking, and in loudly voice declared, ” Here Lord Jehovah shall take charge.”