12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Academic Review, August 3, 2002
This review is from: 2000 Years Of Charismatic Christianity: A 21st century look at church history from a pentecostal/charismatic prospective (Paperback)
This is a wonderful book that traces the miraculous moving of the Holy Spirit through the church age. The author has done a wonderful service for the church, and especially for the charismatic community. It brings together a lot of fascinating information into one place. The down side of this book is its heavy reliance upon secondary sources for quotations from primary sources. This makes further study very cumbersome, if not prohibitive. It also raises suspicions about the reliability of its conclusions. Not withstanding, it is a book that should be in every charismatic student's or pastor's library.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Poor Scholarship, November 5, 2011
This review is from: 2000 Years Of Charismatic Christianity: A 21st century look at church history from a pentecostal/charismatic prospective (Paperback)
I recommend reading this book and I agree with the premise of this book. However, the author does an amazing disservice in his presentation of certain observations as "facts" and other assertions as conclusive, at least in the first half of his work. I, therefore, highly recommend extreme caution for readers of this book! The Preface is genuine. The Foreword backwardly describes the book as part of a growing number of ". . . scholarly works..." against cessationists. This first half of this book not only defies reasonable scholarship, it is a perfect example of the very need for genuine scholarship! The absence of an Index for this type of book is deplorable. Cataloging the historical evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit should be a "no brainer." Even though the cessationist doctrine is more than likely a misguided response to defend or preserve more fundamentally erroneous beliefs or practices, extolling the virtues of certain historical figures who seem to support the premise, while ridiculing or casting aspersions upon those who seem not to, reveals a very disturbing trend in the book that belies its serious lack of research, and could easily be used to undermine the author's integrity and credibility. This is wholly unnecessary. This book, though well intended, does prove that reading Church history for one's self is far better than reading it third or fourth hand! Today, with such resources available, there really is no excuse for continuing ignorance about such a vital topic as the historical experience of the gifts of the Holy Spirit within the Church. One example on page 21 suggests moral decline as a primary cause of the Church's loss of spiritual power. How does that square with the Corinthians? This is a common mistake repeated throughout history. On page 29 the author quotes others who state that the Church never recovered its balance after rejecting Montanism. One is left with the impression that Montanism is good. This is a recurring theme in the book where either the baby is thrown out with the bath water or we accept the tacit approval of a movement based on "some" of its doctine/practice. Both are serious errors of logic. Montanism, for example, rather than being the champion of revivalism alone, through its strict ascetic practices and holding chastity over marriage, becomes one of the chief driving forces for the birth of monasticism in the Church! An agenda that I think the author would not openly endorse. It is not a simple "all or nothing" as we are led to believe There is some redemption on pg. 30 but it adds to the overall confusion of the original point. Church and sate issues in Chapter 4 are a good introduction to those wishing to pursue the topic. But at the end of the chapter, the author drops a bomb by stating: ". . . monastics . . . became a vital force during the Middle Ages and preserved the miraculous dimension of the Christian faith" an apparent contradiction. The title of chapter 5 "Monasticism: the Rise of Another Charismatic Movement" is where things start to heat up. The author has Athanasios clearly recognizing the gifts of the Spirit. Contrast that to pg. 35 where he has John Chrysostomos indicating an ignorance and cessation of the gifts of the Spirit. Both of these are contemporaries and both held the same doctrinal positions. It is, therefore, another example of statements out of context. The author cites Augustine for his positive views on the "charismata" so, in this respect, he's a "good guy." However, it is Augustine who delivers a near death blow to the Christian faith as the chief proponent of the "sovereignty of God" doctrine (please see a REAL scholarly work on this: God At War, by Gregory Boyd). The conclusion of this chapter states another astounding misconception: ". . . these miraculous gifts became the sole possession of those mystical saints who had withdrawn from the world and society." To the contrary, the larger historical record clearly shows that the charismata were performed throughout society, in public, if one knows where to look, by those who the author categorizes as hermits and recluses! I suppose the author might be correct if he limits his scope of Christianity to Europe only. In the beginning of chapter 6, the author trots out Thomas Aquinas as a witness against Rome's charismatic bankruptcy - well done. Thomas is a "good guy" since he points out the obvious and helps to support the original premise. Among his other doctrinal corners that he painted himself into, Thomas Aquinas was the personification of "scholastic theology" at its apex. He closely linked theology with worldly philosophy and even Aristotelian metaphysics! When metaphysics later collapsed in the West, it took down a good deal of faith and related issues with it. He believed human knowledge and reason to be superior to revelation and experience! Aquinas believed that ALL his writings and ideas had to conform to Dionysios the Areopagite! On the very next page, the author cites the same Dionysios as the proponent of mysticism and monasticism - bad guys. Side note: page 52 spouts another gross misconception about monasteries being, at the time, ". . wealthy. . laziness, avarice, and gluttony also crept in." Where is the supporting data(?) one reference book! This remark perpetuates a common characature along the lines of a "Friar Tuck" view of all monastics. Monasticism throughout the Byzantine and Arab lands during and after this period do not support this narrow minded view. Another huge flaw is found in the inadvertent use of a misquote from another source on Gregory Palamas. Palamas is described as a thirteenth century monk who taught a meditation technique for union with God by "staring at one's navel." Very cute, and a common cliche. Problem is, he never taught that.That's it. On to another observation about extreme unction! The eastern half of Christianity never developed such a notion. Let's just lump them in all together shall we! Here's an excellent example of where this book fails to follow its own legitimate premise in the most egregious manner. Gregory Palamas is very easy to research, unless you rely on the loose research and opinions of others. It is true, at one time, he was a monk on Mt. Athos. He came from a devout family that recognized the charismatic power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. He eventually became Archbishop of Thessalonika. He taught that ". . we have no political power, land, revenues or wealth. . . we cannot be satisfied with more than our daily food and needs." He is a champion Christian apologist of the first order. Rightly dividing the Word of God, he silenced Gnostics, Bogomils (they rejected the miraculous and taught "healing" was for spirit only). He taught against monastic excesses that are mentioned on the very the same page of the book! He taught that the "gifts" of God are poured out in an "inexhaustible" manner, and that one must not neglect to distribute openly what the Lord has entrusted." Gregory Palamas was an outspoken authority on Greek philosophy as incompatible with the Christian concept of a living God (compare that to Aquinas)! He would cite James 3:15 to affirm that: "Greek wisdom is devilish because it arouses quarrels and contains almost every false teaching, and is alienated from its proper end, that is, the knowledge of God. The pursuit of knowledge and science are not evil since our Father and Creator have given them to us." How about this: he taught that EVERY Christian is a temple of God "by reason of Grace" that dwells within him. He was also against "nominalistic humanism." He preached the following: the saints were "born of God by the Word through Grace in the Spirit, and who keep the likeness to God their Father, participating in the very life of God." ". . In Christ, we ALL have communion with God. . . when one shares in the uncreated sanctifying gift, he acquires SUPERNATURAL ATTRIBUTES, he is a new creation AND A NEW MAN!" Gregory Palamas was such an outspoken witness against Islam that books have been written explaining Islam's having to evolve its doctrine in response to his Gospel teachings! Another quote: " Christ is the head of the Church Who, WHILE GRANTING US THE CHARISMATA OF THE SPIRIT . . . continues to live and manifest Himself in the whole Body!" How could such a teaching be overlooked - what a shame! In his later years, he had a worsening illness, and he began to preach on the origin and cause of human illness and suffering - THE DEVIL! To be fair, there are some of his beliefs that many Christians would find objectionable. Point of fact: Gregory Palamas had the gift of miracles which he performed in public. He was a clairvoyant. He had many of the "gifts of healings" which he performed by "LAYING ON OF THE HANDS"! When the Great Plague reached his locality, he boldly quoted Psalm 145:19 AND HALTED THE PLAGUE IN HIS AREA, ON THE SPOT! That is in the historical record - not legend!
OK, so all of this just doesn't square with what's in the book. Too many inconsistencies. The introduction stated that 2,000 Years of Charismatic Christianity was "by no means exhaustive." That's not an excuse for poor or sloppy scholarship. On page 55 it states that during this period the reading of Scripture by the common people in their own language was discouraged. That is true, but only in western Europe! If that's your only vantage point, I guess you're right. You're just writing off millions of other Christians throughout the world at that time who are reading the Bible AND worshipping in their native tongue! Bernard of Clairvaux is cited as an example of a good guy charismatic - yes. A near total disaster encouraging people to take up arms to fight heretics in the second Crusade (by their fruits you will know them). Dominic speaks in tongues (he's a good guy supposedly) whose main objective is to preach to and convert the Cathars (wait a minute - aren't they supposed to be the...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
I loved it!, July 2, 2002
This review is from: 2000 Years Of Charismatic Christianity: A 21st century look at church history from a pentecostal/charismatic prospective (Paperback)
This book brings much of the charismatic history of the church between two covers. Its not hard to read, but enjoyable. Hyatt not only takes us through church history but helps us see that God is alive and desires to move among His people. It births a desire in the reader to see a move of God and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
