Talk:Neo-charismatic movement

message: please help me to understand why the neutrality of this article is in dispute? I don't think a banner questioning neutrality ought to be posted without explaination. --124.187.191.52 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I always understood that neocharismatics or third wave differed from charismatics in that they did not emphasise a specific experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit. Typically they believe in the present activity of the Holy Spirit but do not use classical pentecostal or charismatic terminology. Charismatics may or may not be in historic denominations: "The term 'charismatic' is also used to denote many independent churches that emphasize the gifts of the Spirit but are not part of any denomination." Charles H Lippy, Faith in America John Campbell (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I think there is a difference between the "Charismatic Movement" which is a historical movement that has theological features, and "charismatic" which is a term used to denote theological features only. I don't think that the issue of how (baptised in/filled with) the Spirit is understood has been decisive in definitions of different charismatics, as it has been a debate where both sides can be found in both the Charismatic Movement and neocharismatic churches. Many in the Charismatic Movement, like David Watson believed in the fullness of the Spirit, but were not comfortable with references to a second, separable encounter with God; others like Martyn Lloyd-Jones were happy with a more Pentecostal approach. Hyper3 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements defines neocharismatics as having "no traditional pentecostal or charismatic denominational connections" which is a significant difference from "not being part of historic denominations". John Campbell (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I don't see the difference. If you have no "denominational connection" isn't that the same as "not being part of historic denomination"? The point is, that no church that is part of a historic denomination can be neocharismatic. What are you saying the different is? Hyper3 (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the face of it, the difference is that the definition from the IDPCM (in two places) refers to "traditional pentecostal or charismatic denominational connections", not just "historic denominations", which must be significant. I'm not sure how it all unpacks, though! John Campbell (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read this as trying to make the distinction between neocharismatics and a) Pentecostals, b) the Charismatic Movement, which is being defined as the use of charismatic gifts within the historic churches. Everything else is neocharismatic...  Hyper3 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it makes sense, sort of. John Campbell (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo charismatic and charismatic 

message: Hello,
the article is centred on the Americas.
Kind regards,
Sarcelles (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic bias 

message: I have just reverted an edit that introduced a Criticsm section. I am not opposed to the section in principle, but have a few problems with it which I think we should discuss and reach consensus on, before introducing the material. The edit can be viewed in this diff:
1. The new section starts off with: "William MacDonald (Christian author) considers the neo-charismatic movement as a part of the christian fundamentalism"
But why does his view carry any more weight than anyone else? Fundamentalism is notoriously hard to pin down, so that is not helpful and sets a tone for the criticism section that I think is wrong.
2. "Most Christians reject the concept of Spiritual warfare, a conspiration theory invented by Charles Peter Wagner, and consider it as "unbiblical"..."
I note a source was added but it still looks POV. We should avoid "Most Christians" and such like.
3. Religious intolerance subsection has sourced criticism of some Brazilian congregations but is this a criticism of neo-charismatics as a whole? If not,  does it belong here? 
4. Likewise the faith healing section. The criticism is a criticism of faith healing but not specifically neo-charismatics. After all,such criticism is also made of Pentecostal faith healers.
So all in all, I think this section needs to be about the movement as a whole, and as distinct from other movements. 
Also: Changing the title "notable churches" to "notable organisations". I think that these are all churches, no? If so, we should stick with the old title. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this obscure statement of an American politician (Michele Bachmann), which might be quoted in a section about neo-charismatics and politics. Though I don't know if her statement represents the opion of the whole movement or just her obscure worldview. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michele-bachmann-obama-end-times-iran -87.150.2.59 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Word of Faith is included under the section "Notable Churches", but the link goes to the Word of Faith MOVEMENT, not the church called the Word of Faith Fellowship. I edited this, but someone changed it back. If "Word of Faith" refers to the movement, it should be removed from the list of notable churches (since it's not an individual church, but a movement). If "Word of Faith" refers to the church then we need some type of citation that says the church is neo-charismatic, after which the link should be changed to Word of Faith Fellowship.
The source (at least the parts that I was able to access) does not say the Word of Faith Fellowship is neo-charismatic.
--Suomi13 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word of Faith