History of Neo-Charismatic Evangelical Churches

INTRODUCTION

Before Jesus sacrificed himself, John recorded that Jesus pleaded on behalf of his church, “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21, ESV). A few weeks later, the Spirit of unity and power poured out in tongues of fire at Pentecost and it seemed like for a moment Jesus’ prayer was fulfilled. Yet, it did not take long for oneness to become complicated. By Acts 15 there were already debates about Jews and Gentiles; in 1 Corinthians 1 local churches were already divided over whose leadership they were following. 

Now, over two thousand years later, followers of Christ still struggle to embody the perfect unity the Father and Son share. Even within Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches, there are countless divisions and denominations. Nowhere is this truer than in Protestant churches, where denominations have denominations within them. In response, some in the West have separated themselves from the messy and divided history of denominational churches  These groups are called, “non-denominational.” And yet, even within non-denominational churches there are major distinctions between practice, doctrine, and emphasis. One of these micro denominations are, “Neo-charismatic evangelical churches.” 

The National Association of Evangelicals defines evangelicalism by four “evangelical distinctives.” Similarly, neo-charismatic evangelical churches can be set apart by four additional distinctives of their own (Du Mez, Introduction). The four evangelical core beliefs are…

1. the Bible as the ultimate authority 

2. “the centrality of Christ’s atonement” 

3. “a born-again conversion experience” 

4. the need to actively share the gospel and “reform society accordingly.” 

Neo-charismatic evangelical churches share these, but also believe in…

1. The active leadership of the Spirit, demonstrated through Spiritual gifts

2. An emotional experience and expression of devotion to God

3. Transformation through prayer and the presence of God

4. Focus on the return of Christ and subsequent union with God

With such specific traits, some might be surprised at the number of neo-charismatic evangelical churches there are. Yet, within this sect there is a culture of shared media, celebrities, habits, and even dialect distinct from the more traditionally charismatic Pentecostal movement or the less charismatic non-denominational churches. A few notable neo-charismatic evangelical communities include Upperroom, Jesus Image, Legacy Nashville, the Vineyard Movement, and the International House of Prayer (IHOP) founded in Kansas City. 

As with most non-denominational movements, a lack of denominational affiliation can lead to ignorance  regarding the factors and history that have contributed to these churches' formation over time. However, aware of it or not, these communities have been shaped by centuries of saints debating, writing, and doing their best to follow Christ day by day. This paper will endeavor to briefly trace the historic and global threads of Christianity that have led to neo-charismatic evangelical churches. Since Christ has one body and one bride, no Church movement is truly isolated from any other, no matter how disparate they may seem. Having established the global and historical context for neo-charismatic evangelicalism, this paper will suggest how neo-charismatic evangelical churches can learn from and offer perspective to other Christian faith movements. 

THE HISTORY OF THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

Though the churches this paper focuses on are distinct from Pentecostal churches, neo-charismatic evangelical churches would likely not exist if not for the rapid spread of Pentecostalism. It was the Pentecostal movement that made many people in the Western world aware of the tangible movement of the Holy Spirit. However, traces of neo-charismatic evangelical belief can be seen far before the Pentecostal movement of the 1960s. The markers of neo-charismatic evangelicalism can be seen all throughout Chrisian history. 

Biblical Basis 

As with the Church herself, the charismatic movement originates in the life of Jesus. For example, charismatic churches are set apart in the West by their expectation for the miraculous movement of the Spirit. The same Holy Spirit empowered Jesus to perform similar miracles on people all throughout the gospels. Many charismatics look to Jesus’ ministry as an example for believers today. In the gospels, Jesus heals people, has miraculous knowledge of other’s lives, casts out demons, and even raises people from the dead. Then, in John 14 he says to his disciples, “I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these because I am going to the Father” (John 14:12). Directly after saying this, Jesus announces the coming indwelling of the Holy Spirit who will enable them to do all this and more. 

However, the Biblical grounding for the charismatic church does not stop in the gospels. After the ascension of Jesus, the famous day of Pentecost occurs. The disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit and are enabled by the Spirit to speak in foreign tongues. Throughout Acts, the early church lived out the words of Jesus from John 14, repeating many of his miracles and even doing new things. By the time churches are established throughout the Roman world, it appears that most believers have and use Spiritual gifts (see Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12-14, and Ephesians 4). The Spiritual gifts were so prevalent that Paul had to address how to control these gifts so the church could have order in the service. 

Not only do Spiritual gifts emerge in Scripture, but the charismatic tendency for expression and emotion in worship is also in the New Testament. Devotion to Jesus led many in the New Testament to do expressive and sometimes even foolish looking acts. Consider the woman weeping at Jesus' feet, anointing him with her precious alabaster jar (Luke 7). Also consider Peter jumping into the water to swim to Jesus when he easily could have rowed back in the boat with the others (John 21). In these and more we find a rich history of believers behaving emotionally to show devotion to Jesus. 

Beyond expression, the charismatic emphasis on prayer is also grounded in the life of Jesus and the New Testament church. Throughout his ministry, Jesus drew away to the presence of God and prayed. A common charismatic term for this kind of act is, “going to the secret place” which many neo-charismatic evangelical churches consider to be one of the defining characteristics of a believer’s life. Beyond private prayer, though, neo-charismatic evangelical churches center their ideology around Jesus’ words in Matthew 21:13, “My house shall be a house of prayer.” 

Finally, the charismatic focus on the return of Christ and coming union with God can largely emerge from the book of Revelation as well as Paul’s plea in 1 Corinthians 16:22, “Our Lord, Come!” or in aramaic, “Maranatha.” This urgency for the return of Christ is more thoroughly laid out in the book of Revelation, especially in the last couple chapters. . 

Just as the story of the church finds its origins in the pages of the Bible, so too does the charismatic movement. However, a true development of this sect of Christianity would not be complete without a brief look into its Biblical origins. 

Monks and Mystics

The earliest centuries of Christianity were marked by rapid growth and widespread persecution. Under the reign of Septimus Severus and Decius, Christians across the Roman empire were hunted down and often killed for their faith (Gonzalez, vol 1, 97-102). Thus, one would expect Christians to be elated when Constantine converted to Christianity and passed the Edict of Milan, ending the persecution of Christians across the Roman empire (Gonzalez, vol 1, 126). Yet not everyone was happy with the changes they saw in the faith. With martyrdom no longer an option to show absolute devotion and corruption popping up in the Church, some believers sought an alternative way to give up everything. It was out of this desire to show devotion that the Christian monastic movement was born (Gonzalez, vol 1, 158).

Though Christian asceticism began in Egypt, the beginning of Christian monasticism is typically credited to Anthony the Great in the late 3rd century CE (Goswami 1330). Anthony is commonly referred to as the Father of Christian Monasticism, but he was not the only 3rd century Christian to gather people around the monastic lifestyle. Pachomius, an Egyptian monk born around 290 CE, created a monastic community organized around a common rule of life (Goswami 1333). Not long after, Basil the Great would add humanitarian care as a core tenant of monasteries (Goswami 1333). 

Monasticism has gone through cycles as far as purity, unity, and priority. However, a few core traits of monasticism have remained relatively the same. These traits are captured in the Benedictine rule which demonstrates monastic life built around rhythms of work, rest, and prayer. In the charismatic movement, the monastic hours of prayer have taken a new shape but the heart has largely stayed the same. Most neo-charismatic evangelical churches have multiple times throughout the week dedicated exclusively to prayer. For example, Upperroom Dallas has a prayer room that is open 72 hours each week. While these times of prayer may different in appearance from the monastic liturgies, both share a deep conviction that believers' lives should be built around prayer. 

Charismatic prayer rooms are also in part owed to the precedent set by Christian mysticism. Like two plants in the same garden bed, Christian mysticism and monasticism have grown parallel to and sometimes even within the other. Today, there are mystics in every sect of Christianity, as well as in religions outside of Christianity (Schmidt 287).The experience of a Christian mystic, sometimes referred to as the “ecstasy,” is typically marked by: 1) looking for deeper meanings in scripture, 2) the use of the “spiritual senses,” 3) “the language of union” with God, 4) “intoxication” or “enthusiasm” and 5) visions or other Spiritual encounters with God (Macleod 370). 

Some of the earliest forms of mystical theology after the New Testament are captured in the works of Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa (Macleod 362). Origen, a defender of the early church, connected mysticism with “his central activity as an exegete” (Macleod 396). That is to say, mysticism was not something he practiced apart from deep study of Scripture. Instead, it was his deep study of Scripture that led him into mystical ways of thinking. For example, in a sermon over the Song of Songs, Origen said, “Often, God is my witness, I have felt that the Bridegroom was approaching me and that he was, as far as may be, with me”(Macleod 368). This quote demonstrates the common traits of Christian mysticism:

1) Origen is drawing upon a certain allegorical reading of a biblical text to ground his experience; 2) he talks about spiritual senses, saying he “felt” the approach of Christ;

3) he emphasizes union with God in his reference to Christ as “the Bridegroom” and his description that God was with him;

4) Origen shows his enthusiasm surrounding this encounter when he says, “God is my witness” and “as far as may be;”

5) and he paints this as a repeated encounter with the living God. 

Gregory’s form of mysticism is also demonstrated in his work with the Song of Songs. Like Origen, Gregory’s “whole work is full of the language of union” (Macleod 367). However, Gregory’s focus does not stop on union with God. Gregory believes that participation in God should shape us in his likeness. For Gregory, “it is not a question of seeing God, but mirroring him” (Macleod 367). Thus, Gregory introduces the idea of “Christian perfection,” a concept that will continue to be relevant throughout the development of charismatic thought (Macleod 367).

In summary, just as the charismatic focus on prayer and the presence of God can be seen in monasticism, the other three distinctive elements of neo-charismatic evangelical churches find roots in the christian mysticism. The visions of the mystics parallel the encounters with the Spirit present in neo-charismatic evangelical churches. The reported “ecstasy” of the mystic tradition is the type of emotional or experiential devotion that neo-charismatic evangelical churches emphasize. Finally, the “maranatha” cry that is typical for neo-charismatic evangelical churches is a different way of articulating the mystic desire for union with the Bridegroom. 

Morvians and Methodists

Hundreds of years after the ancient Desert Fathers and the mystic women of the middle ages, the protestant reformation created opportunities for time tested Christian values to play out in new and diverse ways. For example, out of the Lutheran pietism movement, the Moravian Brethren was born (Noll 211). Yet, in contrast to some of their Lutheran colleagues, the Moravian Brethren heavily emphasized “a conscious experience of conversion… initiated by Christ” (Randall 205). The Moravians’ emphasis on experiencing God utilizes some core tenets of Christian mystics to address the anxieties of their time.  

The protestant reformation led many to doubt the familiar ways of the Catholic church, where rituals like penance and indulgences were a means of assuring one's salvation. Thus, many budding protestants were asking, “how do I know I am saved?” In response, the Moravians boldly preached about the “assurance of salvation” that came from personally experiencing transformation at conversion (Randall 205). Instead of focusing on his own internal state, Zinzendorf – a key figure in the Moravian movement – advocated for a “sensual apprehension of Christ suffering on the cross”(Randall 206). Like the mystics, the Moravians were reliant on Spiritual senses and experiencing God. Both of these naturally led to the Moravians emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit (Randall 208). Also like the mystics, the Moravians would eventually come to focus their spirituality on becoming united with the Bridegroom (Randall 209). Thus, in the Moravians we see aspects of all four distinguishing traits of neo-charismatic evangelical churches: the activity of the Holy Spirit, the emotional experience of God, transformation through the presence of God (at conversion), and focus on union with the Bridegroom. 

The Moravians also maintained some of the ritualistic prayer that both marked the monastic movement and has come to mark neo-charismatic evangelical churches. Whereas the monks had a rule of life built around hours of prayer, the Moravians had a “practice known as the ‘hourly intercessions’” (Nelson 22). In this practice, members of the local group would take turns praying for “the Brotherhood, the universal church, and the whole word,” so that at least one person from their group would be praying at any given time (Nelson 22). This example set by the Moravians has carried into neo-charismatic evangelical churches and communities to this day. One strikingly similar example is the International House of Prayer. This community has had a continuous 24 hour prayer service going since September of 1999 (IHOP Website). Like with the Moravaians, at any given hour someone from IHOP is praying. 

Beyond their prayer habits, the Moravians were influential for the impact they had on two young men. In 1735, John and Charles Wesley, as well as a band of Moravians, were on a boat to Georgia (Randall 205-6, Nelson 24, Noll 211, Gonzalez 264). Though the Welsey’s had already been intrigued by the Moravians, their attention was truly captured when the boat threatened to turn over in a severe thunderstorm. While all the English men were screaming in terror, the Moravians remained completely calm and continued to sing hymns. From that moment on, the Wesleys sought to learn from the ways of the strange passengers they had found themselves with. 

Yet, it was not until May 1738 that the Wesleys experienced for themselves the kind of experiential conversion that the Moravians preached (Noll 203-4). While reading a Lutheran commentary, John Wesley famously reported that his “heart strangely warmed”(Randall 205, Gonzalez 268). After this experience, Wesley drew from the Moravian style of meeting in small groups (Noll 202). Wesley began one of these small groups at Oxford, where outsiders would call them “the holy club” or “the methodists”(Gonzalez, vol 2,  266). It was these very Moravian inspired small groups that would eventually be organized and labeled as the Methodist church (Noll 202).

Like the Moravians, the Wesleys – and thereby Methodists – heavily emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit (Noll 203). Beyond the Moravians, the Wesleyan tradition would reintroduce the idea of Christian perfection, penned by Gregory of Nyssa (Noll 203). This emphasis on holiness and the transformation of the believer by the Holy Spirit would go on to be extremely important for the founding of Pentecostalism, which is the focus of the next section. 

Parham and Pentecostals

The beginning of modern Pentecostalism is often credited to the famous Azusa street revival, begun under William J. Seymour (Creech 405, Anderson 110). However, to call Azusa street the beginning of Pentecostalism would be a major oversimplification of the factors which led to the “latter rain” that fell at Azusa street in 1906. A truer beginning would look at Seymour’s teacher, Charles Fox Parham. Parham was a part of the Methodist church until he resigned 1895 to focus on his own “healing ministry”(Anderson 107). A few years later, Parham encountered the belief in tongues through Frank Sandford (Anderson 107). Sandford had experienced sanctification through the Holiness movement teachings of the Wesleys. 

Parham eventually began to teach “the restoration of tongues” as a litmus test for a coming revival, which came to be known as the “Latter Rain” (Creech 411, Anderson 107). This Latter Rain was thought to imitate the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost and signal the return of Christ. While Parham believed in tongues, divine healing, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he was strictly opposed to the kind of chaotic and ecstatic behavior commonly associated with Pentecostal gathering (Creech 412). Instead, he drew inspiration from his “holiness roots” in the Wesleyan tradition and sought order in his services, as well as movement of the Spirit (Creech 412).

Paraham began teaching about his new doctrine, and eventually taught William Seymour. In 1906, only two months after arriving in Los Angeles, Seymour led the Azusa street revival and promoted “Parham’s restorationist doctrines” (Creech 412). Unlike the preference of Parham, however, the Azusa street revival was more marked by chaos than order. Someone from the time noted that, “the most evident features of the Azusa revival were spontaneity and ecstasy in worship, lack of ecclesiastical or even pastoral oversight” (Creech 412).

As far as which of these features should be imitated in the modern charismatic movement, that will be the focus of the third section of this paper. Regardless, it is not difficult to see the influence of Parham and Seymour in the modern neo-charismatic evangelical movement. Both movements emphasize the Spirit’s leadership and movement through his gifts, the emotional expression of devotion to God, the transformative nature of the presence of God, and the imminence of Christ’s return. 

Modern Neo-Charismatic Evangelicalism

The Jesus People movement of the 1960s brought a new awakening, with thousands of young adults seeking their own spiritual experience. With this spiritual hunger rose ministries to provide Jesus as an alternative to the drugs, alcohol, and sex that characterized the hippy movement (Vineyard Website). The Vineyard Movement was birthed from one of these ministries. Ken Gulliksen was sent by Calvary Chapel in 1974, and planted the first Vineyard church. Gulliksen felt like God gave him the name “Vineyard.” By 1982, there were more than seven Vineyard churches in fellowship with one another. Overtime, the Vineyard movement spread and sought to find a middle ground between “the gifts of the Evangelical tradition and the gifts of the Pentecostal/Charismatic traditions.” Today the Vineyard movement has more than 2400 churches all over the world and has inspired countless other neo-charismatic evangelical movements. 

A similar movement has already been mentioned in this paper: the International House of Prayer or IHOP. An associate of the Vineyard movement, Mike Bickle, founded the International House of Prayer in Kansas City in May of 1999 (IHOP Website). This movement claims to have experienced over 25 instances of prophetic insight into the future of “Kansas City, the USA, and other nations.” IHOP is known for its 24 hour prayer room, but also reports people seeing God, hearing his audible voice, having angelic encounters, and prophetic dreams that would later be confirmed. Reports like these are reminiscent of the “spiritual senses” that were vital to the way of both the mystic and the Moravians. 

The most recent noteworthy neo-charismatic evangelical movement also began as a prayer room. Upper Room Dallas began as a small prayer room in 2010. Now it has grown to a church gathering of 1600-1800 people on any given weekend and three locations with more on the way. Perhaps one reason for this explosion of growth is due to their online presence. In 2017, the leadership at Upperroom felt the Lord instruct them to “‘drip’ moments of [their] culture into the online space.” They now host up to 10,000 viewers daily on their Youtube channel. As of July 2024 they have over 700,000 followers on Youtube, with some of their videos getting upwards of 10 million views. Why do these videos draw so many to watch and participate? The leaders of Upperroom would answer: the presence of God. 

The sanctuary in Upperoom Dallas.

NEO-CHARISMATIC EVANGELICALS AND THE HISTORIC CHURCH 

Ephesians 1:23 describes the Church as “the fullness of him who fills all in all.” The magnitude of this statement should not be underestimated. The Church, the very body of Christ, is described as the fullness of Jesus. Yet, when we look around, we see that certain churches demonstrate aspects of his nature in ways that others do not. The Greek Orthodox church demonstrates the intricate beauty of Jesus through their icons and architecture. The Catholic church demonstrates the holiness of Jesus, a holiness worthy of ritual and discipline. The Protestant church demonstrates the grace of Jesus, as seen in their emphasis on his salvation apart from our works. 

It seems foolish to assume that any single local body could demonstrate the fulness of Christ’s character, which is represented by innumerable nations, languages, traditions, and congregations. Thus, each denomination or congregation has a responsibility to grow in their Christ likeness through the example of fellow believers. This is not only true of looking to global brothers and sisters to learn more about how Christ is, though that is certainly necessary. It is also vital to look to the great cloud of witnesses: men and women demonstrating the nature of Christ for thousands of years. Therefore, this last section of the paper will focus on the ways in which the historical church can speak to the blindspots or dangers in the neo-charismatic evangelical tradition, as well as how global and historic bodies might benefit from the way neo-charismatic evangelicals worship God today. 

Some of the dangers of neo-charismatic evangelical churches are common for all non-denominational churches. Oftentimes, non-denominational churches are founded by one person or a small group of people who single handedly determine every aspect of how that local body functions. This independence and freedom has some positive outcomes which perhaps well established and interconnected branches of the church could benefit from. For example, people planting a church can customize the way the service runs based on the specific community they are a part of. There is no pressure to conform to preferences of a denomination that may not serve the local community well. If a local body is made up primarily of uneducated refugees, they will have different needs and strengths than a body of all white college students. Neither is better or worse, but they have different giftings and should therefore function in different ways. Local people having the option to create communities based on the people within those communities seems to make more sense than a board of people deciding how a body should function without knowledge of the local culture. 

On the other hand, one person independently founding a local body also has clear weaknesses. For one, non-denominational churches (charismatic or otherwise) often have limited governance structures within their body. Perhaps some have elders within their body responsible for holding the pastors/staff accountable, but many function on their own with pastors from other bodies serving as their “accountability.” The structure of accountability which relies on those outside the local body leaves room for sin and corruption to go unchecked because those with the ability to hold the leadership accountable have not seen for themselves what's going on. In this way, denominations which have systems of governance and accountability in place across their bodies at least make efforts to limit the ability for corruption to spread.

Furthermore, non-denominational churches carry the responsibility to outline doctrine and guard orthodoxy all on their own. Unlike the counsels of old, or even annual meetings of denominations, the pressure to apply Biblical principles to constantly shifting circumstances is left in the hands of a team of people or maybe even one person, who may or may not have ever been trained in theology or biblical studies. The history of the Western church is filled with people constantly checking one another on their theology and gathering together to determine what is considered “orthodox.” But now, questions of sacraments, doctrine, practice, and service are made by a few people independent from any structure in place to sharpen or even correct when needed. 

The next area of critique is more general to evangelical churches, charismatic or not. In contrast with other traditions, evangelicalism emphasizes personal relationship with Jesus above all else. As with the last critique, in some ways this is certainly a positive thing. Some more traditionally “high church” branches might benefit from the doctrine which reminds believers that Jesus wants to meet them in their personal needs and transform them in their individual circumstance. Sometimes, emphasizing the exclusively communal aspect of Christianity can give people the idea that they do not personally have to invest in their faith and sanctification. In that way, a personal relationship with Jesus could be beneficial. 

On the other hand, evangelicalism's personal faith can sometimes be at the expense of community altogether. Not only are people free to interpret the Bible however they please, separate from the guidance of any scholarship or historic teaching, but the personalization of faith has led to a faith of consumerism. Since faith has become all about what “I” get out of my relationship with Jesus, people hop from church to church wanting their specific needs to be met, without consideration of their responsibility to the church. In this way, evangelicalism could learn from the traditions which place significant theological importance on the gathering of the saints, such as the Catholic or Greek Orthodox church. 

The final critiques which will be addressed in this paper are centered around the more charismatic aspects of neo-charismatic evangelical churches. Many Christians in the West today are skeptical of charismatic churches because of their reliance on emotions. Like with the others, in some ways this is a good thing. Jesus largely critiqued the Pharisees because they were so reliant on the law without actually loving God. While it would be incomplete to reduce the love Christians have for God to a mere emotion, it would be equally incomplete to say someone can love God without emotion. God created humans with emotions, thus emotions are a means in which people can relate to God. 

The charismatic lean toward emotions also provides an outlet for those who have been through deep hardship to express emotions before God. For example, Black churches are often known for their emotional music and expressive interactions during preaching. These gatherings have something to teach believers that have never experienced such a level of oppression that their only response is to cry out to God. The Old Testament is filled with emotional outbursts from Israelites, who were oppressed again and again. It seems to be the attitude of the elite that would say church must be intellectual and not emotional, and this attitude excludes many who do not naturally relate to God on an intellectual level. Therefore, more intellectual traditions could learn from the emotional and expressive way that charismatic spaces allow for freedom in worship to bring everything before God. 

Yet, dependence on emotion alone is equally as dangerous. Charismatic gatherings are often filled with people saying, “I feel like God is saying this.” Perhaps sometimes these feelings are from the Lord and are aligned with Scripture. However, if there is no structure in place which keeps emotions in check, orthodox belief is dependent on how someone feels at any given time. Furthermore, this hyper emotional experience is not necessarily consistent with that of the mystics and monks. The mystics discussed in the beginning of this paper experienced God through senses, yet grounded everything they experienced in deep study of scripture. Unfortunately, some charismatics have taken the emotional experience and left the study of scripture behind, leading to flimsy doctrine and fluctuating faith. 

Moreover, being led by emotions can lead to a kind of chaos in the gathering that can sometimes seem more pagan than Christian. When Paul addresses the spiritual gifts, he does so to correct chaos and instruct order and self-control in their use. Even John Wesley and Charles Parham were opposed to chaotic gatherings being described as “spirit-led.” Even the Moravians have pre planned orders of service which they follow (Moravian Website). Therefore, the charismatic church could benefit from the planning and order so beautifully demonstrated by current high church traditions, as well as some of the movements which shared similar beliefs to charismatics today. 

To conclude, neo-charismatic evangelical churches uniquely demonstrate Jesus’ nature through their personal and expressive faith. However, like all denominations, it has limitations and room to grow as a response to the witness of the global and historic church. 

Bibliography

Anderson, Allan. “The Azusa Street Revival and the Emergence of Pentecostal Missions in the Early Twentieth Century.” Transformation, vol. 23, no. 2, 2006, pp. 107–18. JSTOR, http://ww

w.jstor.org/stable/43054199. 

Creech, Joe. “Visions of Glory: The Place of the Azusa Street Revival in Pentecostal History.” Church History, vol. 65, no. 3, 1996, pp. 405–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3169938. 

Du Mez, Kristin Kobes. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. Liveright Publishing Corporation, a Division of W.W. Norton & Company, 2021. González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Vol. 1, HarperOne, 2010. 

--------------------------The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day. Vol. 2, HarperOne, 2010. 

Goswami, Anita. “Hermit to Cenobitic: a Study in Early Christian Monasticism.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 66, 2005, pp. 1329–35. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/

44145947.

“Ihopkc Home Page.” International House of Prayer, 30 May 2024, ihopkc.org/.

Macleod, C. W. “Allegory and Mysticism in Origen and Gregory of Nyssa.” The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, 1971, pp. 362–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23958722.

Nelson, James. “John Wesley and the Georgia Moravians.” Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society, vol. 23, no. 3/4, 1984, pp. 17–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41179412.

Noll, Mark. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. Baker Academic, 2012

Randall, Ian M. “A Missional Spirituality: Moravian Brethren and Eighteenth-Century English Evangelicalism.” Transformation, vol. 23, no. 4, 2006, pp. 204–14. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org /stable/43052672.

Schmidt, Leigh Eric. “The Making of Modern ‘Mysticism.’” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 71, no. 2, 2003, pp. 273–302. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466552.

“The Observance of the Lord’s Supper.” Moravian Church In America, www.moravian.org/2018/06/the-

observance-of-the-lords-supper/.

“Upperroom Church: Dallas, TX.” UPPERROOM, upperroom.co/. 

Vineyard USA, vineyardusa.org/.