That’s certainly true if you look at some of the newer charismatic movements in the West (mainly coming out of the 50s onwards). There is an important parallel here with the emerging church; wrt the ‘older’ emerging church leaders who have a theological and philosophical framework (and associated set of boundaries) within which their radical questions are being framed and that this is not necessarily true of their younger acolytes.

Of course, in much of the ‘Global South’ a lot of the existing charismatic movements are still linked to the spread of literacy and the availability of the bible in the vernacular. Peter Leithart had an interesting snippet on this process on his website: http://www.leithart.com/archives/003132.php

What was true of the first generation of charismatic leaders - namely biblical literacy - is not true of this emerging generation of leaders. To me that is the big difference, but sadly not one that is acknowledged within the various charismatic streams.

In many ways I agree with you regarding the timings of some of the present charismatic movements and as long as you are actually referring to the origins of the ‘God is Dead’ movement (which really took off post Flanders) - rather than the 60s redux.

Having said that there are two caveats I’d add:

Firstly, the charismatic movement has to be seen in the context of the earlier spiritual movements, which in the West include those that characterise the various Great Awakenings (and is mirrored by happenings in various parts of the East).

Secondly, the very individualism which led to the Charismatic movement - certainly from Azuza Street onwards - also fed a division of denominations based on survivor bias and personality types which then meant that on the Charismatic side there was an uncritical acceptance of everything as long as it was seen as being willed by the spirit.

Certainly, this continued - and continues - to characterise the charismatic movement to this day, where emotionalism and misuse of spiritual gifts then provides ample opportunities for those opponents to ‘cavil over spiritual expressions and style’.

Even in Wesleyan quadrilateral, we still have to affirm that scripture as the final authority of all things, but too often the level of biblical illteracy and disrespect of scripture has led to an imbalance in this respect.

And I speak as one who is a charismatic, who believes in the spiritual gifts, who believes they, along with all God’s gifts, are vitally needed for the growth of the church, but who believes that they should be integrated in a natural way into the warp and woof of church life, and should be practised in accordance to the limits of scripture.

over @ Jason Clark I read this from your post:
“In essence our religion ends up being more to do with personal light than about divine revelation.”

For a living faith there must be both.

We would have less of a wild pendulum swing if we were more of the ‘“both/and” perspective’ as stated in the previous comment. Much of the Charismatic movement was God shaking the traditional Churches free of the ‘God is Dead’ philosophy that had invaded the culture and strangled many. The churches of the time were deadlocked because of it, and the Charismatic move cut straight through to the reality of God. Of course there was some catch up to do in laying the base of doctrine- this is the work of the Church: to make disciples. Instead there had, and has been, so much caviling over spiritual expressions and style that there still is less real teaching of the basic doctrines of Christianity than there should be.

We minor in the majors as some put it; and for that, the criticism is deserved.

My experience is that of both mid-church anglicanism and charismaticism. Additionally, back in the days when I was most ‘in’ the charismatic movement I was also helping out conducting alternative communion services in high-anglican churches, which gave me a rather odd and interesting perspective on things.

You are right in what you say in the first paragraph - in so many ways, charismatic churches are just a lot more passionate (and often more demonstratively loving and fellowshipping) than the average.

As to what you say in the second paragraph, most Charismatic churches could do with a huge dose of 1 Cor 12. As to the rest; I do think that devotional times (and the entire aspect of spiritual formation) are problematic to many charismatics, though I would say that in fairness a lot of them *do* experience their public outpourings in private contexts too.

Finally, as a Christian with roots in the global south I’d say this: We *have* to learn to articulate a better vision of biblical charismaticism that is focused on Jesus Christ. If we do not we risk a massive split that will in many ways be more permanent than the Reformation. Typically the sorts of Christianity that are rising up in the Global South tend towards the extreme end of charismatic, the syncretic, the demonstrative, and (in the case of Catholicism) towards adoration of the Saints/Pope.

The balance of intellectual blessing, seminaries, teaching et lies with the ‘western church’. If we as ‘western christians’ do not articulate a balanced view of Christianity in a way which is not paternalistic and reactionary then the ‘global south’ will go it’s own way.