What's the difference?

[Gnarwhal]

So it's been alluded to at a couple different points here in TT, and I would like to hear a bit more about the differences in the Charismatic expression of faith within Traditional churches.

My only experience of it is under the umbrella of American Evangelicalism and I can tell you that I certainly do not like it one bit. I won't bother stringing together all of the adjectives I would use to describe it, but suffice it to say I think it does more harm than good. However, I've been given the impression that it looks very different under the auspices, of say, The Episcopal Church.

For my friends here who are members of Traditional churches (of any kind) can you point out any significant differences and similarities between the two forms of Charismatic Christianity (Evangelical vs. [Your Tradition)?

I suppose to establish a benchmark, when I think of Evangelical Charismatics I think of infamous groups like Bethel Church (home of Jesus Culture), The International House of Prayer, Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, the Lakeland Revivals and leaders/teachers like Joyce Meyer, Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner, Todd Bentley, Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Scott Lively, etc. All of whom I think, frankly, absolutely ruin the Christian faith.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So it's been alluded to at a couple different points here in TT, and I would like to hear a bit more about the differences in the Charismatic expression of faith within Traditional churches.

My only experience of it is under the umbrella of American Evangelicalism and I can tell you that I certainly do not like it one bit. I won't bother stringing together all of the adjectives I would use to describe it, but suffice it to say I think it does more harm than good. However, I've been given the impression that it looks very different under the auspices, of say, The Episcopal Church.

For my friends here who are members of Traditional churches (of any kind) can you point out any significant differences and similarities between the two forms of Charismatic Christianity (Evangelical vs. [Your Tradition)?

I suppose to establish a benchmark, when I think of Evangelical Charismatics I think of infamous groups like Bethel Church (home of Jesus Culture), The International House of Prayer, Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, the Lakeland Revivals and leaders/teachers like Joyce Meyer, Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner, Todd Bentley, Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Scott Lively, etc. All of whom I think, frankly, absolutely ruin the Christian faith.

I think that the biggest difference between those that you mention and those of us who are within the scope of what we here call TT is that there is a great emphasis withing those Evangelical groups on self; personal relationship, personal acceptance, personal revelation, personal interpretation; in short: I. Within our traditional Churches, some teach cooperation with grace, but the bottom line is always that it's God's doing; the work of the Holy Spirit. Not just outward works and signs, but all Godly works and actions are either the direct result of the work of the Holy Spirit, or are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Martin Luther sums it up so well in his explanation of the 3rd. article of the Apostles Creed found in the Small Catechism:

The Third Article.​

Of Sanctification.​

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.​

What does this mean?--Answer.
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

 

[FireDragon76]

Mostly the Charismatic movement as a distinct movement in the mainline churches, is a fad of the 70's and 80's, and is now gone. I believe the main culprit is that there was very little theology to sustain it, and a great deal of the movement's emphasis contradicted many of the long-held, entrenched attitudes towards piety and worship.

Central Florida has a few Episcopal churches influenced by the charismatic revival, but I wouldn't say any are distinctly charismatic. Mark is right to point out that most mainline churches are far less individualistic in their attitudes and practices, and this applies to many churches that have "charismatic" practices.

 

[MKJ]

I think as far as my experience goes within Anglicanism, I would agree with Firedragon. It seemed to be something of a fad that is largely dying out - the people interested in it today seem to be middle aged ladies, mostly.

Though, that does describe a heck of a lot of Anglicans.

Typically what was seen here is there would be special charismatic services apart from the usual ones. Often 'healing" services were a feature. They tended to involve singing rather poor songs, putting hands up in the air a lot and holding hands, and occasionally speaking in tongues though that would be a bit on the edge of normal I think.

Some of that stuff has made its way a little bit into the main services in some parishes, so perhaps that accounts in part for why it is dying out as a spcial group thing. Though I think another factor is that it just doesn't seem to be offering anything very coherent in terms of Anglicanism - people who really think that is what church should look like will find it done better elsewhere, and it tends to make the more distinctively Anglican things disappear.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Though, that does describe a heck of a lot of Anglicans.

Sorry, but that made me laugh.

I've never heard of a charismatic "movement" within Orthodoxy, and I think we just have a very different idea of how charismatic gifts manifest themselves, and perhaps what their purpose is within the Church.

Mary

 

[FireDragon76]

Sorry, but that made me laugh.

I've never heard of a charismatic "movement" within Orthodoxy, and I think we just have a very different idea of how charismatic gifts manifest themselves, and perhaps what their purpose is within the Church.

Mary

Much the same is true in Anglicanism, traditionally, though from what I read, interest in charismatic healing is not new in Anglicanism. In the early-to-mid 19th century there was an English woman, also Anglican, named Dorothy Kerin that had a miraculous deathbed recovery, later having visions, and later went on to perform healings and on occasion, preach. She is also one of the few, and definitely earliest, non-Roman Catholic to claim to have the stigmata on her hands. She lived right around the time of the Pentecostal movement growing in England, especially among the poor, and I have no idea if that influenced her or not, but I do know her own personal piety and churchmanship was Anglo-Catholic.

I do think there is more openness to certain charismatic elements on the Anglo-Catholic side of things in the Episcopal church, definitely less on old-school liberal side (though there are liberal charismatic Episcopalians and Anglicans). T

I see people raising hands in worship sometimes... mostly among younger and middle-aged women. I've even seen somebody doing that in an Orthodox church! Personally, I'm very OK with that, it fits in with all the other things that Anglicans traditionally do, such as cross themselves and so forth. And I've been to service where prayer shawls were blessed for people that were sick and so forth... I just see it as good stuff.

What I don't see as good stuff, on the other hand, is some of the theology and cultural assumptions of the neo-charismatic movement- especially the individualism that it often present. Mysticism and ecstatic religion can lead a lot of other people out in the cold and its important that the Church accommodates all types of people. And sometimes there is some crossing-over going on with the mainline, or at least attempts to do so. Especially Anglicans that take ecclesiology lightly (I used to belong to a Bible group that had a lot of Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists and it was quite difficult at times, even though the leader, a deacon, was cool with all of it, having been formerly Pentecostal himself (and I don't think he ever left his Pentecostalism behind, honestly). It just seemed very un-Episcopalian to have to accommodate a lot of viewpoints that were otherwise fundamentalist. As the only liberal in the group, I tended to keep my mouth shut and eventually, wore out from it.

 

[GoingByzantine]

It is easy to forget that Charismaticism predates the so called "Charismatic movement", there have been elements of it in traditional liturgies in the past. I understand Charismatic elements are quite common in the Tewahedo churches, in fact upon review of an Eritrean Eastern Catholic Liturgy...you can even see it first hand.

Look what happens at 36:30 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nDXKr5FJc

 

[~Anastasia~]

Subscribing.

 

[Tallguy88]

We have a Charismatic Catholic tradition 8n the Catholic Church. Also, if you go to a Mexican Mass, it's a lot more Charismatic-y than an Anglo Mass is.

 

[Liberasit]

So it's been alluded to at a couple different points here in TT, and I would like to hear a bit more about the differences in the Charismatic expression of faith within Traditional churches.

My only experience of it is under the umbrella of American Evangelicalism and I can tell you that I certainly do not like it one bit. I won't bother stringing together all of the adjectives I would use to describe it, but suffice it to say I think it does more harm than good. However, I've been given the impression that it looks very different under the auspices, of say, The Episcopal Church.

For my friends here who are members of Traditional churches (of any kind) can you point out any significant differences and similarities between the two forms of Charismatic Christianity (Evangelical vs. [Your Tradition)?

I suppose to establish a benchmark, when I think of Evangelical Charismatics I think of infamous groups like Bethel Church (home of Jesus Culture), The International House of Prayer, Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, the Lakeland Revivals and leaders/teachers like Joyce Meyer, Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner, Todd Bentley, Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Scott Lively, etc. All of whom I think, frankly, absolutely ruin the Christian faith.

My church is evangelical and we don't describe ourselves as charismatic, although believe that spiritual gifts are real in these times.

A visitor would only see that we had a prayer ministry at the end of each service. Outside of services, we would have more charismatic expression, with particular people using their spiritual gifts to the benefits of the church family and wider community. Some house groups will have a more charismatic flavour than others, depending on the people who have gravitated to that group.

The main place where as a church family we are outwardly charismatic is at our annual house party. I don't think this is surprising given the circumstances.

I visit another Anglican Church several times a year, and the last time the rector said they were charismatic. I hadn't noticed them being very different from my church, a little more covenant and less Kingdom perhaps, but I don't think that's a factor.

 

[Gnarwhal]

My church is evangelical and we don't describe ourselves as charismatic, although believe that spiritual gifts are real in these times.

A visitor would only see that we had a prayer ministry at the end of each service. Outside of services, we would have more charismatic expression, with particular people using their spiritual gifts to the benefits of the church family and wider community. Some house groups will have a more charismatic flavour than others, depending on the people who have gravitated to that group.

The main place where as a church family we are outwardly charismatic is at our annual house party. I don't think this is surprising given the circumstances.

I visit another Anglican Church several times a year, and the last time the rector said they were charismatic. I hadn't noticed them being very different from my church, a little more covenant and less Kingdom perhaps, but I don't think that's a factor.

What I'm curious about is does the brand of the charismatic you experience resemble anything that groups like IHOP and Bethel celebrate?

 

[Liberasit]

What I'm curious about is does the brand of the charismatic you experience resemble anything that groups like IHOP and Bethel celebrate?

I have no idea you are talking about. I am straight up Anglican.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I have no idea you are talking about. I am straight up Anglican.

Are you familiar at all with the charismatic movement in America? I suspect it may be quite different from what the charismatic "pockets" found in Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc. See it's quite anarchic, and I think it stretches far beyond the boundaries of proper Christianity. I mean, just as a small anecdote, my sister visited Bethel on two occasions to see what the fuss was about. She came back each time and clinically reported how bizarre it was. People walking around the room on all fours making animal noises (barking like dogs), people doing laps around the room while praying and falling down at specific points in the lap, claims of gold dust and feathers falling from the ceiling, etc. I'm convinced that's all completely heretical, but I think if the charismatic side of Christianity exists in more traditional churches, surely it's governed more properly.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So it's been alluded to at a couple different points here in TT, and I would like to hear a bit more about the differences in the Charismatic expression of faith within Traditional churches.

My only experience of it is under the umbrella of American Evangelicalism and I can tell you that I certainly do not like it one bit. I won't bother stringing together all of the adjectives I would use to describe it, but suffice it to say I think it does more harm than good. However, I've been given the impression that it looks very different under the auspices, of say, The Episcopal Church.

For my friends here who are members of Traditional churches (of any kind) can you point out any significant differences and similarities between the two forms of Charismatic Christianity (Evangelical vs. [Your Tradition)?

If I may say.....growing up in the Charismatic Evangelical culture, it was interesting to see good as well as bad with the way things went.

But as it concerns Charismatics within the Traditional realm one thing I like to keep in mind are the experiences I've had in the Catholic Church. I remember years ago, back in 2001 when I went with some of my Jamaican family and friends to Jamaica, that we went to the church that one of my peers grew up in. It was a Catholic Church - and yet I was so amazed at how vibrant the worship was, even down to the taking of Communion. From the clapping of hands to people saying "Amen!" during the services and clapping during the liturgy to certain songs, It was radically different from what happened in the U.S when it came to Catholic churches I had visited - even though I attended a Catholic elementary school in the hood that was very easy to relate to.

It made me consider how Caribbean Catholicism is very much influenced by the Charismatic side of things - and thus, a lot more exciting. Of course, I've witnessed the same thing with regards to African-Christianity in general since it has also happened in the world of Orthodoxy (more shared here) - but with Catholicism, Caribbean Catholics always seem so joyful. For reference:

• Charismatic Catholicism | Catholics & Cultures

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlSmmMXjDjU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDMZzAS2ihI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvVmuZFX-sQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j1tphmn03w

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is easy to forget that Charismaticism predates the so called "Charismatic movement", there have been elements of it in traditional liturgies in the past. I understand Charismatic elements are quite common in the Tewahedo churches, in fact upon review of an Eritrean Eastern Catholic Liturgy...you can even see it first hand.

Look what happens at 36:30 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nDXKr5FJc

So true - and many thanks for pointing out what you did in review. Ethiopian Orthodoxy is very Charismatic in many respects, although they are also ordered.

Many seem fearful of anything that is Charismatic - although I don't see that as necessary. I've seen others claim before that Pentecostalism is somehow "anti-intellectual" - but for me, growing up within the movement and seeing many scholars/teachers (from Sam Storms to Amos Young in his works to Jon Mark Ruthven, PhD to Dr. Michael Brown and so many others.....including the Methodist Church since much of its roots were with the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement as far back as John Wesley and has been a part of its spread). There is, as I've seen, an anti-intellectualism that is more so focused on mysticism when it comes to not believing one can adequately explain ALL aspects of the Mysterious Divine Godhead and that God does not always do things in formula.....and of course, in other places, I've seen others who didn't care for study and academic rigor. But that is not found in all places, of course and this has been present for some time.

Many of them have done what they did in regards to the wider memory of the Church - which, from what I've studied, was very much close (at specific times) to what one would see in Pentecostalism. For many, what often occurs is that dialogues begin on seeing the wider history of the Church...and understanding on the shapings of history. Spencer Estabrooks (MA, MDiv, is Director of St. Arseny Orthodox Christian Theological Institute) shared some very solid thoughts on the issue in A Continuing Pentecost: The Experience of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Christianity (With a View to Dialogue Between Orthodox Christians and Pentecostals).

For even within the history of the Church, the Fathers had authority over nature. The Fathers raised the dead. They cured the ill. They ascended into the Heavenly Realm and conversed with angels. They went to speak to those who spoke another tongue and found that, without having learned that tongue, they could preach to the people (and this evangelical gift, which allowed the Apostles to spread the message of Christianity, was present in the Early Church). St. Paul even warns those who have it not to cause confusion, but, in order to be consistent with the purpose of the gift—that of witnessing to the Faith—, to use the gift only if interpretation is available. On top of that, there's Miracles, holy relics, healings, missions, icons that stream holy and miraculous oil.

And for other Orthodox leaders, the ones I am automatically reminded of are people such as Fr. Eusebius A. Stephanou with the Brotherhood of St. Symeon the New Theologian of the Orthodox Renewal Center. As another noted best in review:

Fr. Eusebius Stephanou another Greek Orthodox priest, believed the Charismatic movement was from God. Instead of being rejected, Fr. Eusebius and his work of promoting renewal in Orthodoxy was supported financially and verbally by GOARCH bishops. To his death, Fr. Eusebius was a praised and recognized priest, and former teacher at Holy Cross Seminary. Never was he disciplined or reprimanded or corrected. In fact Eusebius's bishop gave money towards his renewal work in the Greek Orthodox Church. Many saw and do see him as a man like St. Seraphim of Sarov pointing dry bones people to the Holy Spirit. While the legacy of St. Hermans for many years was of schism, Fr. Eusebius faithfully served in communion all his days.

Fr. Eusebius was one of many Orthodox priests who participated. Fr. James Tavralides, Fr. Constantine Monios and Fr. David Buss, Fr. Athanasius Emmert of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, and Fr. Boris Zabrodsky of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, founder of the Service Committee for Orthodox Spiritual Renewal all rejoiced in God's work in the Charismatic renewal. These Holy men disagreed radically with Fr. Seraphim's assessment.​

Pentecostals were descended from the Nazarenes who were descended from the Methodists who were encouraged by John Wesley to read the Eastern Church Fathers. As a result, to some extent charismatics partially reflected Orthodox views about the active work of the Holy Spirit. And this is something many keep in mind...

• Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Pentecostalism | Khanya

• Hesychasm and Pentecostalism | OrthoCuban

• Pentecost, Orthodox, and Pentecostals 2012 | OrthoCuban

• The Raven: A Greek Orthodox charismatic?

• Christian Unity – An Orthodox View

• https://khanya.wordpress.com/charismatic-renewal/

• Charismatic renewal in the Orthodox church » Ravens

• St. Symeon the New Theologian : Cup & Cross Ministries

• Gene Mills : The Baptism of Tears: The Two Baptisms of St. Symeon the New Theologian - Quodlibet Journal

• OCL Archives

• Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom - Steven Jack Land - Google Books

What I've also seen is that much of what is present within Pentecostalism globally is similar to Roots Theology - or those who are not always within the world of academia nor seeking to do things as they have always been done when it comes to reaching the unique needs of oppressed groups without access to many things.. Lively pentecostal worship In an Asian context fits the religious expectation of Asians, who see deities as immediately interacting with their worshippers. God is to interact with his worshippers, listening to their prayers, responding to their worship and providing for their needs, which is quite different from the version of Christianity Which western missionaries once propagated, except for Pentecostalism (more here, here and here)

 

[Liberasit]

Are you familiar at all with the charismatic movement in America? I suspect it may be quite different from what the charismatic "pockets" found in Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc. See it's quite anarchic, and I think it stretches far beyond the boundaries of proper Christianity. I mean, just as a small anecdote, my sister visited Bethel on two occasions to see what the fuss was about. She came back each time and clinically reported how bizarre it was. People walking around the room on all fours making animal noises (barking like dogs), people doing laps around the room while praying and falling down at specific points in the lap, claims of gold dust and feathers falling from the ceiling, etc. I'm convinced that's all completely heretical, but I think if the charismatic side of Christianity exists in more traditional churches, surely it's governed more properly.

Maybe they suspected she was from the Daily Mail?

I think it might be worth going over Matthew 7:1-5

 

[Gnarwhal]

I'm just fine, thanks.

I don't need to go into anymore detail about those churches, everyone outside of those organizations knows they're a farce. One only needs to watch the documentary God Loves Uganda to know groups like that are over the edge.

My inquiry was to find out if charismaticism looks the same in the Traditional church context, I find that I trust Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians and the like far more than Evangelicals when it comes to handling the Spiritual gifts.

 

[Shane R]

In theory, the charismata persist. However, I think most traditional churches are skeptical of their expression. This is proper as their is rampant charlatanism among Evangelicals who profess charismatic expression. Most evangelicals are surprised to know that the same expressions occur in religions such as Wicca and Hinduism.

When we think about the charismata we must keep in mind the purpose of the gifts. They were not a necessity to one's salvation. They were a help to the furtherance of the gospel and a testimony to the power of the one God, Yahweh. They confirmed the apostolic teaching through visible signs.

 

[Gnarwhal]

In theory, the charismata persist. However, I think most traditional churches are skeptical of their expression. This is proper as their is rampant charlatanism among Evangelicals who profess charismatic expression. Most evangelicals are surprised to know that the same expressions occur in religions such as Wicca and Hinduism.

Indeed. I'm in my second semester studying Eastern Religions and I am in fact seeing a lot of similarities between Hinduism and charismatic Christianity.

When we think about the charismata we must keep in mind the purpose of the gifts. They were not a necessity to one's salvation. They were a help to the furtherance of the gospel and a testimony to the power of the one God, Yahweh. They confirmed the apostolic teaching through visible signs.

Yeah that sounds like the proper understanding of it all to me.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is easy to forget that Charismaticism predates the so called "Charismatic movement", there have been elements of it in traditional liturgies in the past. I understand Charismatic elements are quite common in the Tewahedo churches, in fact upon review of an Eritrean Eastern Catholic Liturgy...you can even see it first hand.

Look what happens at 36:30 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nDXKr5FJc

Concerning what was shared here, I think people should realize that there were always many differing expressions of the Charismatic practice in the Early Church - some of which would shock others. The reasons why are because of how many differing environments there were in the Early Church - and just because you didn't see Charismatic expression all the time within Divine Liturgy did not mean there were differing services of other types in which the Lord was present.

There was a discussion elsewhere where the CFs were discussed and I tried to give some more clarity on the issue which stood out, as seen here:

Church Father Tatian (120-180) was not a fan of the medical practices of his time. He believed that sickness was caused by demons and that medicine was a satanic art form:

But medicine and everything included in it is an invention of the same kind. If any one is healed by matter, through trusting to it, much more will he be healed by having recourse to the power of God.
Tatian, Discourse to the Greeks, Chapter 18

Why is he who trusts in the system of matter not willing to trust in God? For what reason do you not approach the more powerful Lord, but rather seek to cure yourself, like the dog with grass, or the stag with a viper, or the hog with river-crabs, or the lion with apes? Why you deify the objects of nature? And why, when you cure your neighbour, are you called a benefactor? Yield to the power of the Logos! The demons do not cure, but by their art make men their captives.
Tatian, Discourse to the Greeks, Chapter 18​

You can see that Tatian believed in divine healing by faith and taught to trust God rather than medicine. This would be controversial in our day, even among the WoF movement. However, most medicine back in those days was best on demonism. So it is great to see how strong healing by faith in God's power was back in the first and second century of the church.

More from church father Tatian:

I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command; I detest fornication; I am not impelled by an insatiable love of gain to go to sea; I do not contend for chaplets; I am free from a mad thirst for fame; I despise death; I am superior to every kind of disease.... We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.​

Tatian says that he is superior to disease. This sounds like something you would hear from Kenneth Copeland. Furthermore, Tatian says that God is not the cause of death or any other evil. This is the result of our own personal choices.

More from Church Father Tatian:

Being armed with the breastplate of the celestial Spirit, he will be able to preserve all that is encompassed by it. There are, indeed, diseases and disturbances of the matter that is in us; but, when such things happen, the demons ascribe the causes of them to themselves, and approach a man whenever disease lays hold of him. Sometimes they themselves disturb the habit of the body by a tempest of folly; but, being smitten by the word of God, they depart in terror, and the sick man is healed.
Chapter 17​

Concerning what was shared earlier,

When it comes to patristics, one thing that should always be kept in mind is the fact that not every Church Father was ever held in the same regard. In example, Tatian was one who was Assyrian (i.e. not a part of the Orthodox Church or Byzantine system) and he was actually considered a herectic in his time - despite where his efforts helped the Church. This happens a lot when it comes to differences within the Church - and although Tatian was once a one-time protege of Justin of Martyr, he ended up having a fall-out later on when he started to go into areas which the Early Church found to be very questionable....[URL="http://www.christianforums.com/t7810600-2/#post66322796"]and later became associated with the Assyrian Church of the East (which was not in agreement with Rome[/URL]). Specifically, Tatian was reported to have become an Encratite (an ascetic 2nd century sect of Christians who forbade marriage and counselled abstinence from meat) - as Irenaeus makes mention of this Tatian in Against Heresies 1.28.1. Of course, with Tatian, he was very on point (IMHO) when it comes to the subject of free will - as he addressed pagans who blamed everything on “fate" and Tatian answered that our miseries are our own fault - in light of the fact that our own free will brought evil into the world—but our own free will can reject evil. Additionally, as it concerns his connection with the Assyrian Church of the East (if wanting to know more on them), I'd say that One excellent resource is [/url] East Meets East: What East Meets East is about , which focuses on showing the history of interaction and what people can learn on the matter. For them, they've been on their own long before the Great Schism and have experienced many things other parts of the Body have not.

• The Mesopotamian School & Theodore of Mopsuestia

• The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Peshitta

• The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian

• The Assyrian Church in the Mongolian Empire - Journal

• Mar Thoma: The Apostolic Foundation of the Assyrian Ch

• We are Assyrians - Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies

• Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian
  [*]

• Early Christian Thinkers: The lives and legacies of twelve key figures

Being Orthodox, Patristics is one of those topics where you have to always be wise in how to go about it since not every Church Father was always held with the same esteem - whereas others ended up going into A LOT of craziness later on that did harm and others who were accused of mess had to unfortunately deal with a lot of false accusations on people not understanding what they were about. They are all vastly different and some are not known as well - with many within the Protestant world often coming to pick & choose among the fathers and yet not seeing them as a whole for what they were...but the Fathers are amazing and I tend to lean toward the Syriac Fathers myself.

• Tatian's Address to the Greeks - Early Christian Writings

• THE FIRST HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS: TATIAN'S

There's actually an excellent book on the subject which I have greatly enjoyed and found insightful - as seen in the work by Ronald Kydd called Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church: The Gifts of the Spirit in the First 300 Years (more shared here)

​

He also has another which is really beneficial entitled Healing through the Centuries: Models for Understanding (more shared here).

Others have spoken on the issue in-depth. As said more in-depth by another who recommended the book (as said for a brief excerpt):

The presence of Montanism in the early church also provides us with evidence of the continuing operation of the gifts of the Spirit. Aside from the Montanists themselves, numerous church fathers regard the gifts as still valid. For example:

• Justin Martyr (a.d. 100-165) boasted to the Jewish Trypho "that the prophetic gifts remain with us" (Dialogue with Trypho, 82).

Irenaeus (a.d. 120-200) also bears witness to the presence of the gifts of the Spirit. He writes:

• ·"We have heard of many of the brethren who have foreknowledge of the future, visions, and prophetic utterances; others, by laying-on of hands, heal the sick and restore them to health" (Against Heresies, 2:32,4).
  
• ·"We hear of many members of the church who have prophetic gifts, and, by the Spirit speak with all kinds of tongues, and bring men's secret thoughts to light for their own good, and expound the mysteries of God" (Against Heresies, 5:6,1).
  
• ·"It is impossible to enumerate the charisms which throughout the world the church has received from God" (Against Heresies, 2:32,4).
  
• Eusebius himself concludes that the charismata were all still in operation down to the time in which Irenaeus lived (Ecclesiastical History, 5:7,6).
  
• Apollinarius is quoted by Eusebius as saying that "the prophetic gifts must continue in the church until the final coming, as the apostle insists" (EH, 5:16,7).

Epiphanius, perhaps the most vocal opponent of the Montanists, did not attack them because they practiced the gifts of the Spirit. Indeed, he declared that "the charism [of prophecy] is not inoperative in the church. Quite the opposite. . . . The holy church of God welcomes the same [charisms] as the Montanists, but ours are real charisms, authenticated for the church by the Holy Spirit" (Panarion, 48).

Ironically, one of the principal reasons why the church became suspect of the gifts of the Spirit and eventually excluded them from the life of the church is because of their association with Montanism. The Montanist view of prophecy, in which the prophet entered a state of passive ecstasy in order that God might speak directly, was a threat to the church's belief in the finality of the canon of Scripture. Other unappealing aspects of the Montanist lifestyle, as noted above, provoked opposition to the movement and hence to the charismata. In sum, it was largely the Montanist view of the prophetic gift, in which a virtual "Thus saith the Lord" perspective was adopted, that contributed to the increasing absence in church life of the charismata.
​

There are others who live out this principle, to be clear. And in example, one can consider others such as Orthodox Evangelist Charles Omuroka (who operates within Africa....more here, here and here) as well as Fr. Eusebius Stephanou of the Brotherhood of St. Symeon the New Theologian

And for others who've spoken on the issue:

• LOOKING ANEW AT THE NEW PROPHECY: TERTULLIAN’S MONTANISM AND PENTECOSTALISM AS NEO-MONTANISM

[/QUOTE]​