LRM - disappeared? still around? Here's an answer.

Recently, I was in a group where the question was asked, “What became of the ‘Latter Rain Movement’ that started around 1948?”

I’m going to answer that the best I can, and hopefully, as succinctly as possible (therefore, of necessity, not everything that could be said will get said).

Similar to the Charismatic Movement, the Latter Rain Movement (LRM), was first and foremost a visitation of the Holy Spirit that brought refreshing to the Church and also resulted in many conversions. Simply put, it was a revival.

I won’t take much space here to describe the LRM’s origins because this entire blog is devoted to that purpose. However, everyone needs to know that what became known as the Latter Rain Movement (or, Revival) began at a small Bible college in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, Canada. The late Pentecostal historian Vinson Synan helpfully put the LRM in a nutshell,

"The Pentecostal movement was at a low ebb in 1948, with a growing dryness and lack of charismatic gifts.  Many who heard about the events in Canada believed that it was a new Azusa Street, with many healings, tongues and prophecies.  A large center of the revival outside of Canada was the Bethesda Missionary Temple in Detroit, Michigan pastored by Myrtle Beale [sic].  From Detroit, the movement spread across the United States like a prairie wildfire” (from Synan’s book, An Eyewitness Remembers the Century of the Holy Spirit). As with my response to a question here, Synan’s concise summation does not, of course, say everything that could be said. Great hubs of the revival in Edmonton, Alberta; Vancouver, British Columbia; Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles, California; Oakland, California; New Orleans, Louisiana; St. Louis, Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Lima, New York; are not accounted for, as well as, countless smaller works across the United States, Canada, and virtually the world. But, that’s how it is with concision.

As I briefly describe the LRM, I want to emphasize that one of the early hallmarks of the revival was a spirit of repentance. This is important to me because there is a way we can talk about revival that is akin to, “Hey everyone, the spiritual three-ring circus has come town! Come and see healings! Get goosebumps when we worship! And who knows, maybe even fall down!” When the revival detonated in places like North Battleford, Vancouver, and Detroit, scenes of people on their faces seeking forgiveness of sins were just as much a feature as “healings, tongues, and prophecies.” Sixto Lopez was a missionary associated with Elim Bible Institute, and when he went to Detroit in early 1949, prominent in his report of the revival were "brokenness, yieldedness ... and a flow of love and fellowship."

Now, if one wants to know, “What happened to the Latter Rain Movement?” it’s important first to have a thumbnail sketch of what the LRM was. I think it is helpful to start by thinking of the revival as having refreshed churches that were already Pentecostal in nature. That’s helpful because it downloads a lot of framework. They preached an infallible Bible, the Trinity, salvation in Jesus’ name, baptism in water and the Holy Spirit, and so on. (I am not saying there weren’t churches here and there that were not Pentecostal before the revival hit, but by and large, the churches were already Pentecostal when revival came.) Then, you add to those churches a new vitality categorized by the items Synan mentioned.

Charles Green, 94, first got involved in the LRM in 1950. He is one of the few early LRM participants still with us. He says that the revival was best known for: singing in the Spirit, the laying of hands and prophecy by presbyteries, and the impetus for unity in the body of Christ. I am sure that Charles would concur that notions about church government (LRM churches were almost always independent, many forced to become so by their previous denominations), and distinctive teachings about water baptism could be added as second-tier emphases (LRM views on the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4 can be folded into the discussion of church government).

So, concluding the brief summary of what the LRM was, it must be emphasized that the churches that were characterized by the items in the preceding paragraph were never organizationally federated in any way - there was no headquarters, there was no over-arching statement of belief that had to be adhered to. You could say the LRM was amorphous, certainly when compared to the historic Pentecostal denominations. Now, groups of ministerial organizations did develop for purposes of fellowship and spiritual covering, but the LRM was never a monolithic block. Being part of the LRM was more organic in nature; a friend of mine referred to it as the churches having the same spiritual DNA. I’ll give some examples that will hopefully bring even more clarity. A friend recently mentioned in a Facebook post that Shady Grove Church in Grand Prairie, Texas had been influenced by Charlotte Baker and others, but he added, “I don’t think we considered ourselves part of that movement.” Charlotte Baker was definitely a LRM minister, and though she did influence Shady Grove, I think my friend is correct that putting the designation Latter Rain on Shady Grove would not be accurate.

Next, ministers like Judson Cornwall and Ern Baxter spoke often in churches that would self-identify as Latter Rain, but it wouldn’t be accurate to describe Cornwall and Baxter as such. This is one of the ways that Charles Green’s comment about unity in the Body of Christ being a salient feature of the LRM is pertinent. Latter Rain churches like the one Charles pastored in New Orleans (initally known as, Word of Faith Temple) did not have to ask headquarters if having Cornwall and Baxter preach at a convention was okay - there was no headquarters to ask! If Charles and his associate ministers and elders felt Cornwall, Baxter, or others would edify the Word of Faith congregation, then they just invited them. Likewise, Charles has preached at countless churches like Brooklyn Tabernacle (pastored by Jim Cymbala) and Yoido Full Gospel in Seoul, South Korea (pastored by David Yonggi Cho), and he didn’t need permission from any LR official to do so - there weren’t any to ask. Latter Rain folks were eager to fellowship and receive from anyone the Lord was using.

Lastly, someone might say, “This is so amorphous - how did anyone know what was or was not a Latter Rain church?” The most direct answer is: by their practices (think of Charles Green’s three LR features) and by participation in conventions and/or conferences. Because they were almost always independent, the LRM ministers and churches craved the fellowship of conventions. On the West Coast, churches with LRM DNA (but, who did not fancy the label, Latter Rain) met often in Apple Valley and Chico, California, and later at conferences in places like Bible Temple in Portland. As Synan mentioned, Bethesda Missionary Temple in Detroit was “a large center of the revival,” and it held three conventions a year in the revival’s earliest days. I recall that not only was Bethesda’s sanctuary filled for the conventions, but the platform was also filled with visiting ministers. There were so many things being revealed in the revival’s freshness that the LRM participants eagerly anticipated such meetings. Elim Bible Institute’s summer camp meetings and the conventions at Word of Faith in New Orleans are also representative of the point I am making.

So, if we have now a basic understanding of what constituted the LRM (and I am hopeful that I have not left out any major identifying characteristics), we can tackle the question as to what became of the LRM.

First, there are quite a few of the churches with LRM DNA that remain - often with name changes. For instance, Bethesda Missionary Temple is now Bethesda Christian Church; Word of Faith Temple is now Lifegate Church (meeting in two New Orleans locations); Bible Temple in Portland is now Mannahouse. Elim Bible Institute still has a local church adjacent to its campus and Glad Tidings in Vancouver is still Glad Tidings (but now a Church, not a Temple).

Second, I’ve read critics of the LRM on the internet that claim that it came to nought. That’s a very poorly informed conclusion. People and significant ministries arose out of the LRM to catch the next wave(s) of what the Lord was doing and were able to add insights and practices to those new movements.

For example, Bob Mumford, who self-identifies as having participated in the LRM (and who taught for a time at Elim Bible Institute), was a very prominent Bible teacher in both the Jesus Movement of the 1960s and the Charismatic Movement in the 1970s. James Lee Beall, Charles Green, and Winston Nunes were in great demand as speakers in the Charismatic Movement.  And the various ministeries that came out of Bible Temple (teaching tapes and books by Dick Iverson, Kevin Conner, and Frank Damazio; an outstanding Bible college; and CCLI) have influence around the world. Elim Bible Institute remains important in training ministers. The late Moses Vegh traveled across the world (even praying personally with Boris Yeltsin). Dennis Balcombe has made a significant impact in China (after having been prophesied over to that effect by David Schoch, Violet Kiteley, and Reg Layzell). Duke professor Lester Ruth and some doctoral students are writing about the role that the LRM played in what has become a burgeoning ministry/industry of contemporary praise & worship. These are just some of the lasting effects of the LRM.

Third, it must be admitted, though, that some of the important features of the LRM have waned in many places. How many churches do you know of that regularly sing in the Spirit? How many have regular presbytery services for the laying on of hands and prophecy? Thankfully, these practices have not altogether disappeared, but it would not be answering the question forthrightly if I didn’t mention that the spiritual vitality present in the early days of the LR revival is not as widespread and intense as it once was.

There are many reasons for this, I think. In some cases, the LRM was badly hurt by the false doctrines and grievous sinning of a few ministers (so much so, that many eschew the term, Latter Rain). In other cases, the abuse of gifts like prophecy and healing have brought ridicule and as a result some have recoiled from exercising those gifts. The prosperity of many churches and their congregants has surely lulled some to sleep, like feasters after a lavish holiday meal. We could - you and I - go on, but I think these examples provide fodder for further reflection.

Fourth, when the Jesus Movement and Charismatic Movement occurred, the LRM was in places, a) eclipsed by them, b) subsumed by them, c) forced to share the stage with them, or d) had become itself part of the Pentecostal ‘establishment,’ sitting back and assessing these newer moves/revivals. Perhaps, it is more helpful though, to think of the most healthy part each revival adding yet another layer to an enduring building. And the Lord was doing something distinctive in each revival (the Pentecostal revival at the turn of the century saw the restoration of the Spirit’s power to the Church; the LRM refreshed existing Pentecostals and brought further revelation of charismata; the Jesus Movement was a great ingathering of a generation that was losing its moorings; and the Charismatic Movement was the Lord’s gracious refreshing of mainline and otherwise non-charismatic churches).

So, what was known as the LRM remains visible in some places like the churches mentioned earlier, but very similar to the Charismatic Movement, it is present in myriad churches without being identified by a label (in other words, the truths and practices that the Holy Spirit brought in those movements are now just folded right into the life of many churches who would not readily recognize the history of those movements).

Though this answer could only be considered succinct if compared to a book-length treatment, it’s honestly as brief as I could be if I wanted also to be accurate.