Modalism first surfaced in the third century in the writings of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. This heretical view denies there are three distinct persons in God, claiming instead there is only one being who manifests Himself in three different modes. Modern Oneness Pentecostals garner support for their modalistic view by interpreting Matthew28:19 in conjunction with Acts2:38. In Matthew28:19 Jesus instructed the disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (emphasis added).¹ In Acts2:38, however, Peter instructed his listeners: “Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (emphasis added). Oneness Pentecostals² conclude that Jesus Himself must be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because they claim that “Jesus” is the “one name that refers to three titles of one God.”³ They then assert that the apostles correctly fulfilled Christ’s command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt.28:19) by baptizing converts in the name of Jesus only (Acts2:38;8:16;10:48); hence, a Trinitarian baptism is invalid. The phrase “in the name of Jesus” must be pronounced over the person being baptized.

It is difficult to know where to begin in evaluating Oneness Pentecostal hermeneutics. It is certainly not like looking through a telescope at a single hermeneutic problem, but more like looking into a kaleidoscope, for there are many interrelated hermeneutic problems that, when combined, only serve to distort biblical Christianity (2Pet.3:16). In what follows, I demonstrate that Oneness Pentecostals are “serial offenders” where it concerns violating some of the fundamental rules of hermeneutics.

Holding Illegitimate Preunderstandings. A theological “preunderstanding” is a doctrinal opinion one has previously formed. The danger for Bible interpreters is that their interpretations easily can be biased by their theological preunderstandings. Oneness Pentecostals unfortunately approach the whole of Scripture with the preunderstanding of the Oneness doctrine, and it distorts their view of many Scripture verses, including Matthew28:19 and Acts2:38.

The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy provides this helpful corrective: “We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it. We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself.”⁴ The point of this affirmation is to avoid interpreting Scripture through an alien grid or filter that obscures or negates its true message. To avoid misinterpreting Scripture, interpreters must be careful to examine their presuppositions in the light of Scripture. Only those preunderstandings that are compatible with Scripture are legitimate.

Inappropriately Cross-Referencing Verses. It is inappropriate to draw theological conclusions from cross-referenced verses without giving due consideration to what other explicit and clear verses reveal on the matter. For example, Isaiah14:12 identifies Lucifer as the “morning star.” Revelation22:16 identifies Jesus as the “morning star.” Ignoring other relevant verses, one inappropriately could conclude that Jesus is the Devil.

Oneness Pentecostals are guilty of inappropriate cross-referencing in their treatment of Matthew28:19 and Acts2:38. One must recognize that the theological inferences one draws from comparing cross references are legitimate only to the extent that they reflect the teachings of explicit and clear Scripture verses on the matter.⁵ This is precisely where Oneness Pentecostals go wrong.

Not Interpreting Difficult Verses in Light of Clear Verses. It is common sense that one must interpret difficult verses in light of the clear verses of Scripture. Martin Luther expressed this principle with the words, Scriptura sui ipsius interpres—Latin for “Scripture is its own expositor.” The Westminster Confession of Faith perhaps put it best: “When there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture…it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”⁶

Contrary to the Oneness preunderstanding of modalism, many clear Scripture verses indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. We know the Father is a person because He engages in I-Thou (direct, interpersonal, mutual, reciprocal, and loving)⁷ relations with the other persons in the Trinity (John3:35), and has the attributes of personality: intellect (Matt.6:8), emotions (Gen.6:6; Ps.86:15), and will (Matt.12:50). The Son likewise engages in I-Thou relations (John11:41-42), and possesses intellect (John2:24–25), emotions (Matt.9:36; John11:35), and will (Luke22:42). The Holy Spirit also engages in I-Thou relations (Acts8:29), and possesses intellect (Rom.8:27; 1Cor.2:10–11), emotions (Isa.63:10; Eph.4:30), and will (1Cor.12:11).

Scripture, moreover, affirms that these persons are distinct from each other. We know Jesus is not the Father because the Father sent the Son (John3:16–17). The Father and Son love each other (John3:35) and speak to each other (John11:41–42). The Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father (Matt.11:27). Jesus is our advocate with the Father (1John2:1). They are two distinct witnesses (John5:31,32,37). We also know Jesus is not the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is another comforter (John14:16). Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (John15:26). The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus (Luke3:22) and seeks to glorify Jesus (John16:13–14).

What all this means is that however one reconciles Matthew28:19 with Acts2:38, it is not an option to say Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for clear verses in Scripture render such a view impossible. As the Reformers put it in their principle, analogia scriptura, if an interpretation of a particular verse contradicts a truth taught elsewhere in Scripture, the interpretation of that verse cannot be correct.

Ignoring Context. In the broader context of the New Testament, Jesus considers the Father as someone other than Himself hundreds of times. In fact, the New Testament describes the Father and Son as distinct from each other within the very same verse dozens of times (e.g., Rom.15:6; 2Cor.1:4; Gal.1:2,3).⁸ This broad context alone sets the interpretive parameters beyond which one is not free to go, effectively prohibiting anyone from claiming that Jesus is the Father.

In terms of immediate context, Matthew’s gospel is solidly Trinitarian. There is one God (Matt.4:10;16:16;22:32,37). The Father is God (6:6,9,14–15;10:32–33;11:25), Jesus is God (1:23;9:6;11:27;12:8;16:27;19:28;25:31;26:64), and the Holy Spirit is God (1:18,20;10:20;12:18,28,32). Within the unity of the one God are three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (28:19). All three persons of the Trinity, moreover, were present (and distinct from each other) at Jesus’ baptism (3:16–17). In view of this, it makes good sense that Jesus, before ascending into heaven, would instruct the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for each played a pivotal role in human salvation.

The context of Acts2 is different. Here, baptism “in the name of Jesus” makes good sense because the Jews—“men of Judea” (v.14), “men of Israel” (v.22)—to whom Peter was preaching had rejected Christ as the Messiah. It is logical that Peter would call on them to repent of their rejection of Jesus the Messiah (vv.22–37) then invite them to identify with Him publicly via baptism (v.38).

Using Faulty Exegesis. Proper exegesis of Matthew28:19 reveals two pivotal facts about the nature of God: (1)The singular form of “name” indicates that God is one, and that His nature is singular (one divine essence); and (2)Within the unity of this one God are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, something given strong emphasis in the original Greek with the three recurring definite articles before Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.⁹

Word studies also reveal that the phrase “in the name of” often meant “by the authority of” in biblical times. Acts2:38 thus indicates that the Jews to whom Peter was speaking were to be baptized according to the authority of Jesus. The verse does not mean that the words “in the name of Jesus” must be pronounced liturgically over each person being baptized. If Acts2:38 were intended to be a precise baptismal formula, one must ask why this formula is never repeated in exactly the same way throughout the rest of Acts or the New Testament. In different verses, people are exhorted to be baptized “on [Greek: epi] the name of…” (Acts2:38), “into [Greek: eis] the name of…” (Acts8:16), or “in [Greek: en] the name of…” Jesus Christ (Acts10:48). Such variations militate against an unbending baptismal formula.

It is entirely possible that being baptized in the authority of Jesus essentially amounts to being baptized by the baptism authorized by Jesus—one in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt.28:19). A.T. Robertson comments: “In Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit.”¹⁰

In keeping with this, some scholars have suggested that Acts2:38 may contain what is called a synecdoche of the part—a figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole. Such figures of speech were common in biblical times. For example, the term face can refer to a whole person (1Kings10:24; Job11:19), field can represent a whole country (1Sam.27:7), and day can refer to an indefinite time period (Ps.18:18).¹¹ It may be, then, that “the apostles indeed did use the full formula [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], but simply referred to the act of baptism by the shorter phrase ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’…in common with the wider practice of that day of being baptized ‘in the name’ of one’s spiritual teacher, as John’s disciples were ([Acts] 19:3).”¹²

Whether or not this is so, the hermeneutic principles summarized above decisively debunk the Oneness view that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Scripture consistently testifies that Jesus is the second person of the blessed Trinity, the eternal Son of the eternal Father, and the blessed One who came to earth to reveal the Father to humankind (John1:1,14,18; cf.14:9–14).

— Ron Rhodes

NOTES

1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

2. Oneness Pentecostalism, distinct from mainstream Pentecostalism, is similar to other cults in its denial of the Trinity. It is different from other cults, however, in its strong insistence on the absolute deity of Jesus Christ, holding that Jesus is the one true God who manifests himself in three modes.

3. Brent Graves, The God of Two Testaments (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 2000), 297.

4. Norman Geisler, Explaining Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 14–15.

5. Gregory Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 85. Note that while Boyd offers sound arguments against Oneness Pentecostalism in this book, he elsewhere expresses belief in open theism, an unorthodox view.

6. Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:9.

7. Jewish existentialist Martin Buber (1878–1965), in his book I and Thou (1923), made the phrase “I-Thou” famous, distinguishing this type of relationship from an “I-It” relationship. In this article, I use the term in a simple, nonformal sense to speak of direct, interpersonal, mutual, reciprocal, and loving relationships between persons.

8. Boyd, 68.

9. Daniel Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 94.

10. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Logos Software, emphasis added.

11. See original Hebrew.

12. Jerome Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Logos Software, insert added.

One great temptation for Christians is to compromise the truths of the faith for the sake of peace and unity. No one likes to be seen as harsh, divisive, or arrogant. Doctrinal compromise seems attractive, especially in a relativistic society and in a church that is increasingly characterized by that same relativism. Scripture, however, detests relativism: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20 NKJV).

A sad example of such doctrinal relativism infiltrating the church appeared in the April 7, 2006, issue of Charisma magazine. Editor Lee Grady published a passionate call for a healing of the breach between Oneness (or “Jesus Only”) Pentecostals and the rest of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement—and, presumably, evangelical Protestants generally. In it Grady writes, “Call me an idealist, but wouldn’t it be great if leaders on both sides of this family feud attempted to resolve it? 2006 would be a great time for reconciliation, since all of us are celebrating Pentecostalism’s 100th anniversary this month.”

The Essence of Christianity. Grady’s plea is charitable, but he mistakenly minimizes and covers over crucial doctrinal differences in pursuit of reconciliation. He ascribes the division between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians to sectarianism when it is better ascribed to reasoned differences over essential Christian doctrines. These include the Trinity, the efficacy of baptism, and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Oneness Pentecostals, in fact, seem to have a clearer understanding than does Grady of just how crucial these doctrinal differences are.

Grady writes that Oneness Pentecostals “insist that converts must be baptized in the name of Jesus [only] rather than in the more common Trinitarian formula (‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’). They also refuse to use the term ‘trinity’ to describe the Godhead, even though they affirm that God has a triune nature.” His ambiguous language, however, avoids the very substance of the debate. Oneness Pentecostals believe that God is “triune” only in His relations with creatures—to whom He relates externally in three ways correlated with the titles Father, Son, and Spirit. In their view, God has no internal relations; God is but one person. Trinitarians, on the other hand, believe that God has three internal relations: while God is but one being, God is three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who relate to each other personally.

”And besides these doctrinal quirks,” Grady writes—as if denial of the Trinity were nothing more than a quirk—Oneness Pentecostals “are extremely strict about holiness standards.” Their strictness about holiness is tied to their doctrine of justification by works. When one’s works are a determining factor of whether one gets to heaven, strictness is inevitable. Oneness Pentecostals are strict not only on moral matters, but on matters on which the Bible does not require strictness. They make up their own rules and enforce them as if they were God’s rules; thus, they are legalists in both senses: requiring law-keeping as a means of justification, and erecting man’s laws in place of God’s laws. To ignore that issue for the sake of peace and unity is to compromise the gospel itself.

Molehills or Mountains? ”Some people have gone so far as to label Oneness Pentecostalism a cult,” writes Grady, “partly because of its isolationism but also because some UPC leaders have suggested that only Oneness believers are truly saved.” Neither of those positions would be a sufficient reason to call Oneness Pentecostalism a cult in a theological sense (rather than a sociological sense); but because the group claims to be Christian yet denies doctrines that uniquely define Christianity, such as the Trinity and justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, apologists, including myself, have consistently labeled Oneness Pentecostalism a theological cult.

Grady, however, ignoring those substantive doctrinal differences, states, “As in all broken relationships, healing of this rift will require apologies on both sides. This is no time for childish rantings such as, ‘They started it first!’” Responding in this manner would indeed be childish, but insisting that we pay attention to the substantive doctrinal disagreements would not. It rather would be earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

”Some of us have condemned Oneness believers to hell for their legalism when love should have moved us to reach out to them,” says Grady. If they are indeed legalists—if they teach that justification is by works (even if by faith plus works) and not by faith alone (and they do, as I document in my book “Jesus Only” Churches)—then they are teaching another gospel, and Paul’s judgment fits: let them be anathema (Gal. 1:8). We certainly should reach out to them in love to persuade them to embrace the true (triune) God and the true gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Allowing people to remain captive to a false gospel that is not the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), however, is not reaching out in love.

”On the Oneness side,” writes Grady, “leaders of the UPC and other groups must apologize to the rest of us for splitting doctrinal hairs and insisting that their narrow interpretation of the Bible is the only view.” Here, ironically, the Oneness Pentecostal leaders have seen what Grady fails to see: the doctrines over which they differ with the rest of us are not “hairs”; they are issues significant enough to divide genuine Christianity from counterfeit Christianity.

”God is bigger than a baptismal formula,” Grady insists. Such rhetorical flourish does not constitute an argument, however. Further, it fails to acknowledge that Oneness Pentecostals contend against the Trinitarian baptismal formula precisely because they see that the Trinitarian God is not their God. Either Oneness Pentecostals or Trinitarians are worshiping a false god. They recognize that; we must also.

According to Grady, those who insist on dividing over these issues “make mountains out of theological molehills.” Again, however, the doctrines to which he refers have been defining the boundaries of Christianity for centuries, from the defense of the Trinity against the Arian heresy in the fourth century, to the defense of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone in the Reformation. The Christian leaders who defended these doctrines, sometimes at the cost of their own lives, would be shocked to hear an heir of their faith dismiss these towering mountains as molehills.

The Importance of Truth. Grady asserts, “Oneness folks also must apologize for [their] spiritual elitism. They must stop teaching people that they have a corner on the truth.” Such a view, however, virtually eliminates the importance of truth.

The doctrinal distinctions between the two are simply too profound to ignore: Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that there are no personal distinctions in God and that Trinitarianism is pagan polytheism; Trinitarianism teaches that there are personal distinctions in God and that Oneness Pentecostalism is pagan rationalism. Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that water baptism regenerates the believer and remits sins and that one cannot be born again or have forgiveness without it; evangelical Protestantism (generally speaking) teaches that water baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration and remission, but not the effectual instrument of either apart from faith, and that one may have both regeneration and remission without it. Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that one can trust in Jesus for salvation, yet go to hell because one’s works do not measure up; evangelical Protestantism teaches the Reformation gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved!” (Acts 16:31 NKJV). If Grady is right, then these differences are inconsequential; thus, we should ignore the facts that we worship different deities and believe different gospels and just embrace religious relativism.

Grady insists that Oneness leaders (and, presumably, Trinitarian leaders) “must challenge their congregations to embrace the whole body of Christ.” This begs the question, however, whether in fact Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians are, together, the body of Christ. Here, again, Oneness Pentecostals are right: if theirs are the true God and the true gospel, then the rest of us are not part of the body of Christ. The opposite is true as well.

The Devil Is Not in the Details. ”The devil thrives on division,” Grady laments. On the contrary, it is the Church that thrives on division: division between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil, light and darkness, holiness and impurity, justice and injustice, love and hatred. That is why Paul said that it is necessary that there be schisms among the church members, so that those who are approved of God may be clearly seen (1 Cor. 11:19). It is why he commanded us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (those who rejected the true God and true gospel), but separate from them (2 Cor. 6:14). The Devil does not thrive on division; rather, he thrives on ambiguity and relativism in order to obscure the divisions between God and idols, between the true gospel and false gospels. Woe to those who call light darkness and darkness light (Isa. 5:20)!

Anyone who has read John 17 can sympathize with a strong desire for unity among believers, but Jesus’ prayer for the unity of the Church did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred at the climax of a three-year ministry in which He insisted on truths that divided Himself and His followers from the unbelieving world. In that very prayer He said, “I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me” (John 17:9 NKJV). His prayer was for the sanctification of the church—sanctification being defined first as “separation from,” or “disunity with,” all that is unholy and ungodly—and He rooted that sanctification in truth, praying, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your Word is truth” (17:17 NKJV).

— E. Calvin Beisner

SYNOPSIS

The teachings of Finis Jennings Dake, author of The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, have had a profound impact on conservative Pentecostalism and have been embraced by charismatic Word-Faith preachers such as Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. Dake’s views range from orthodox to outlandish, to decidedly unorthodox. He rejected the theology of “denominationalism” and instead adopted a hyperliteral interpretation of Scripture that resulted in erroneous doctrines, such as the view that each person in the Trinity has a body, soul, and spirit, and that Jesus’ resurrected body was not physical. His aberrant teachings also include a salvation by grace plus works and a gospel of health and prosperity. Dake’s study materials emphasize the authority of the Bible, but they contain many unbiblical and dangerous doctrines that sometimes have as much in common with the cults as with historic Christian theology.

Each Christian denomination can point to certain preachers and teachers who have helped shape and propagate its theology and practice. One such prominent figure in Pentecostal and charismatic circles is Finis Jennings Dake (1902–87), author of The Dake Annotated Reference Bible. The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements states, Dake’s “impact on conservative Pentecostalism cannot be overstated.”¹

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

Following his conversion to Christianity at the age of 17 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Dake allegedly received a “special anointing” that enabled him to quote hundreds of Scripture verses without having previously memorized them, earning him the nickname “the Walking Bible.” He studied the Bible diligently and claimed to have spent nearly 100,000 hours over the course of his ministry digging into its teachings.²

Dake first preached in 1925 and was ordained by the Assemblies of God denomination two years later at the age of 24.³ After working as a pastor and evangelist in Texas and Oklahoma, he moved to Zion, Illinois, in order to become the pastor of the Christian Assembly Church, a union that lasted until 1937.⁴ In Zion, he also founded Shiloh Bible Institute, which ultimately merged with Central Bible Institute and which was located in the home formerly owned by controversial faith healer John Alexander Dowie.⁵

During Dake’s ministry in Zion, he was the center of a raging controversy. In 1937, he was convicted of violating the Mann Act by willfully transporting 16-year-old hitchhiker Emma Barelli across the Wisconsin state line “for the purpose of debauchery and other immoral practices.”⁶ Dake pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in a Milwaukee jail,⁷ where he “intended to pass most of his time…writing a book — a commentary on the Bible.”⁸

Dake returned to his family and the Christian Assembly Church, who stood by his side and maintained his innocence during the ordeal. His relationship with the Assemblies of God denomination, however, soon ended. He then moved to Cleveland, Tennessee, where first he became a minister in the Church of God denomination and then pastored an independent Pentecostal church.⁹ Dake remained a Pentecostal minister until his death in 1987 of Parkinson’s disease.¹⁰

DAKE’S WRITINGS

Dake’s long career culminated in two published works. God’s Plan for Man: The Key to the World’s Storehouse of Wisdom contains the very heart of Dake’s teaching. This 52-lesson course purports to be “a library of Bible knowledge in compact form…more than 10,000 subjects, sermon outlines, and questions fully answered — all supported and proved by 33,000 references to Scripture passages.”¹¹ Dake’s most popular work is The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, which many Pentecostals consider to be the top study Bible.¹² His copious notes and commentary accompany the King James Version text and are taken largely from God’s Plan for Man. The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements states that it “became the ‘bread and butter’ of many prominent preachers and the ‘staple’ of Pentecostal congregations.”¹³ Dake Publishing Company, operated by the Dake family, sells nearly 40,000 copies of the Dake Bible each year.¹⁴ Finis Dake, Jr., asserts, “As far as I know it is the only study Bible with a full gospel or charismatic orientation still in print which has not changed something in order to appeal to a wider audience.”¹⁵

Many Pentecostal and charismatic teachers praise Dake’s work. Jimmy Swaggart once wrote, “Finis Dake was a scholar unparalleled. I owe my Bible education to this man.”¹⁶ Word-Faith preacher Larry Ollison, midwest regional director for International Convention of Faith Ministries, praises the Dake Bible as a good reference tool with “lists and useful information that cannot be found easily anywhere else.”¹⁷ David Roebuck, director of the Pentecostal Research Center at Lee University, declares, “The Dake study Bible has many helpful tools and charts.”¹⁸ Leading Word-Faith teachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and Benny Hinn also have embraced Dake’s study Bible and teachings.

THE BIBLE

Dake, to his credit, argues that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word of God; therefore, it cannot contain contradictions. His effort to systematize biblical teachings on hundreds of topics appears to be sincere. He argues that the Bible was written in simple human language and should be interpreted at face value: “We shall let what God says mean what He says and reject any theory of men to the contrary.”¹⁹ Dake’s overriding rule of interpretation is, “Take every statement of the Bible as literal when it is at all possible and where it is clear that it is literal, otherwise, it is figurative.”²⁰ Dake applies this often-repeated rule unwaveringly, and his simple, literal interpretations probably account for the popularity of his Bible commentary. His attention to the biblical text results in many correct observations and interpretations; however, his overly simplistic, hyperliteral approach results in many incorrect interpretations as well as unorthodox and problematic doctrines in his theology.

Numerous evangelical Bible scholars and apologists have expressed concern over Dake’s unorthodox teachings, but no major work has been published to expose and correct them. Dake’s popularity, however, demands an evaluation of his teachings in light of historic Christian orthodoxy. This article touches on only a few.

GOD’S NATURE

Many of Dake’s doctrinal errors begin with his misunderstanding of God’s nature. He states, “God has a spirit body with bodily parts like man.”²¹ The only difference between God’s body and man’s, according to Dake, is that God’s body is a spiritual substance while man’s body is a material substance. He offers several lines of faulty reasoning to support his view. First, he argues that since the natural body will be raised a spiritual body, this means that spirit beings have bodies:

Paul speaks of the human flesh-and-bone bodies in the resurrection as being “spiritual” (1Cor.15:42–44), and “like unto his glorious body” (Luke24:39; Phil.3:20–21); so if human bodies that become spiritualized are still material and tangible, then certainly God and other spirits can have bodies just as real and still be spirit beings. After all, John4:24 is a mere statement of fact — that God is a Spirit — but it does not define and analyze a spirit.²²

First Corinthians 15:42–44, however, does not refer to the nature of God, but to the nature of the resurrected human body. “Spiritual body,” moreover, in this context, does not mean a body made of spiritual substance; rather, it means that the physical, material, flesh-and-bone body that will be resurrected and made immortal and imperishable will no longer be dominated by the flesh (i.e., the sinful nature) but by the Spirit.

Dake also argues that since humans were created in God’s image and have bodies, God must have a body as well: “If man was made in the image and likeness of God bodily, then God must have a body, and an outward form and shape.”²³ Mormons make the same argument. It is false, however, to assume that because we are like God, God must be like us. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes explain, “Just because all horses have four legs does not mean that all four-legged things are horses. And just because God made male and female does not mean he is male and female. ‘God is Spirit’ (John4:24), yet he made people with bodies (Gen.2:7). Just because we have a physical body does not mean that God has one too.”²⁴

Dake asserts that the Bible plainly speaks of God as having a face, hands, eyes, arms, legs, and other body parts just like any other person.²⁵ He recognizes that the Bible sometimes uses language that obviously is figurative, such as when it says Jesus is “the door” (John10:7); however, based on his rule to “take the Bible literally where at all possible,” he contends that the passages that attribute human body parts to God should be interpreted literally. In other words, he believes it is possible for God to have a body, and therefore interprets these passages literally.

There is a problem with this simplistic approach: whether it is possible for God to have a body is a philosophical question that must be answered before interpreting passages that speak of God’s body parts. It is similar to the question of whether God can lie: whether it is possible for God to lie (He cannot because of His nature) is a question that must be answered before interpreting the biblical statement, “God cannot lie.” It cannot be answered based on the biblical statement alone, because it is logically possible that God lied in that statement.

Many philosophical arguments prove that God cannot have a body; for example, if God has a body that is composed of parts, then He must have been composed (i.e., created, assembled) by another being greater than Himself, for He could not have composed Himself. In other words, if God has a body, He is not really God. Another argument is that bodies exist in space and time; but God created space and time; therefore, He must exist apart from space and time. God, therefore, cannot have a body.

The point of these arguments is that it is logically impossible for God to have a body because of His nature (i.e., what God is). A body is limited, temporal, changing, visible, material, composed of parts, and present in only one location at a time, whereas God is unlimited, eternal, unchanging, invisible, immaterial, not composed of parts, and always present everywhere; therefore, God cannot have a body. (This doesn’t mean that one of the persons of the Trinity could not take on, or add, a human nature that includes a material body, as is the case with Jesus who now has two natures: divine and human.)

If it is logically impossible for God to have a body, then those passages that speak of God’s body parts cannot be interpreted literally; they must be interpreted figuratively. When biblical authors attribute human characteristics to God, they are using a figure of speech called anthropomorphism. This means that they are referring to God in terms of human body parts or passions. Speaking figuratively of God’s hands, eyes, anger, or even love, helps finite humans comprehend truths about an infinite God and the way He acts. Theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer comments, “Where physical members are thus ascribed to God, it is not a direct assertion that God possesses these members, or a corporal [physical] body with its parts; but that He is capable of doing precisely those things which are the functions of the physical part of man.”²⁶

If all the characteristics that are ascribed to God in the Bible were taken literally, one would end up with an absurd view of God as having wings and feathers (Ps.17:8), being made of stone (Ps.18:31), or having eyes that literally “run to and fro throughout the whole earth” (2Chron.16:9KJV). Dake recognizes that ascribing literal birdlike or rocklike characteristics to God results in absurd conclusions; however, he does not recognize that ascribing literal humanlike characteristics to God results in absurd conclusions as well. By taking anthropomorphic passages literally, Dake has denied the historic Christian doctrine of God. He, instead, has “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man” (Rom.1:23NASB).

THE TRINITY

Dake defines the Trinity as “the union of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one (unified) Godhead or divinity, so that all three persons are one in unity and eternal substance, but three separate and distinct persons as to individuality.”²⁷ This statement is similar to historic Christian definitions of the Trinity, such as in the ancient creeds, but Dake’s view of the Trinity clearly is not the same as the historic Christian view.

The historic Christian view of the Trinity — that God is one being constituted by three persons — is “foolish and unscriptural, to say the least,” says Dake.²⁸ He states, it is a fallacy “that there is only one person or one being called God.”²⁹ Dake says that the Trinity is three separate and distinct persons in one God; however, he defines person as “a rational being with bodily presence, soul passions, and spirit faculties.”³⁰ In his view, person and being mean the same thing. He concludes, therefore, that the Trinity is three separate and distinct beings, each with a body, soul, and spirit: “What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the sense that each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul and spirit.”³¹

This characterization of the Trinity as three separate beings is different than the historic Christian view that the Trinity is three separate persons who are united in one essence or substance — in other words, one being. When Dake says “all three persons are one in unity and eternal substance,” he means three separate beings who are one in unity or purpose. It is true that all three persons in the Trinity are one in purpose, but the historic Christian view is that “one in substance” means one in being (essence or nature). In other words, the Trinity is three persons (three whos) who are one being (one what).

The Athanasian Creed (c. AD 361) was written partly to defend the orthodox understanding of the Trinity against an error known as tritheism, which says that the Trinity is three separate Gods. It states, “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.”³² Trinitarians have historically understood substance here to mean essence or being, not purpose as Dake argues.

Trinitarians, moreover, have not understood being to mean the same thing as person, as Dake argues, otherwise the Trinity would be three infinite, perfect beings. Theologian Henry Thiessen points out, “There can be only one infinite and perfect being. To postulate two or more infinite beings is illogical and inconceivable.”³³ One reason there cannot be two or more infinite, perfect beings is because they would have to differ from each other in some way, and to differ means each being must lack something that the others have; however, if they lack something, they are not infinite, perfect beings; therefore, there can be only one infinite, perfect being.

Many of Dake’s statements regarding the Trinity are similar to classic Trinitarian statements, but his view is not the same as the historic Christian view; if it were the same, he certainly would not have called the historic Christian view foolish and unscriptural.

JESUS CHRIST

Dake’s misunderstanding of God’s nature also results in a problematic view of Jesus’ nature. He teaches, for example, that Jesus became the Son of God at His incarnation³⁴ (a view held by Jehovah’s Witnesses known as adoptionism) and that Jesus became the Messiah at His baptism³⁵ (see, however, Luke2:11 and Matt.2:4). These views have been rejected by the majority of the church throughout history. His most troubling views, however, relate to Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection.

Dake argues, as noted above, that before the Incarnation, the Son (Jesus) had a spirit body as did the Father and the Spirit; however, he says that when Jesus came to earth, He exchanged His spirit body for a human body: “He laid aside His God body to take a human body, His immortality in body to become mortal.”³⁶ Jesus’ resurrection, in Dake’s view, was a return to a spiritual body, the same kind of body that believers will receive at their resurrection. Dake claimed, “Even resurrected bodies of flesh-and-bone saints are called ‘spiritual’ (1Cor.15:44), so spiritual bodies are of materialized, spiritualized substance — something we know nothing about, as far as experience is concerned, at the present time.”³⁷ This type of spiritualized body, he argues, enabled Jesus (as it will us) to go through doors (John20:26), appear and disappear at will (Luke24:31), and change form (Mark16:12).

There are several reasons to reject Dake’s view that man’s resurrected body will not be physical (i.e.,material). First, Scripture teaches that Jesus’ resurrected body was the same physical body that went into the grave. Jesus declared to the Jews, for example, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John2:19 NASB, emphasis added). John explained, “He was speaking of the temple of His body” (v.21). In other words, the body that came out of the grave was the same one that went in.

Second, according to Peter, David foresaw that Jesus’ body would not see decay in the grave (Acts2:30–31; cf. Ps.16:10). There would be no reason for God to preserve Jesus’ physical body if it was going to be exchanged for a different, spiritual body.

Third, many of Jesus’ postresurrection appearances in the Gospels emphasize the physical nature of His resurrected body: it had flesh and bones (Luke24:39); it had the crucifixion wounds (John20:27); it ate food (Luke24:41–43), and it was physically recognized and touched by humans (Matt.28:9; Luke24:39; John20:17, 27).³⁸ The Gospels attest that Jesus’ body that arose and appeared to the disciples and other witnesses was the same physical body that was crucified.³⁹

Dake recognizes the strong biblical support that Jesus’ resurrected body was (and is) physical flesh and bone. He vigorously argues, however, based on his view of the “spiritual body” in 1Corinthians15, that Jesus’ body was “materialized, spiritualized substance.” A “materialized, spiritualized substance,” however, is a contradiction in terms; moreover, the phrase “spirit body,” as defined by Dake, is the same as saying “immaterial material,” which also is a contradiction in terms. A thing is either material or immaterial — there is no middle ground.

JESUS’ NATURE WHILE ON EARTH

Paul says that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant…being made in the likeness of men” (Phil.2:7 NASB). This is known as the kenosis passage, which comes from a Greek verb that means “to empty.” The question is, what does “emptied himself” mean, and of what did Jesus empty himself while on earth?

Rhodes explains, “Paul’s statement…involves three basic issues: the veiling of [Christ’s] preincarnate glory, a voluntary nonuse of some of his divine attributes, and the condescension involved in taking on the likeness of men.”⁴⁰ Jesus “emptied himself” by voluntarily limiting the use of some of His divine attributes while on earth, but at no time did He cease to possess them.

Dake argues, however, that Jesus did not possess His divine attributes while on earth. He explains, “The limitations of Christ in knowledge and wisdom cannot be explained and harmonized with the fact that Christ had omniscience [unlimited knowledge]. His limitations in power and His powerlessness to act and do things in Himself cannot be harmonized with the fact that He had his original attribute of omnipotence [unlimited power]…. Christ’s emptying Himself in reality includes the laying aside of His attributes and powers or at least limitations of them in becoming man.”⁴¹ Dake says that Jesus “could not have retained immutability.”⁴² Finally, Dake states that Jesus became unequal with God: “If He had not laid aside His equality as God, then He could not have been unequal with God as manifested in the days of his flesh.”⁴³

There are a number of problems with Dake’s view. First, the fact that Jesus did not know or do something does not mean that He could not know or do it. A person can choose not to open a door to see who is knocking, but that does not mean that person lacks the power to do so. In several statements, Dake seems to leave room for the view that Jesus merely chose not to use His divine attributes; but this view requires that Jesus possessed His divine attributes, which is inconsistent with Dake’s many arguments that He did not possess them.

Second, without His divine attributes, Jesus cannot be God. This is because God is a perfectly simple being, that is, He is not composed of parts, which means His attributes and His nature are one and the same. God doesn’t just have the attribute of omnipotence, for example, He is omnipotence. In other words, God minus even one of His attributes is not God. God’s nature, moreover, is immutable (unchangeable), which means He cannot change and become different than He is; for example, God cannot change from being unlimited in power to being limited in power. It is also illogical to say, as Dake does, that Jesus changed from being immutable (unchangeable) to being mutable (changeable).

Finally, to say that Jesus laid aside “His equality as God” goes against Jesus’ claims to be (equal with) God and instead agrees with the Pharisees who said that Jesus, being a man, was falsely making Himself to be God (John10:30–33).

In the incarnation (when Christ “became” human), Christ’s nature did not change from divine to human; rather, the second person of the Trinity took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature. Jesus Christ, the God-Man, possesses two separate and distinct natures in His one person. This doctrine was spelled out at the Council of Chalcedon (AD451). The incarnation, therefore, did not require Jesus to give up His divine nature or attributes. Any limitations He had can be ascribed either to His human nature (e.g., His physical body could not be present everywhere at once) or to His choice not to exercise certain attributes of His divine nature, which He fully possessed even while on earth.

Dake’s view that Jesus retained His divine nature, but gave up the very attributes that make that nature divine is contradictory. It reveals a misunderstanding of the divine nature and compromises the very divinity of Jesus, in which he claims to believe.

SALVATION AND WORKS

Dake’s view of salvation is another problematic area. On one hand, he states that salvation is by grace and not by works: “Eternal life is a free gift….Men merit hell, but not eternal life. Jesus Christ alone procured it and gives it freely to all who believe.”⁴⁴ He also says it is by faith alone and not works: “The law of works cannot pardon….Faith alone in Christ will pardon and cancel the death penalty.”⁴⁵

On the other hand, he flatly denies that grace alone is sufficient for salvation: “It is true that grace cannot be…mixed with the law of works, but this does not prove that there are no conditions men must meet in order to get the benefits of grace. Not one scripture teaches unconditional grace.”⁴⁶ Dake asserts, “Grace cannot excuse and ignore the failure of saved man to meet the many conditions of salvation.”⁴⁷ He lists, for example, “two things [that are] necessary for one to be saved from all sin and only two,”⁴⁸ “3 things men must do and continue in to receive eternal life,”⁴⁹ “7 conditions of eternal salvation,”⁵⁰ and “23 conditions of eternal life.”⁵¹ In one comment, he says, “There are 1,050 commands in the N.T. for the Christian to obey….If obeyed, they will bring rich rewards here and forever; if disobeyed they will bring condemnation and eternal punishment.”⁵²

In Dake’s view, grace can set aside condemnation only if one remains free from sin. In a section listing “30 things grace cannot do,” he asserts, “The modern fallacy that judicial forgiveness covers ALL sins, past, present, and future; that God does not impute sins of believers to them; and that God never condemns a saved man for any sins committed, but charges them to the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most unscriptural and demon-inspired theories in any church.”⁵³

According to Dake, justification, the initial act of God by which He declares a believing sinner righteous, is maintained by obeying certain conditions and by not sinning: “every act of obedience is an act of faith and works combined to maintain justification before God.”⁵⁴ He states elsewhere that a believer who sins can lose his salvation and again be condemned: “A man forgiven of past sins must quit sin. If he commits the same sins again after conversion he will be charged with them again. They must be properly confessed and forgiven again or he will pay the death penalty for the new crimes.”⁵⁵

Dake fails to clearly and consistently teach that salvation (justification) is by grace alone through faith alone apart from works — two of the central doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. He states that salvation is by grace through faith, but he also teaches that obedience and confession of sin are necessary to receive and maintain justification. This is a confused gospel of grace plus works. Scripture, however, teaches that the only condition a person must meet to receive and keep eternal life (salvation) is to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts16:31; cf. John3:18;20:31; Eph.2:8). It also teaches that a believer does not lose eternal life and fall back into condemnation when he or she sins (John3:18;5:24; Rom.8:1–4,33–39).

GUARANTEED HEALTH

Dake’s literal interpretation of passages such as Isaiah53:5, John14:14, and 3John2 results in the view that Jesus bore our sickness as well as our sin in the atonement; therefore, physical healing can be appropriated now by faith the same as forgiveness. He states,

“Everyone can get healed now — right now by faith — as much as he can be forgiven of sins now. The reason all are not healed is because they do not believe this truth and accept it as they do forgiveness of sins.…Both forgiveness and healing were atoned for on the cross, but they are appropriated individually by faith when one meets the necessary conditions of repentance and faith in the atonement. All Hell cannot rob him of either blessing if one refuses to permit demon forces to defeat him.”⁵⁶

The problem with equating physical sickness with sin in the atonement is that if a person does not have enough faith to be healed, then that person has no assurance that he or she has enough faith to be saved. Hank Hanegraaff points out, “If both healing and salvation are included in [the atonement], they must be accessed in the same way. And if one does not have enough faith to make oneself well, it follows that he cannot have enough faith to be saved. Therefore those who die physically due to lack of faith must also wind up in hell for the same reason.”⁵⁷

In Dake’s view, the failure to be healed reflects willful unbelief and disobedience to the laws of God and nature.⁵⁸ He even calls sickness sin: “It becomes sinful to bear in our bodies those things that Christ has already borne for us.”⁵⁹ This view is not only unbiblical, it adds guilt to a person who is already suffering from an illness or disease. One wonders if Dake believed that his own inability to be healed from Parkinson’s disease, which eventually took his life, was a sin due to unbelief.

Dake argues that to deny his view results in the absurd conclusion that God wants us to be sick: “Shall we say that it is God’s will for us to live in sickly and diseased bodies in preference to clean and healthy ones?⁶⁰ This is a false dilemma. It is not the case that either God heals sickness now or He prefers sickness to health; there is a third option: God will defeat sickness and disease in the future. Paul, in fact, stated that the whole world is waiting for the full and final redemption from the effects of the fall, which includes sickness and disease (Rom.8:18–25).

Dake’s recurring theme of guaranteed health by positive confession of faith is paralleled by his theme of guaranteed prosperity.⁶¹ These are standard doctrines among Word-Faith teachers and can devastate a person’s health, finances, and faith if followed.

DANGER AHEAD

Dake’s view of essential Christian doctrines sometimes has more in common with the theology of the cults than with historic Christian theology. His works, while containing many biblical truths, include numerous other unbiblical and outlandish teachings, such as: God lives in a mansion on a material planet called Heaven and is invisible to us only because He is so far away that we cannot see Him,⁶² humans are miniatures of God in attributes and power,⁶³ Adam replaced Lucifer as ruler of the earth,⁶⁴ disease germs are related to demons,⁶⁵ God wants the races to remain separate as they were originally and will be in eternity.⁶⁶ It is unfortunate that Dake’s faulty works find such a welcome place in Christian churches and bookstores.

notes

1. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1988), s.v. “Dake, Finis Jennings.”

2. Finis J. Dake, “A True Story of a Magnificent Gift,” Dake Publishing, http://www.dake.com/true.html.

3. Burgess and McGee.

4. “Rev. Dake to Preach until Term Starts,” Waukegan (Illinois) News-Sun, February 10, 1937, 1.

5. Ibid.; see also Burgess and McGee.

6. “Zion Minister Fails to Post Mann Act Bail,” Chicago Daily Tribune, May 28, 1936, 17.

7. “Rev. Dake to Preach until Term Starts.”

8. “Flock Absolves Petting Parson, but Jail Awaits,” Chicago Daily Tribune, February 10, 1937, 3. Some suggest that this commentary became the notes for The Dake Annotated Reference Bible.

9. Burgess and McGee.

10. Richard Love and Jennifer Bryon Owen, “The Pentecostal Study Bible,” Charisma and Christian Life, January 1988, 39.

11. Finis Jennings Dake, foreword to God’s Plan for Man [hereafter GPFM] (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949).

12. Finis Jennings Dake, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible [hereafter DARB] (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963).

13. Burgess and McGee.

14. Keel Germaine, “Dake Bible Fills Niche,” CBA Marketplace, January 1997, 12.

15. Love and Owen, 39.

16. Jimmy Swaggart, “In Memory: Finis Jennings Dake 1902–1987,” Evangelist, September 1987, 44.

17. Larry Ollison, e-mail correspondence with author, July 25, 1997.

18. David G. Roebuck, e-mail correspondence with author, July 23, 1997.

19. GPFM, 37.

20. Ibid., 47. See foreword to GPFM; preface to DARB.

21. Ibid., 56.

22. Ibid., 57.

23. Ibid., 52.

24. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 23.

25. GPFM, 56–57.

26. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 181–82.

27. GPFM, 51

28. Ibid., 53.

29. DARB (New Testament), 280.

30. GPFM, 50.

31. DARB (New Testament), 280, emphasis added; GPFM, 65, 498.

32. The Greek and Latin Creeds, vol. 2, The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., ed. Philip Schaff (1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 66.

33. Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (1949; repr., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 89.

34. DARB (New Testament), 57 n. d, 93 n. r.

35. Ibid., 1 n. a; GPFM, 377.

36. GPFM, 496.

37. Ibid., 60.

38. Norman L. Geisler, In Defense of the Resurrection (Clayton, CA: Witness, 1993), 122–29.

39. William Lane Craig, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1981), 108.

40. Ron Rhodes, Christ Before the Manger (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 195.

41. GPFM, 387.

42. Ibid., 398.

43. Ibid.

44. DARB (New Testament), 165 n. h.

45. Ibid., 163 n. e.

46. Ibid., 226, emphasis in original.

47. GPFM, 343.

48. Ibid., 433.

49. DARB (New Testament), 107.

50. Ibid., 67.

51. Ibid., 100.

52. Ibid., 313.

53. GPFM, 342, emphasis in original; cf. 610. See also, “Redemption Fallacies Refuted,” DARB (Old Testament), 625–26.

54. DARB (New Testament), 261 n. m.

55. DARB (Old Testament), 625–26.

56. GPFM, 946.

57. Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 250.

58. GPFM, 262.

59. Ibid., 944–45.

60. Ibid., 946.

61. Ibid., 217–22.

62. GPFM, 57–58.

63. DARB (Old Testament), 548.

64. GPFM, 118.

65. Ibid., 241.

66. “30 Reasons for Segregation of Races,” DARB (New Testament), 159. For Dake Publishing’s account of their attempts to rectify a controversy with Frederick K. C. Price regarding this passage, see “Answering the Charge of Racism,” Dake Publishing, http://www.dake.com/ position.html.

Background on Wimber

John Wimber is in his early 50s and was converted at the age of 29. A former rock promoter and successful businessman, he turned his back on his past and trained at a Bible College associated with the Evangelical Friends. (This would appear to be the extent of his formal theological training; the Fuller calendar lists him as having only a Bachelor of Arts degree.) After a rather discouraging time in a pastorate he gave up on local church ministry and worked with the Fuller Evangelistic Association as a lecturer on church growth, becoming a self-taught expert on religious movements. After three years of work with the Association, he returned to pastoral work in 1978. By this time he was heavily involved in the charismatic movement. In 1981, at the request of Peter Wagner of the School of World Mission, he began to lecture on the impact that miraculous works have had in promoting rapid evangelization of groups on the mission field. The idea of a “power encounter” between the forces of darkness and the Gospel is highlighted in missions thinking today (and especially by those who apply “Church Growth” principles to missionary work.) This sort of emphasis is one that can be found in the Old Testament (where Elijah confronts the prophets of Baal) and has long been important in the conversion of groups which have a strong belief in a spirit world (notably amongst animist tribes.)

Wimber’s classes at Fuller soon began attracting large numbers of curious students. The classes included what Wimber terms “clinics” in which students are called upon to pray for one another for healing and other forms of ministry. The rather sensational aspects of the class have made it even more popular; recently Wimber has taken it on the road.

Positive Aspects of Wimber’s Conference

Having attended one of his conferences, there are a number of very positive things which this writer can gladly affirm. Certainly evangelicals should rejoice that the work of the Holy Spirit is being given prominence. Speaking as a church historian, it is lamentable that the church has often tended to over-react to the excesses of those who have made much of the work of the Holy Spirit (such as the second century Montanists, the seventeenth century English Puritans, and twentieth century Pentecostalism.) What Wimber is doing in emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit, is a good and helpful thing.

Secondly, his concern to equip believers for ministry is excellent. He wants to see individuals moving out in faith and trusting God to work in new and exciting ways. He is clearly picking up some of the emphases of the “body-life” movement (often associated in people’s minds with Ray Stedman) which has done much in evangelical circles to emphasize the need for the “equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry.” In this regard, Wimber has a strong emphasis upon the organic nature of the church and urges all of its members to develop their own gifts in ministry.

Thirdly, Wimber offers a good critique of traditional Pentecostal theology, and does not formulate his interpretation of personal spiritual renewal in terms of a “second blessing” which is characterized by speaking in tongues. Here he seems to be relying on George Ladd from Fuller Seminary, and upon the English theologian, James Dunn.

Fourthly, his vision is for the use of spiritual gifts (such as healing) in terms of evangelism and church growth. He regales his audience with story after story of how the manifestations of miraculous gifts have led to conversions and to the growth of the church.

Fifthly, Wimber has a strong appreciation of “spiritual warfare” and underlines the power of God to combat the forces of darkness.

Sixthly, when it comes to healing, he is careful to reject the teaching of some charismatic and holiness groups which maintain that physical healing is in the atonement — that God has provided for the physical healing of Christians in the sacrifice of his Son. Furthermore, he admits candidly that many of those for whom he has prayed have not been healed, and he strongly encourages those who feel that they may have been cured to have a doctor confirm the fact before they go off any medication or suspend treatment. Would that others like him would give the same advice!!!

Finally, it was delightful to see how encouraged and enthused the vast majority of those who heard Wimber were. Many pastors and lay people were strengthened in their faith and challenged to trust God for greater things in the future.

Difficulties

While rejoicing in the positive aspects of the conference and of Wimber’s ministry, it is important to mention the difficulties which this ministry creates for evangelicals. In the first place, the advertising for the conference is rather sensational and leaves one with questions about its integrity. The focus is clearly on “Signs and Wonders,” which almost becomes an advertising slogan in Wimber’s literature. There was a great deal of “hype,” not only in the advertising brochures, but also on the first day of the conference. Initially Wimber gave the impression that it is commonplace for non-Christians who attend his church in Yorba Linda, California, to be converted one day, and the next to be out on the street casting out demons and healing the sick without even knowing John 3:16 (Wimber’s illustration, not mine.) Yet on the second day of the conference there was almost a complete reversal of this impression, with Wimber acknowledging that they see many who are not healed and that some people for whom they pray, die rather than recover.

Secondly, one might well ask whether the strong focus upon “Signs and Wonders” is entirely Biblical? Hebrews 2:3-4 is cited as a proof-text: “God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” But the text indicates that the primary focus is to be upon the Gospel: Christians are to be concerned with its proclamation first and foremost. The signs, wonders and so on were given to confirm the Gospel — one needs to get the horse before the cart here — the New Testament emphasis is always upon the proclamation of the Gospel. We are not encouraged to speculate about how God might choose to confirm it. To become sidetracked on signs and wonders is to be entranced by sensationalism and is not something which Jesus encouraged; in fact it was something which he discouraged probably because he was only too aware that people would seek him for the wrong reasons. Such an overdue concern with miraculous signs reminds one of Augustine’s comment: “Jesus is usually sought after for something else, not for his own sake.”

A third disturbing aspect of the conference was the strong anti-intellectualism which Wimber exhibited from time to time. His insistence that “At some point critical thinking must be laid aside” is nothing less than dangerous. Wimber several times equated critical thinking with unbelief, and his apparent inability to distinguish the two is most disturbing. At one point he asked: “When are we going to see a generation who doesn’t try to understand this book [the Bible], but just believes it?” In effect, this is saying “When are we going to see a generation that believes my interpretation of this book without question?” This strongly anti-intellectual strain which shows through in Wimber is typical of nineteenth century American revivalism and is just the sort of thing that evangelicalism has been trying to live down in the twentieth century. It disparages God’s gracious gift of our mind and reflects ill on a creator who chose to endow us with the ability to think critically.

At the same time as he disparaged the intellect, Wimber attempted to use intellectual argument to convince his listeners of his case. In a lecture on “world views” Wimber attempted to argue that the Western “Worldview” is the product of Platonic dualistic thinking, first introduced into Western theology by Augustine. Its growing acceptance “during the 17th and 18th centuries” caused a “new science based on materialistic naturalism” to emerge which resulted in a “secularization of science and a mystification of religion.”1 Wimber seems to have little appreciation that throughout the centuries Christians have struggled with these questions; for most in his audience this grossly-simplified explanation is enough. There was no acknowledgment of the extent to which Western thinking is rooted in a Biblical understanding. At this point it would be worthwhile asking if Wimber has given serious thought as to how other “world views” have affected his own, particularly when it comes to the methodology presented as regards to healing. In the seminar on healing, one of the phenomena one was instructed to look for was “hot-spots,” a buzz-word in the New Age thinking emerging in California, which has a hearty blend of Oriental mysticism and Eastern religion.

Aside from these questions about Wimber’s grasp of intellectual questions, there are some serious difficulties in his theology for a thinking evangelical. In the fist place, his use of Scripture is highly problematic. His starting place seems to be his own experience and Scripture is drawn in to proof-text his own position. This was particularly seen in his teaching methodology regarding healing. People were taught a theology of healing based on the observation of phenomenological responses (shaking, stiffening, respiration, laughter, fluttering of eyelids, etc.) and were encouraged to use such subjective criteria as the basis on which to evaluate spiritual responses.

A second theological difficulty is Wimber’s radical Arminianism (some might well argue it is Pelagianism). He seems to have little or no appreciation of the doctrine of the Fall and speaks of being involved in “restoring the Edenic state” in and through his ministry. He leaves no real place for an on-going struggle with the old nature in the life of a Christian which the New Testament teaches the believer to expect. In the long-run this can only lead to disillusionment because the promised state is not attained — or to a refusal to face reality by denying one’s own experience of temptation and sin.

A third area of theological difficulty is Wimber’s demonology; certainly most evangelicals would disagree with his assertion that a Christian can be “demonized.” His view on this seems to contradict the assurance of Scripture that “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation, behold, old things are passed away, and all things are become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17) His concern with demonic activity does not seem to take seriously the Scriptural injunction that when Christians are afflicted by the power of darkness, a believer is to “resist the devil and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7)

Two final aspects of his theology seem to be closely linked together: his eschatology (doctrine of last things); and his ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). It soon becomes clear listening to him that Wimber has a love-hate relationship with the church. He professes to love it in all of its expressions and is strong in his denunciations of divisions within it. Almost in the same breath, however, he is devastating in his criticisms: “The church has become wicked in its pride and separation;” “The church is an unbelieving and perverse generation today.” He is also frequently cynical and disparaging in his references to other churches (including churches which major on Bible study and even on the charismatic gifts) and went as far as to compare the church to the relationship between David and Bathesheba.

None of these devastating criticisms were applied to Wimber’s own Vineyard Fellowship, however. In his view Christ is now purifying the church and his “Fellowship” is in the vanguard of this work. Here his understanding of the last days begins to shine through. Wimber stated categorically that he did not believe in the imminent return of Christ for a church: the church is now being restored to its pristine purity, being made fit for her bridegroom. Christ will only come back for a church which is pure and spotless and that she needs to make herself ready. Such an understanding is not new, of course. Usually it is referred to as “restorationism”: the church has lost a key aspect of the New Testament’s pattern for it and that key is now being restored to the church. Often such restorationism is linked to the return of Christ: when the church recovers the missing key, then Christ will return. It should be of no surprise that restorationism was a common theme in 19th century American revivalism and produced a host of new denominations which were convinced that God was busy restoring the New Testament church in their midst. If the rest of the church only got on board, then all would be sweetness and light. Sometimes the key was felt to be the recovery of apostolic ministry (as with the Irvingites in Britain), sometimes there was an insistence on believer’s baptism (as with Alexander Campbell’s “Disciples of Christ”) while at other times it was tied to a scheme of prophetic interpretation (as with the Seventh Day Adventists and the Church of the Latter Day Saints.)

Such restorationism is inevitably divisive and Wimber’s version of it will eventually prove to be so as well. It was seen at the conference in a strong us-them mentality: those who are for “Signs and Wonders” and those who were just ordinary evangelicals (or even just run-of-the-mill charismatics.) Wimber seeks to extend his influence by reaching pastors and church leaders: he clearly gears his message to them. Testimonies were offered at the conference by pastors who had turned their backs on their own denominations or local fellowships and witnessed that God had greatly blessed their ministry through their willingness to embrace Wimber’s teachings. (So much for the talk about the “heinousness of division.”)

It is evident that Wimber is endeavouring to spawn a movement, but like other restorationists before him, he will succeed in only forming a new denomination. Whatever one might think about the need for yet another denomination, one certainly can object to its being done under the guise of a conference on “Signs and Wonders” and also to the credibility lent to Wimber by Fuller Seminary. It used to be that those who split churches were refused degrees from seminaries; it is rather an odd turn-up for the book that Fuller seems to be used to legitimize such division. [It is my understanding that since first writing this article in June, 1985, that Fuller has tried to distance itself from Wimber's excesses by no longer giving graduate credit for this course. I also have been led to understand that the school may take yet further action.]

If the positive elements in Wimber’s conferences can be kept and balance be brought into other areas (Wimber makes it all too plain how much he hates the word “balance”), then this ministry could be of great blessing to the wider body of believers. With its present direction and emphases, however, the movement is likely to produce reactions among evangelicals which in the long run will be detrimental to the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian church.

Endnotes:

1. John Wimber, Signs Wonders and Church Growth (Vineyard Ministries International, Placentia, California, n.d.), Section 3, p.7.

– Dr. Don Lewis, Regent College

It is our conclusion, after several months of extensive research and dialogue, that The Vineyard is a dynamic and fruitful church which preached the historic gospel of Christ and contributes valuably to the body of Christ in many ways. However, we are unable to give The Vineyard an unqualified endorsement, for reasons which shall be stated shortly.

On the positive side, the Vineyard has much to commend it. Their doctrine is quite sound in almost all areas, including the essential doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His substitutionary death and bodily resurrection, and so forth. There is a strong and healthy emphasis on worship, a seriousness about evangelism and discipleship, a sensitivity to people’s spiritual and emotional needs today, a boldness in their expression of faith in God’s power, and an awareness of the body of Christ outside the circle of their own churches. Obviously, a church with all these things going for it is a sound Christian church.

There are, however, some negative things which must be said. For one thing, while there is much teaching in The Vineyard on certain practical matters (marriage and family life, gifts of the Spirit, deliverance, etc.), there appears to be little emphasis on teaching the Bible per se. This lack stands in contrast to the very strong Bible teaching at Calvary Chapel, a church with which The Vineyard was once associated. Moreover, many Vineyard leaders hold to the view that the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice, but is not “inerrant” (without error) in all matters of scientific and historical fact. Although this view does not of itself disqualify The Vineyard leaders as evangelicals, it is not a teaching which CRI would endorse. Our conviction is that the Bible is inerrant in all that it says. There is no evidence, however, that the leader’s view of Scripture has led to any erroneous teachings, although it is consistent with their lack of emphasis on Bible teaching.

While Bible teaching is not emphasized enough, the role of experience in the Christian life appears to be somewhat over-emphasized. People in The Vineyard frequently seem to be willing to allow their spiritual experiences to be self-authenticating. They seem too willing to assume that whatever transpires in their midst is from God That is not to say that the leaders do not attempt to show that their experiences are spiritual, but that experience far too often is their starting point.

John Wimber, the pastor of The Vineyard Christian Fellowship, at one time held to the extreme dispensationalist view that the spiritual gifts of healing was meant only for the first-century Christian church. When he saw clear evidence that God heals Christians today, he was forced to reevaluate his theology. Such reevaluation prompted by experience can be healthy, since our understanding of Scripture sometimes is deficient. However, in the case of The Vineyard, the evidence so far suggests that this approach has become the rule, rather than the exception, in seeking an understanding of God’s Word. Out position at CRI is that we must first determine what the Bible teaches, and then judge our experience by the fixed standard of the written Word of God. The Vineyard’s approach is to use the Bible as a means of confirming what they perceive God to be doing. Again, we admit that God can act first, with our understanding coming second; but when this is a consistent practice rather than an exceptional circumstance, experience then threatens to become the real standard.

One apparent symptom of this experience orientation is the fact that certain phenomena have convinced The Vineyard’s leaders (in spite of a lack of solid scriptural support) that Christians can be demonized and may need to have demons “expulsed” or cast out from them. We do not discount the possibility that a Christian can be oppressed by demonic forces as a result of unrepentant sin. However, the New Testament never suggests that a Christian can be “demonized,” or that deliverance from demons is a common means of Christian healing. Rather, spiritual problems in the life of the believer are to be handled through repentance, confession, and walking in the fullness of the Holy Spirit (II Corinthians 7:8-10; John 1:7-10; Galatians 5:16-25). While The

Vineyard is far more cautious and constrained in the practice of deliverance than many other fellowships which stress deliverance from demons, we still see the teaching that Christians can have demons to be, at least, distracting and potentially destructive.

Another disturbing aspect of The Vineyard’s ministry is their lack of any written statement of faith. because Vineyard members come from a variety of denominational backgrounds, the leadership has avoided setting strong doctrinal standards. This de-emphasis of doctrine is also consistent with the leadership of John Wimber and Bob Fulton (pastor of The Vineyard in Yorba Linda, California), whose backgrounds theologically include association with the Quakers, who typically stress the inner experience of God and minimize the need for doctrinal expressions of one’s understanding of God. While we are called to an inward experience of God, we must not neglect doctrine either. The Vineyard would do well to set at least minimum doctrinal standards for its members through a written statement of basic beliefs.

In conclusion, while The Vineyard is a vibrant, sound Christian church, our concern is that Bible teaching and doctrine are de-emphasized, while experience plays too large a role in determining their understanding of God’s Word. At present, we do not regard them as aberrational, nor do we expect them to become such; however, given their emphasis on experience and their “experimental” nature, the potential for drifting away from sound doctrine is there. Our prayer is that God will continue to bless their ministry at the same time leading them to greater faithfulness in the teaching of sound Bible doctrine.

My pastor friend [Richard Heard] stepped up to the clear pulpit in the center of the platform, opened the Bible, and quietly read the gripping passage from Second Chronicles 7:14….Then he closed his Bible, gripped the edges of the pulpit with trembling hands, and said, “The word of the Lord to us is to stop seeking His benefits and seek Him. We are not to seek His hands any longer, but seek His face.”

In that instant, I heard what sounded like a thunderclap echo through the building, and the pastor was literally picked up and thrown backward about ten feet, effectively separating him from the pulpit. When he went backward, the pulpit fell forward. The beautiful flower arrangement positioned in front of it fell to the ground, but by the time the pulpit hit the ground, it was already in two pieces. It had split into two pieces almost as if lightning had hit it! At that instant the tangible terror of the presence of God filled that room (emphasis in original).1

With that event on 20 October 1996, Tommy Tenney, who was guest speaker at Richard Heard’s Christian Tabernacle in Houston, Texas, sprang into the Christian limelight and hasn’t looked back. Since the debut of his million-selling book The God Chasers in 1998, he has written or cowritten over 20 books and has been a frequent guest on the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s (TBN) flagship program, Praise the Lord. 2 He receives 500 invitations a month to speak and has had to hire 15 assistants since The God Chasers was published.3

Tenney has many valuable things to say. With respect to serving others, he writes, “You may never raise someone from the dead, but you can comfort the sick. You may never be able to open blind eyes, but you can change the oil in a single mother’s car or prepare a meal for your ill neighbor. You may not be called to preach on the street corner or declare God’s Word before thousands, but you could teach a class of three-year-olds that Jesus loves them.”4 Concerning our Christian witness, he writes, “We spend entire lifetimes sitting in pews but leave the four walls of our churches and make no impact on our world whatsoever.”5 Also apparent throughout his writings is that he is a family man devoted to his wife and three children, a virtue that is increasingly hard to find these days.

Despite several biblically sound and honorable aspects of Tenney’s ministry, a number of serious problems plague his teachings and need to be addressed.

During the process of writing this article, I contacted Tenney through Jerry Parsons, Director of Ministry Develop-ment, and I asked if Tenney would be willing to answer some questions about his beliefs and teachings.6 Tenney agreed to view a list of e-mailed questions and decide whether to respond.7 Ten questions were then submitted to him.8 Five weeks later Parsons indicated that Tenney would decline the opportunity to reply.9 This is unfortunate, given the fact that Mr. Tenney wrote an entire book calling for greater unity within the body of Christ. 10 Unity without discussion is very difficult.

Tenney’s Background

Tommy Tenney was raised under the teachings of a congregation of the United Pentecostal Church (UPC) in West Monroe, Louisiana.11 He is the son of T. F. Tenney, who is currently a UPC District Superintendent in Louisiana, overseeing 300 churches. Tenney’s wife, Jeannie, is the daughter of G. E. Switzer, pastor of Apostolic Church (UPC) in Belleville, Illinois.12 Tenney began to preach at the age of 16, pastored for nearly 10 years, and has been an itinerant minister for nearly 20 years, traveling to over 40 nations thus far.13

This aspect of Tenney’s background is especially relevant because the UPC explicitly denies the doctrine of the Trinity,14 an essential teaching of the Bible and the historic Christian faith. Contrary to Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19, official UPC doctrine also teaches that converts must be baptized only in Jesus’ name and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In fact, to baptize with any other formula is another gospel to them.15

Tenney left the UPC when “he realized that he ‘couldn’t enforce some of the views’ of the UPC — including rules that to this day forbid pastors in the group from owning televisions.”16 While we rejoice that Tenney has left the UPC, it is unclear as to whether he left for entirely the right reasons. Nowhere does he state that vital doctrinal issues such as the Trinity and salvation by grace through faith alone17 were factors.

Tenney and The trinity

Failing to find a doctrinal statement on Tenney’s Web site, I sent them an e-mail requesting a statement of faith.18 Rather than forwarding one, Tenney’s daughter, Tiffany, suggested I read his book God’s Dream Team.19 In this book he writes, “Christians share a common body of beliefs, such as salvation by faith in Christ, the divine inspiration and authority of Scriptures, the deity of Jesus Christ and the triune oneness of God.”20

While initially it may appear that Tenney embraces the Trinity, he never explains what he means by “triune oneness,” a term that is vague and open to various interpretations. For example, one New Age Web site writes, “Within our center of self-conscious awareness, or cosca, the First, Second and Third Principles of Consciousness, called Father, Son and Holy Ghost, co-exist in Triune Oneness.”21 Religious Science founder Ernest Holmes wrote, “The Universe is threefold in Its nature. It is Spirit, Soul and Body.…The Spirit impregnates the Soul with Its Ideas, and the Soul gives form to these Ideas and clothes them with flesh. But this is the Trinity of Unity, a Triune Oneness; for the Three are really one.”22 Although I am not suggesting that Tenney is a New Age or Religious Science practitioner, only a careful explanation from him can determine the precise meaning he intends with the term “triune oneness,” especially given his extensive background in an anti-Trinitarian denomination and conspicuous lack of clear commentary on the doctrine of the Trinity in his more than 20 published books. In light of this situation, it is most regrettable that one of the questions Tenney declined to answer was whether he would affirm the definition of the Trinity as expressed in the Athanasian Creed.23

He does write, however, “Theologians struggle vainly to draw a line between Sonship and Fatherhood. We are unable to describe the oneness of Father and Son or the unity of the Trinity because these things are beyond our comprehension.”24 Historical biblical Christianity not only can but always has drawn a line between the Son and the Father. For example, it was the Son who died on the cross, not the Father. On the other hand, for someone holding to a Oneness view of the Godhead in which the Father and Son aren’t distinct Persons simultaneously, drawing such a line poses a problem. Moreover, consideration of other factors in Tenney’s teachings may help us better understand his thinking on the Trinity.

In his call for unity in the church, he writes, “Unity is achieved through tolerance….The apostle Paul taught tolerance for the sake of the gospel in the area of personal opinion. He did not, however, encourage us to compromise doctrine or biblical standards for the sake of agreement.”25 To this well-taken point he adds, “Too often we cling to our own personal opinions and close-minded interpretations, to the detriment and destruction of unity in the Body.”26 Tenney apparently holds, therefore, that there are some doctrines we must believe, but another question he declined to answer in my e-mail to him was whether he considered the Trinity an essential doctrine. Nowhere in his writings does he say it is. His continued elusiveness when it comes to this topic suggests that this doctrine is one he would relegate to the category of personal opinion.

Tenney seems to feel little need to defend any essential doctrine. He writes, “God does not need people to fight for Him; He needs people who will be servants. The principles of His kingdom will fight for themselves.”27 He affirms, “God is fully God, whether we all describe and worship Him in the same way or not. He is well able to correct error, reprove wrongs, redirect misdirected emphases and reform errant theology.”28 The inspired authors of Scripture do not agree with Tenney. Jude states, “I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Furthermore, Paul urged, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16). Nowhere does Scripture teach that we are to sit back and let God, independent of human agents, take care of error in the church.

Given Tenney’s anti-Trinitarian background, his lack of any clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity even when directly questioned, and his disregard for the central role of this essential doctrine, there exists sound warrant for regarding him as a non-Trinitarian until he clearly explains otherwise. The same concern has previously been raised with T. D. Jakes.29 We may well be dealing with a new generation of Oneness Pentecostals who seek to expand their influence into orthodox circles by affirming the “Trinity” (unlike previous generations) while nonetheless refusing to be specific about what the term means to them.

SCRIPTURE AND FRESH REVELATION

Although Tenney’s views on the Godhead may not surprise some, his denigration of Scripture and doctrine is still shocking. He writes:

Truth is where God’s been. Revelation is where God is….Unfortunately, the Church today spends countless hours and much energy debating where God has been…[God chasers] want to run hard and hot on this trail of truth until they arrive at the point of revelation, where He presently exists….God chasers don’t want to just study from the moldy pages of what God has done; they’re anxious to see what God is doing. There is a vast difference between present truth and past truth (emphases in original).30

This isn’t an isolated quote. Tenney also states, “We’ve tried to cram doctrine down people’s throats…but people don’t want doctrine, they don’t want tracts…they just want Him!”31 Apart from the teaching of Scripture, however, people can’t have Him, because the Holy Spirit works through Scripture to reveal Himself to us (2 Tim. 3:14–17). Additionally, the Bible does not tell us to give people whatever they want. Humankind, in its fallen state, doesn’t know what is best (Rom. 3:10–18). Regarding the importance of doctrine, Martin Luther wrote:

The great difference between doctrine and life is obvious, even as is the difference between heaven and earth. Life may be unclean, sinful, and inconsistent; but doctrine must be pure, holy, sound, and unchanging. Life may show omissions and come short of what doctrine calls for. But from doctrine (says Christ, Matt. 5:18) not a tittle or letter may be omitted, however much life may fail to meet the requirements of doctrine. This is so because doctrine is God’s Word and God’s truth alone, whereas life is partly our own doing. On this account doctrine must remain entirely pure. God will have patience with man’s moral failings and imperfections and forgive them. But He cannot, will not, and shall not tolerate a man’s altering or abolishing doctrine itself. For doctrine involves His exalted, divine Majesty itself. In the sphere of doctrine, therefore, forgiveness and patience are out of order.³²

In sharp contrast, Tenney writes:

We make a great deal out of reading the Word and that is important. But we need to remember that the early Church didn’t have access to what we call the New Testament for many years. They didn’t even have the Old Testament Scriptures because those expensive scrolls were locked up in synagogues….So what did they have? They walked and talked with Him in such a rich level of intimacy that it wasn’t necessary for them to pour over dusty love letters that were written long ago (emphases in original).33

In an endnote, Tenney says he didn’t mean to imply that the Bible is unnecessary or irrelevant, but his repeated denigration of Scripture is irresponsible at best and sends a clear signal to the reader that personal, subjective experience takes precedence over objective Scripture.

Tenney further declares, “Religious spirits must preserve where He’s been at the expense of where He is! But a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with only an argument.”34 Cults such as Mormonism have adopted the same philosophy and this has led them into a great deal of error. Rather than relegating our intellect to second place, Christ urges His followers, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37). Indeed, all personal, subjective experience must be tested by Scripture and not the reverse (1 Thess. 5:21).

In defending the necessity of fresh revelation, Tenney writes, “Saul was faithfully following the old dusty footprints of the law that had turned to legalism. That empty legalism without revelation caused Saul to persecute the Christians who were following fresh new tracks of revelation….Honestly, if you ever have a real visitation of the manifest presence of God in your church, it will probably mess up your theology….”35

If an experience will “mess up” what God’s Word clearly teaches, we can be certain it is not from God! Because the early church was aware that heresy was quickly creeping in, it formulated creeds to combat false doctrines. Correct doctrine was considered so important that Christians would die rather than let heresy enter the church. It appears that Tenney, on the other hand, would have experience and new revelation take precedence over Scripture and sound doctrine.

Tenney writes:

We all need to read and study God’s Word daily, but we don’t need to worship past revelation to the exclusion of all new revelation. Luther had a wonderful revelation of God’s grace and he shared this ‘footprint of God’ with the world. Once the truth of ‘salvation by faith’ was laid down as a doctrine, men felt compelled to build a camp or shrine around that truth as if that was all there was and ever would be. I believe that God is constantly giving us new revelations of His Person.36

What Martin Luther proclaimed was not a “new revelation,” but an essential doctrine that always was present in Scripture. Luther woke the church up to the fact that it had strayed from that doctrine. If Christians have built a “camp” around that truth, they have done well because their salvation depends on it! Tenney’s “new revelation” suggests that Scripture is insufficient, and he opens wide the door to false teachings.

DISCERNING TRUTH FROM ERROR

“If we can just turn on the light of His glory,” says Tenney, “then suddenly everyone will see and know the difference between truth and error. Most people will choose truth when given the opportunity; it is just that they have never have [sic] had enough light around them to see the way” (emphasis in original).37

This statement contradicts God’s Word on several counts. First, Scripture is our means of separating truth from error. Paul declared, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Second, it flies in the face of the inherent sinfulness of humankind. The prophet Jeremiah made it clear that “the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure” (Jer. 17:9). Fallen men and women will not choose truth on their own (John 6:44). Third, Paul taught, “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). Here, contrary to Tenney, Paul shows that although they are without excuse, sinful people tend to ignore God’s revelation in nature.

SALVATION WITHOUT THE GOSPEL

Tenney said after the pulpit split at Christian Tabernacle, the church immediately began to have altar calls. He wrote that the saved “joined with the parade of the unsaved, who were now saved, provoked purely by encountering the presence of God. There was no sermon and no real song…”38 ¾ and no gospel message! If people are saved apart from the Word of God, one has to wonder both from what and to what they are being saved. The lost need to hear both the Law and the gospel — the Law to make people aware of the fact that they are sinners unable to save themselves and the gospel to present the good news that Christ has redeemed them. None of that seems to be a factor in the revival Tenney is touting.

Tenney believes if we can bring God down from heaven, His very presence will cause people to repent. He states, “If somehow we can recreate the throne zone…as it is in Heaven in our churches and meetings, if our worship becomes so compelling that the manifest presence of God begins to put itself on display in our midst, then we will see the glory of God begin to flow through our cities. When this happens, the lost will come to Christ on a massive scale that we have never seen before.”39 Tenney informs us that God “wants to come ever stronger…until your flesh won’t be able to stand it. The beauty of it is this: neither will the unsaved driving by be able to resist” (emphases in original).40

The apostle Paul once asked, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?…Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:14, 17). If Scripture knows of no other way to be saved, what makes Tenney think he does?

OTHER PROBLEMATIC TEACHINGS

Tenney has made numerous other problematic statements in his books and tapes that bear examination. What follows are just a few of them.

A Pantheistic God. In The God Chasers, Tenney gives a pantheistic definition of God, writing that God

is that “particle” in the atomic nucleus that nuclear physicists cannot see and can only track….God is everywhere in everything. He is the composite of everything, both the glue that holds the pieces of the universe together and the pieces themselves! This explains why people can sit on a barstool in an inebriated state and suddenly feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit without the benefit of a preacher, gospel music, or any other Christian influence. God is literally right there in the bar with them….41

It is true that “in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17), but it is unscriptural to say God is a “composite of everything” or that He comprises the “pieces themselves.” As John Ankerberg and John Weldon write, “God did not emanate something of Himself in the process of creation so that everything in creation is a part of God….He spoke and it came to be.”42

Hearing God’s Voice. Also of great concern are the “prophetic” words Tenney has received. This is illustrated in a revelation he had in Los Angeles. During a severe El Niño-related thunderstorm, God supposedly told Tenney, “Just as they are unprepared for the rain in the natural, so are they unprepared for My rain in the Spirit. And I will come upon them suddenly.” Tenney then heard the meteorologist say, “This is not the last storm. Actually, they are stacking up out in the Pacific like waves, one against another.” This “struck a prophetic nerve” in Tenney: “El Niño in Spanish means ‘the babe’ and is used to refer to the babe of Bethlehem! That weatherman didn’t realize that he was prophesying, but he was talking about the ‘Christ child,’ the Source of all the waves of glory about to sweep over this planet” (emphases in original).43 With such interpretations of natural events, totally unsupported by Scripture, one may prophesy anything without fear of being wrong.

Joseph’s Rejection of Jesus. In an audiotape entitled Dealing with Rejection,44 Tenney draws some rather shocking and unwarranted conclusions about Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father. He states, “Joseph took Jesus in as quote ‘his son,’ his supposed son. But I personally believe that Joseph began to have a problem with Jesus. That as he was raising Jesus, first of all, he had no honeymoon with his betrothed bride for at least a year….How would that make Joseph feel?” According to Tenney, after James was born, Jesus is “left out.” That is why Joseph left Jesus at the temple when He was 12! Tenney suggests that Jesus’ siblings and neighbors didn’t believe He was the Messiah because Joseph would squelch all attempts to discuss it. Whenever Mary would speak up, “Joseph would snarl and look at her and say ‘Shut up, Mary! They won’t understand it anyway. I never did understand it.’” That may be why, according to Tenney, Joseph is never heard from again after the temple experience. Of course, this dishonoring view of Joseph has absolutely no support from Scripture.

TEACHING: AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY

Tommy Tenney’s intentions may be good, but the profession of pastor or teacher carries with it enormous responsibility. James wrote, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1). What a teacher communicates can have an immense impact on the lives of many Christians; therefore, the responsibility of communicating accurate doctrine is equally immense.

Many of Tenney’s teachings have great potential for harm because of his denigration of Scripture, lack of concern for defending the faith, emphasis on new revelation and experience, and poor exegesis of biblical passages. By elevating experience and “chasing” after God through ongoing new revelations, Tenney exhibits a dissatisfaction with the very Word of God.

Of course, responsibility for Tenney’s impact doesn’t rest solely on his shoulders. Christians have a duty to follow the Bereans in Acts 17:11 and compare all teachings with Scripture. Those who criticize some of today’s teachings are often accused of putting God in a box. In a sense, they are correct. All teaching must conform to what we know about God as contained in His Word. To go outside of that box is to invite false teachings into the church.

An article in the Washington Times last summer told of how a paradigm shift is occurring with many churches deemphasizing formal theological training for their pastors in favor of “on-the-job training.”45 The article reports that churches are asking what people want, with the answer being, “People want experience….So worship is everything.” If that is the coming trend in Christianity, it is imperative that Christians test everything they hear from the pulpit and see in their favorite Christian bookstore. Failing to do so, the Christian church may well find itself in a new Dark Ages.

Bob Hunter is a Researcher at the Christian Research Institute.

Notes

1. Tommy Tenney, The God Chasers (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1998), 7.
2. GodChasers Network, 15 August 2001 (http://www.godchasers.net).
3. J. Lee Grady, “Who Is This God Chaser?” Charisma, March 2000, 55.
4. Tommy Tenney, God’s Secret to Greatness (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2000), 21.
5. Tommy Tenney, The God Catchers (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 63.
6. E-mail to Tommy Tenney, 10 April 2001.
7. E-mail from Jerry Parsons, 4 June 2001.
8. E-mail to Jerry Parsons, 15 June 2001.
9. E-mail from Jerry Parsons, 25 July 2001.
10. Tommy Tenney, God’s Dream Team: A Call to Unity (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1999).
11. Tommy Tenney, God’s Favorite House (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1999), 1.
12. God Chasers Web site Staff Bios, http://www.godchasers.net/bio.html. Switzer’s Web site, http://www.apostolicchurch.net/home.html.
13. Tommy Tenney, How to Be a God Chaser and a Kid Chaser (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2001), 14, and God Chasers Web site at http://www.godchasers.net/bio.html.
14. The Trinity is defined as three coequal, coeternal, and coexistent Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — subsisting within the nature of the one true God. The UPC holds to a form of an ancient heresy known as Sebellianism or Modalistic Monarchianism, which denies the eternal distinctions among the three Persons of the Godhead. (See the UPC official Web site at http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp). For a helpful article on the importance of the Trinity, see James R. White, “Loving the Trinity,” Christian Research Journal 21, 4: 20.
15. See UPC Web site at http://www.upci.org/doctrine/baptism.asp.
16. Charisma, March 2000, 55.
17. UPC also teaches that baptism in Jesus’ name alone and speaking in tongues are indispensable to salvation.
18. E-mail to Tiffany Tenney, 8 February 2001.
19. E-mail dated 8 February 2001.
20. Tenney, God’s Dream Team, 18.
21. “The Natural Phenomenon of Self-fulfillment,” Brainstar Presents a Spiritual Renaissance at the Living Tree at http://business.fortunecity.com/geffen/245/7melessay.html.
22. Earnest Shurtleff Holmes, The Science of Mind. See http://website.lineone.net/~ernestholmes/sompart3.htm.
23. This well-formulated ancient creed states, in part, “We worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance….But the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal.”
24. Tenney, God’s Dream Team, 31.
25. Ibid., 111–12.
26. Ibid., 112.
27. Ibid., 64.
28. Tommy Tenney, Answering God’s Prayer (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2000), 185.
29. See Jerry L. Buckner, “The Man, His Ministry, and His Movement: Concerns about the Teachings of T. D. Jakes,” Christian Research Journal 22, 2 (1999): 12-19.
30. Tenney, The God Chasers, Introduction.
31. Ibid., 48–49.
32. What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian, comp. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia, 1994), 417.
33. Tenney, The God Chasers, 74.
34. Ibid., 20.
35. Tenney, God’s Favorite House, 40.
36. Ibid., 39.
37. Ibid., 64.
38. Tenney, The God Chasers, 8.
39. Tenney, God’s Favorite House, 122.
40. Tenney, The God Chasers, 12.
41. Tenney, The God Chasers, 36.
42. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996), 583.
43. Tenney, The God Chasers, 109–10.
44. Tommy Tenney, Dealing with Rejection audiotape (Pineville, LA: GodChasers.network, n.d.), side 2.
45. Julie Duin, “Pulpits in Peril,” Washington Times, 6 July 2001, sect. A.

Unfortunately, what I had envisioned as a series of private meetings has become grist for the rumor mill. Within days of my visit, people reported hearing that I had been “slain in the spirit” and had succumbed to sensational manifestations such as spasmodic jerking. Faxes and phone calls flooded the Christian Research Institute International’s offices ranging from pleas “to say it isn’t so” to chastisements for “selling out to the enemy.”

In light of the confusion and controversy surrounding my visit to Pensacola, allow me to set the record straight.

First and foremost let me emphasize that my meetings with John Kilpatrick, Stephen Hill, Michael Brown, et al., should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the “Pensacola Outpouring.” Not only I, but Pensacola leaders have underscored this fact. In the words of Michael Brown, “Hank Hanegraaff is not now saying that he endorses the revival.” Rather than an endorsement, my meetings with Pensacola leaders should be viewed as an encouragement to carry on dialogue with those with whom you disagree, in a manner that reaches rather than repels. Years ago I began meeting with leaders of the Worldwide Church of God as they were transitioning from cultism to Christianity. Not only did those meetings result in meaningful dialogue but they produced lasting friendships as well.

Furthermore, let me underscore the fact that I continue to be gravely concerned about the spiritual and physical consequences of unbiblical manifestations such as spasmodic jerking and being “slain in the spirit.” As I communicated on Larry King Live, I am particularly concerned for people like the Brownsville Assembly of God member who, week after week, sits in the choir loft shaking her head wildly from side to side while intermittently bending at the waist. As has been well documented, such repetitive physical motions can not only dull one’s critical thinking faculties but can do serious physical damage as well. Dr. Oliver Wilder-Smith warns, “[For] someone who is shaking their head violently for a long period of time, the potential for physical damage is massive, because your cervical spine, which is a very de1icate organ, is just not built for that sort of activity. I’m sure she’ll be having degenerative changes of all of the joints in her cervical spine very rapidly. The purely physical consequences for shaking your head for hours on end are very, very damaging from a purely medical point of view” (Bible Answer Man, 15 May 1997).

Finally, I remain concerned that the Brownsville Revival is indicative of a paradigm shift taking place within Christianity — a shift from faith to feelings, from fact to fantasy, and from reason to esoteric revelation. This shift is what I call the Counterfeit Revival. While Brownsville leaders strongly emphasize holiness and repentance in their preaching, they also emphasize that “God will choose to offend our minds in order to reveal what is in our hearts” (John Kilpatrick) or “The Lord is saying, ‘I’m bypassing your mind and going straight to your heart…The heart is what matters to the Lord” (Lindell Cooley). As I point out in my book Counterfeit Revival (Word Publishing, 1997), this notion is in reality a fictional antagonism or a false dichotomy. Not only is the mind of tremendous importance in successful Christian living, but from the perspective of Scripture, the heart is more a matter of understanding than of sentiment. As John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church correctly stated, “It is a fundamental principle that to renounce reason is to renounce religion, that religion and reason go hand in hand; all irrational religion is false religion.” While Wesley recognized heartfelt emotions as a natural response to an encounter with the gospel, he attributed enthusiasms such as falling, jumping, and jerking, to the “simplicity” of people and to the ploys of Satan. In response to such exotic manifestations, he wrote, “Satan serves himself of the simplicity of people in order to bring a discredit on the work of God.”

The tragedy of modern-day Christianity is that people all too often look for experience in all the wrong places. The real experience is not found in self-indulgent manifestations but rather in using one’s time, talent, and treasure for the glory of God and the edification of others. Jonathan Edwards, the leading figure of the first Great Awakening, was utterly convinced that in genuine revival the Spirit of God is at work “to lessen men’s esteem of the pleasures, profits, and honors of the world and to take off their hearts from an eager pursuit after these things; and to engage them in a deep concern about a future state and eternal happiness which the gospel reveals — and puts them upon earnestly seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness.”

While there has so far been no change of position on either side, like leaders of the Brownsville Revival, I am thrilled by the dialogue that is taking place. To quote Michael Brown, “Let us see if we can model our dialogue as an example to the body of Christ to show how leaders can have strong disagreements, and yet dialogue in a way that is gracious and Christlike, and learn from each other in doing so.”

— Hank Hanegraaff

(For an in-depth analysis of the Brownsville Revival, see part 3 of Hank Hanegraaff s series of articles entitled “The Counterfeit Revival” in the November-December 1997 issue of Christian Research Journal.)

Statement Date: December 1997

No one is immune to the contagion of mass suggestion. Once this epidemic contaminates a movement, it can make black appear white, obscure realities, and enshrine absurdities.

One of the newest absurdities is the phenomenon of gold-tooth fillings — that’s right, gold fillings! “Fallings in the Spirit” may well have been eclipsed by “fillings in the Spirit.” As one Counterfeit Revival devotee proclaims, “Have you heard?…there’s gold in Toronto!”² She goes on to write:

Wednesday night, before Dutch Sheets delivered a powerfully anointed message, there was a short video clip shown of John Arnott ministering in a South Africa meeting where people’s teeth were being filled with gold. After the clip, John asked for anyone who wanted this miracle to stand and believe for it while touching the sides of their faces. After the prayer he asked that we check each other’s mouths and about 10 people went forward, some yelling and all excited because they now had gold teeth and fillings which they did not previously have!

….So John let a couple testify and we prayed again…this time more people received the miracle. A third time of praying came as did more miracles! IT WAS AWESOME!

Then, at just about every meeting there was prayer for this miracle and every time there would be many who would discover their mouth filled with gold! Last count that I heard was over 198 people who were leaving the conference with some gold in their mouths!

….One woman who had been on welfare most of her childhood had 8 new gold teeth! Another woman had 4 gold teeth and/or fillings on Wednesday and by Saturday she had 11! (I saw her at both stages of this miracle). One man had two beautiful, perfect, shiny, gold teeth and one of them had a cross engraved on it!

….The drummer of the worship team received gold teeth as did one of the pastors on staff there at TACF [Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship] and while officially collecting these testimonies from the saints, the man who was recording them received gold teeth as well!

….And on Saturday…the wonderful “gold dust” started showing up on people’s hands and in their tears as they worshipped!³

A Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship official statement titled “GOLD TEETH!” reports that perhaps God was filling people’s teeth with gold as “a sign and a wonder to expose the skepticism still in so many of us.”⁴ The statement went on to say that “reports of people’s fillings turning a bright silver or gold color are coming in from South Africa, Australia, England, Mexico and across Canada and the USA. The excitement at TACF is electric with news of how these dental miracles are so rapidly spreading.” (This gives new meaning to Arnott’s mantra: “Fill, fill, fill!”)

Even as reports of gold fillings are pouring in from the Counterfeit Revival leaders in Toronto, leaders at the Brownsville revival in Pensacola have begun citing resurrections from the dead. For $75 the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry will sell you a video series titled Faith to Raise the Dead. Brownsville leaders are claiming that evangelist David Hogan and his associate missionaries in Mexico have seen more than 200 raised from the dead. The expectations of people have reached such a fever pitch that some time ago a parent who lost a child put his baby on ice and drove 350 miles to the Brownsville Assembly of God to have the baby raised from the dead.⁵ To some, this father’s actions may appear foolish. Yet, if God is indeed raising hundreds from the dead in Mexico, it would be perfectly logical to think that He would raise the dead in the church whose ongoing revival that is being touted as perhaps the greatest in the history of humanity.⁶

While Arnott and his associates are duping people with the gold-filling ruse, and while Hogan’s heroes are heralding resurrections from the dead, Rodney Howard-Browne is attempting to make a comeback at Madison Square Garden in New York. With a dwindling following in Florida, Howard-Browne has come up with a new angle. It seems Rodney “had a dream from God”⁷ in which Billy Graham told him about a crusade Graham held in New York back in 1957. Rodney says that as he listened to Billy, he started weeping. Says Howard-Browne, “I wept so hard that when I woke up, my pillow was soaked with tears.”⁸ The Holy Ghost allegedly told the self-designated “Holy Ghost Bartender” that he was to launch one of the biggest soul-winning crusades ever. Through a variety of techniques, including a Charisma magazine ad, Rodney now raises money and manpower for “Unlocking Heaven at the Garden.”⁹

While at first blush the stories of Counterfeit Revival leaders may be amusing, the consequences of their fabrications, fantasies, and frauds are often tragic. The story of the parent who took his baby to Brownsville speaks for itself. Such stories as gold fillings can also have tragic repercussions.

First, when followers finally catch on to the manipulations of revival leaders, they often become disillusioned and disenchanted. They no longer know what to believe or whom to trust and secretly fear that the untrustworthiness of those who claim to be God’s representatives translates into the untrustworthiness of God Himself.

Furthermore, these testimonies leave believers with a watered-down understanding of miracles that cheapens their appreciation of the biblical reality. We should ask ourselves why God isn’t restoring teeth as opposed to merely filling cavities with gold. While gold and silver fillings might be a human solution to a decayed tooth, one would think that God would provide a solution without the possible side effects produced by placing metals in the mouth. In addition, when Christ healed the blind man in John 9, He didn’t give him a super-duper pair of spectacles; He restored his sight. Likewise, when Jesus healed the paralytic in Luke 5, He did not give him a diamond-studded gold crutch. The difference between the “magic” of mental manipulations and genuine miracles is dramatic. As documented by Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler, when Jesus and the apostles healed people, the miracles were always 100 percent successful and immediate, and there were no relapses.¹⁰

Finally, the consequences of counterfeit miracles based on sociopsychological manipulation are often far reaching. The power of the Spirit can indeed create life and limb, but the power of suggestion creates only a lamentable lie. It is all too easy to make the masses believe the lie. It is often incredibly difficult to undo that work again.

NOTES

1 Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival: Looking for God in All the Wrong Places (Dallas: Word, 1997).

2 7 March 1999 e-mail from a devoted observer named Kathy to multiple recipients of the NEW-WINE list (posted at http://www.grmi.org/renewal/new-wine/list/archives/1339.html).

3 Ibid. See the TACF Web site for some “incredible” photographs of gold fillings (http://www.tacf.org).4 17 March 1999, Web site at http://www.tacf.org/confs/archives/intercession99/pressrelease.html.5 John W. Allman, “Revival prays to raise an infant from the dead,” The Pensacola News Journal, 20 September 1998, Web site at http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/brownsville/september%2098/pray.htm.6 See John Kilpatrick’s sermon of 6 April 1997 at Brownsville Assembly of God Church, Brownsville, Florida.7 Advertisement for Good News New York crusade with Rodney Howard Browne in Charisma magazine, April 1999, 81.8 Ibid.9 Ibid.10 Norman Geisler, Signs and Wonders (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1988), 23-32. Geisler explains, “God never performed a miracle ‘slowly’ nor did an ‘80 percent’ healing. Biblical miracles were 100 percent and immediate. In the case of the few immediate cures in the contemporary signs and wonders movement, most are clearly of the psychosomatic type and none are immediate healings of incurable diseases. There is nothing supernatural about these kinds of cures” (121). See also Hanegraaff, Part Five.

What Counterfeit Revival leaders attribute to the anointing of God is far better explained by the old and pervasive principles of hypnotism. Whether referred to as hypnotists, Holy Ghost bartenders, or Hindu gurus, today’s “mesmerists” all employ similar methods and obtain similar results. Counterfeit Revival leaders work their subjects into altered states of consciousness, manipulating them through peer pressure, exploitation of expectations, and the subtle power of suggestion. Ultimately, revival mesmerists convince their followers that reality can be reduced to a personal experience of enlightenment, leading them into severe spiritual deception.

In the 19th century itinerant “mesmerists” bedazzled the common folk in American towns with their mysterious powers of suggestion.

In a fascinating recollection of his teenage experiences with such a mesmerist (c. 1850), American humorist Mark Twain describes sitting on a platform with several other townspeople while the mesmerist/magician attempted to entrance them. One of these local citizens, a man named Hicks, succumbed dramatically and complied with the mesmerist’s every suggestion. Twain, however, felt nothing. The young Twain resented the attention and admiration the citizenry lavished on Hicks for his antics on the stage. Twain recalls:

On the fourth night temptation came and I was not strong enough to resist. When I had gazed at the disk a while I pretended to be sleepy and began to nod. Straightaway came the professor and made passes over my head and down my body and legs and arms, finishing each pass with a snap of his fingers in the air to discharge the surplus electricity; then he began to “draw” me with the disk, holding it in his fingers and telling me I could not take my eyes off it, try as I might; so I rose slowly, bent and gazing, and followed that disk all over the place, just as I had seen the others do. Then I was put through the other paces. Upon suggestion I fled from snakes, passed buckets at a fire, became excited over hot steamboat-races, made love to imaginary girls and kissed them, fished from the platform and landed mud cats that outweighed me — and so on, all the customary marvels. But not in the customary way. I was cautious at first and watchful, being afraid the professor would discover that I was an impostor and drive me from the platform in disgrace; but as soon as I realized that I was not in danger, I set myself the task of terminating Hicks’s usefulness as subject and of usurping his place.¹

Twain so succeeded at convincing the audience that he was under the mesmerist’s spell that even 35 years later, when he confessed his chicanery to his own mother, she refused to believe him.

MESMERISM TODAY

Today’s “mesmerists” operate not only in carnivals but also in churches and communes. Whether they are referred to as hypnotists, Holy Ghost bartenders,² or Hindu gurus, the methods they employ have much in common.

First, they all work their subjects into altered states of consciousness. Second, each of them uses peer pressure to conform followers to predictable patterns. Third, they depend heavily on expectations. Fourth, the power of suggestion is pivotal to their performance.

Cynics may write off the use of altered states of consciousness, peer pressure, expectations, and the suggestions of hypnotists, Holy Ghost Bartenders, and Hindu gurus as sociopsychological manipulation. Christians, however, must comprehend an even more significant threat — these manipulation techniques are fertile soil for satanic and spiritual deception.

Such manipulation tactics pose a threat so significant that I’ve developed the acronym A-P-E-S to facilitate remembering and resisting them. The A represents Altered States of Consciousness; the P, Peer Pressure; the E, Expectations; and the S, Suggestibility.

As the father of eight children, I have made countless trips to the zoo. It’s always humorous to see my kids mimicking the movements of the various mammals they encounter. It really gets hysterical when we get to the apes. They are as likely to mimic my kids as my kids are to mimic them! The apes “ape” the kids, the kids “ape” the apes, and my wife, Kathy, and I end up breathless with laughter.

What is not particularly funny, however, is that despite the peril, evangelical pastors and parishioners worldwide are now “aping” the practices of pagan spirituality. Before looking at the crisis this has caused within Christianity, it is critical that we first gain a perspective on the history of hypnotism.

THE HISTORY OF HYPNOTISM

Back in the 18th century Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) — a Viennese physician who moved his practice to France — caused people to laugh, fall into trances, and jerk spasmodically by simply gesturing in their direction. Popularly referred to as “the Wizard from Vienna,” Mesmer, from whose name the word mesmerize is derived, earned other appellations as well:

He has been called the father of psychotherapy as well as of Christian Science, the discoverer of hypnosis, the progenitor of clairvoyance, telepathy and communication with the beyond; and he has been denigrated as a rogue, a charlatan, an arrogant pursuer of social and monetary favor, a meretricious magician. In his day it was asserted that he had sold his soul to the devil. More subtly, he has been cast as a visionary who unwittingly stumbled upon a discovery the value of which he was not able to see.³

He promulgated the principle that a magnetic force emanated from his hands, enabling him to direct the actions and thoughts of subjects.

Even those who questioned Mesmer’s motives admitted that the impact he had on patients was dramatic. Their convulsions were reported as “extraordinary for their number, their duration, and their force.”⁴ By simply pointing a finger dramatically in the direction of one patient, “she moved convulsively as if in great pain and arched her body from shoulders to feet into a rigid position until he released her.”⁵

Two royal commissions investigating “Mesmerism” in 1784 reported that the convulsions of Mesmer’s patients were “marked by violent, involuntary movements of the limbs and the whole body, by constriction of the throat, by throbbing in the chest and nausea in the stomach, by rapid blinking and crossed eyes, by piercing cries, tears, hiccups and uncontrollable laughter.”⁶

Among the testimonials sent by Mesmer to the Royal Society of Medicine was that of an army officer named Charles du Hussay, who suffered from a number of physical symptoms such as fever, nervous trembling, and partial paralysis. After being treated by Mesmer, he wrote, “I know nothing of the means used by Dr. Mesmer. However I can say in all candor that, without treating me with drugs or any other remedy than what he calls animal magnetism, he caused me to feel powerful sensations from head to foot.”⁷ Charles du Hussay went on to testify that after feeling the sensations of intense cold that caused his body to feel as if it were turning to ice and heat that caused him to sweat profusely, he was completely healed of his infirmities.

Early in his career Mesmer maintained that he could heal people by means of metal magnets. By 1775, however, his beliefs had undergone a metamorphosis. He now maintained that his healing prowess was the result of an indwelling force he referred to as “animal magnetism.” So convinced was Mesmer of the validity of his method that he wanted to teach it to the clergy of his day. In countries such as Germany, magnetism became so popular that by the early 19th century Berlin physicians had erected a monument to Mesmer and theology students were trained in the treatment of diseases through the use of animal magnetism.⁸

In time the belief that certain people could exercise influence over others by means of the indwelling force of animal magnetism was largely discredited. Yet the manifestations that Mesmer and his successors produced in their subjects could not be dispensed with as easily. The manifestations came to be viewed, not as the result of Mesmer’s magnetism, but as the result of mental manipulation.

The person most responsible for this shift in perspective from mesmerism to modern hypnotism was an English doctor named James Braid (1795-1860). The manifestations that Mesmer attributed to the “doctrine of animal magnetism,” Braid attributed to the “doctrine of suggestion.” The primary difference between Mesmer and Braid was one of perspective. Mesmerists believed that through an indwelling force called animal magnetism they could cause their subjects to experience such manifestations as uncontrollable laughter and spasmodic jerking. Hypnotists, on the other hand, believed that the manifestations experienced by their subjects were not the results of a power residing in the hypnotist, but rather the results of a heightened state of suggestibility that a subject experienced while in a hypnotic trance.

Braid discovered that through mental manipulation he could alter a patient’s perspective to such an extent that he was able to perform surgical procedures that were virtually painless. By deliberately inducing his subjects to fall into a sleeplike altered state of consciousness, they became extraordinarily responsive to suggestion. Braid termed this sleep state hypnosis.⁹

While Braid has been credited with coining the term “hypnosis,” the phenomenon itself can be traced to virtually every culture, civilization, and century. As one writer observed, “It is as common in Polynesia today as it was at the fortune-telling shrines of ancient Greece and Rome.”¹⁰

In recent history pseudo-Christian cults have seized on the principles of hypnotism to advance their pernicious principles and practices. J. Gordon Melton underscores this reality by correctly associating mesmerism (hypnotism) with the mind science cults:

Mesmerism was developed into a new healing system by Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802-1866), a professional mesmerist who felt that many diseases could be cured by suggestion and were therefore essentially illusory. Eventually drawing the conclusion that all diseases are illusory, Quimby in 1859 began teaching the system that he called Science of Christ, Science of Health, and occasionally Christian Science.¹¹

What has been commonplace in cultic systems such as Christian Science is today becoming commonplace in the Christian church as well. Like Gnostics in the second and third century, many who claim the name of Christ are taking a trip beyond Christianity into the world of the occult. Leaders of the Counterfeit Revival are convincing them that reality can be reduced to a personal experience of enlightenment — a transformation of consciousness that will initiate them into “true spirituality.”

ALTERED STATES OF CONSCIOUNESS

As we move into an examination of the “A” in the acronym A-P-E-S, we would do well to note the comments of Dr. Charles Tart, who has been credited with coining the term “altered states of consciousness” (ASC). Tart says during deep hypnosis “a transition to a new state of consciousness” takes place, a state in which the hypnotized subject’s identity “is potentiality, he’s aware of everything and nothing, his mind is absolutely quiet, he’s out of time, out of space.”¹²

As we will see, leaders of the Counterfeit Revival use a wide variety of techniques to work followers into altered states of consciousness. One of the most disarming methods used is to sing one song over and over until participants finally lose touch with reality.

Counterfeit Revival leader Rick Joyner confessed that at one of his conferences participants sang one song “for over three hours.”¹³ As a result, he said, “the gulf between heaven and earth had somehow been bridged.”¹⁴

Joyner reports that “when that one song finally ended, some of the musicians were lying on the floor.” Says Joyner,

I looked at Christine Potter and Susy Wills, who were dancing near the center of the stage and I have never seen such a look of terror on the faces of anyone. An intense burning, like a nuclear fire that burns from the inside out, seemed to be on the stage. Christine started pulling at her clothes as if she were on fire, and Susy dove behind the drums. Then a cloud appeared in the center of the stage, visible to everyone, and a sweet smell like flowers filled the area.¹⁵

Leaders like Joyner see the human mind as a lower form of consciousness. Thus, like Eastern gurus, they work their devotees into altered states of consciousness. Joyner, in fact, says “experience is a much better teacher than words.”¹⁶

In stark contrast, Dr. Elizabeth Hillstrom warns that altered states of consciousness can be an open invitation for demonic deception:

Having largely set aside their ability to think rationally and critically or to exercise their will, they have become hypersuggestible, which means that they are likely to accept any “spiritual truth” that enters their minds. Even more remarkably, they seemed to be primed for mystical experiences and may attach great spiritual significance to virtually any event or thought, no matter how mundane or outlandish. Seeking mystical experiences through altered states, as defined here, looks like an open invitation for deception.¹⁷

Arnold Ludwig, writing in Tart’s Altered States of Consciousness, confirms that when “a person enters or is in an ASC, he often experiences fear of losing his grip on reality.”¹⁸ A classic illustration is provided by best-selling neopagan author Lynn Andrews. As she progressed into a trance state she believed she was going insane: “I was terrified. I began to inhale great breaths of air, gasping. I sobbed uncontrollably. I had finally done it — I had lost my mind.”¹⁹

Offending the Mind

Whether in the ashrams of cultists or at the altars of churches, the objective of achieving an altered state of consciousness is always the same: to dull the critical thinking process because the mind is seen as the obstacle to enlightenment. As John Wimber and John Arnott put it, “God offends the mind to reveal the heart.”²⁰

Counterfeit Revival guru Rodney Howard-Browne explains that “you can’t understand what God is doing in these meetings with an analytical mind. The only way you’re going to understand what God is doing is with your heart.”²¹ Thus, while Howard-Browne allows his subjects to make nonsensical sounds, he has often prohibited them from praying. On one occasion, as a woman was about to lapse into an altered state of consciousness, she became apprehensive and called out to God in prayer. Immediately Howard-Browne commanded her to cease. “Would you listen to me?” he shouted indignantly. “If your praying had helped, it would’ve helped you; now get laughing.”²²

Even while people are lined up waiting to receive his touch, Howard-Browne commands them not to pray: “Now people in the lines, wait for me to come and lay hands on you, and don’t pray, please don’t pray.” He addresses those who insist on praying as “stubborn people,” adding, “People come trying to be all serious and praying. No! This is not the time to pray. This is not a prayer meeting; get in the joy; you can pray on the way home.”²³

Like Rodney Howard-Browne and leaders of the Counterfeit Revival, the late Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh denigrated the mind, going so far as to say that the “goal is to create a new man, one who is happily mindless.”²⁴ Rajneesh’s experiences “on the road to enlightenment produced temporary insanity, possession, and almost killed him.”²⁵

Dynamic Meditation

Rajneesh’s prescription for attaining this new consciousness was a process referred to as “dynamic meditation,” which was used to subjugate the critical faculties of idealistic devotees to the will of the “Master.” They chanted mindlessly in unison until the hushed moaning of their mantras filled the ashram. Sanskrit songs of praise were sung to the accompaniment of rhythmic clapping. At the subtle suggestions of the “Master,” they engaged in repetitive physical motions to complete the process of becoming mindless. Some jumped up and down furiously and chopped their hands frantically through the air. Others threw their heads backward and forward violently and bent wildly at the waist. Alternately they laughed and sobbed uncontrollably. Their frenzied behavior produced a mind-altering form of hyperventilation that dulled their critical thinking processes and emptied their minds of coherent thought. In the end they personified Rajneesh’s rendition of the “mindless man.”

As shocking as it may seem, what was once relegated to the ashrams of cults is now replicated at the altars of churches. In the ashrams of the cults there is no pretense. Despite such dangers as spirit possession or insanity, Hindu gurus openly encourage trance states through which devotees tap into occult realms and discover their “higher selves.” Whether they experience involuntary movements or encounter illusory monsters, all is written off as progress on the road to enlightenment.

When Jack Kornfield, a Western psychologist seeking Eastern enlightenment, suddenly and involuntarily began flapping his arms like chicken’s wings for two solid days, he was simply instructed to contemplate his experience.²⁶ When followers of the Counterfeit Revival have even more bizarre experiences, they are seduced into believing that they have simply overdosed on the Holy Ghost.

What Eastern gurus like Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh characterize as a trance state, Holy Ghost bartenders like Rodney Howard-Browne characterize as being “drunk in the Spirit.” John Arnott is even more crass. He calls it being “marinated in the Holy Spirit.”²⁷

Southern Baptist pastor Bill Ligon claims that God is directly responsible for this condition of “spiritual drunkenness.” According to Ligon, God told him, “I have to get My people drunk in My Spirit because they have been drunk on the world. Their minds have been polluted, they feed their doubts — there is no confidence in Me and My power. I have to get them so drunk that I can change their thoughts and their attitudes.”²⁸

Striking Parallels

When I first visited the Anaheim Vineyard, the drunken behavior of devotees instantly reminded me of Rajneesh’s ashram. The late John Wimber’s daughter, Stephanie, stood at the altar, testifying that the power of God was upon her as she jerked spasmodically in what her father referred to as a chicken walk. It wasn’t long before others had joined her in jerking while rhythmic clapping and repetitive choruses filled the auditorium with sound.

Before the evening had ended, the crowd was engaged in the same practices Rajneesh devotees used to achieve their altered states of consciousness. Some were jumping up and down furiously, chopping their hands frantically through the air. Others were violently throwing their heads backward and forward and bending wildly at the waist. One woman looked as though an invisible hand had grabbed her and was shaking her as if she were little more than a rag doll. All the while, sardonic laughter punctuated by animal noises rose eerily from the bodies writhing on the ground.

Later, when I visited the Airport Vineyard in Toronto (now the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship), the sights and sounds I experienced were even more shocking. One of the participants was in such a profound altered state of consciousness that even when people tripped over him on the way to the restroom, he remained oblivious.

Counterfeit Revival leader John Arnott says people are acting “like lions and oxen and eagles and even warriors.”²⁹ Arnott admits that these experiences deeply frighten people, but maintains they are divine rather than demonic. The problem, according to Arnott, is that we have been conditioned to believe “that the Holy Spirit’s a gentleman” who would never do anything “rough or impolite.” That, says Arnott, is simply “not true!”³⁰

Counterfeit Revival leader Wes Campbell recalls that during a Wimber Vineyard conference a man named David was merely playing the piano when suddenly “he was seized by the Spirit like a rag doll and just shaken and bounced like a jackhammer, violently…and then he was thrown to the ground, just thrown to the ground…his glasses were knocked off, his nose was pushed to the side, his ears pinned….”³¹

Campbell says this encounter was so violent that David had to be taken to a back room to be checked for demons.³² During a subsequent meeting, David again was supposedly decked by the divine: “Next thing this big — it’s like the fist of God just comes right down on his head and goes bang! right on his head. I saw his whole head just snap….”³³

When God suddenly seized Campbell’s wife, he was so scared that he started screaming. For the first six months, Campbell says, “I was scared to go home with her at night!…the slightest thing would set her off.”³⁴ The behavior of the Holy Spirit was so out of control that, as Campbell puts it, “we didn’t want to let Him out of the back room.”³⁵

Center Stage

Today what was once relegated to the “back room” is center stage in the Counterfeit Revival. Thousands testify to “getting drunk” and personally experiencing powerful psychological and physical manifestations. These experiences are so “real” that many key evangelical Christian leaders are convinced that they cannot be explained apart from the power of the Holy Spirit.

Tragically, many of these leaders are dangerously ignorant of the striking parallels between their experiences and those of Eastern meditators who achieve altered states of consciousness through occult practices. As has been well documented from studies of the world of the occult, the dangerous effects may involve depression, detachment, depersonalization, disillusionment, and many equally serious disorders.

In addition to pain, meditators may sense energy flows coursing through their bodies, or feel tingling, tickling, itching, or vibration on their skin. These sensations usually begin in the feet or pelvic area and move up the back and neck to the crown of the head, then down across the face and abdomen.

Meditators may experience extreme heat or cold, and find their bodies making strange involuntary movements — muscle twitches, prolonged trembling or sinuous writhing….The automatic movements of the body may be accompanied by spontaneous crying, laughing, screaming or whistling. Other common involuntary behaviors include speaking in tongues, chanting unknown songs and making a variety of animal sounds and movements.³⁶

In addition to these physical manifestations, Dr. Elizabeth Hillstrom warns of profound psychological disturbances as well:

Emotions swing wildly from ecstasy, bliss and peace to intense fear, depression, anxiety and anger. Thoughts become strange and irrational, and experiencers may slip into dissociative or prolonged trance states. They may feel very alienated and confused, and often seem to be watching the things that are happening to them as if they were outside observers. Not surprisingly, experiencers often fear that they are losing their minds.³⁷

God is not obligated to protect people from the consequences of unbiblical behavior. Whether someone works himself or herself into an altered state of consciousness in a cult or in the church, the destructive effects are the same. Nonetheless, Counterfeit Revival leaders like John Arnott have been unwilling to reconsider their destructive doctrines and practices. Instead, they have become masters at employing peer pressure to maintain their current following as well as to attract new followers.

THE PREDICTABLE PATTERNS OF PEER PRESSURE

Peer pressure is such a powerful force that even the threat of physical or psychological pain does not always prove to be a sufficient deterrent. Moreover, many who fall prey to the Counterfeit Revival are not moved in the least when its deceptions are exposed. The peer pressure that caused them to participate in the first place often keeps them from acknowledging that they were willing participants in a spiritual lie.

A well-known charismatic leader participated in a Benny Hinn television extravaganza. Hinn was “slaying” his subjects “in the Spirit” when suddenly he moved in this man’s direction. Hinn stretched forth his hand and shouted, “In the mighty name of Jesus!” Immediately the man fell backward into the hands of a designated “catcher.”

Later the man confessed that his experience had nothing to do with the power of God. Peer pressure had caused him to fake his fall. Revealingly, when he asked a cameraman to edit out the faked fall, the cameraman merely chuckled and told him it was common for people to fake it.

Like Hinn, leaders of the Counterfeit Revival use peer pressure to conform their prospects to predictable patterns. They urge them to follow the crowd rather than considering the consequences. John Arnott, for example, tells his prospects that the greatest deception is not false doctrine but being among those who fail to recognize a move of God. In the United Kingdom he told followers,

If you’re going to be concerned about deception, then please be concerned about the greatest deception that there is, and the greatest deception of all, in my opinion, is not to fall for teachings of a false prophet or fall for some, you know, wild goose chase of a rabbit trail out there or whatever and wake up in ten years that you’ve been deceived. In my opinion the greatest deception of all is to have a move of God come through and you not recognize it.³⁸

The Power of Peer Pressure

Arnott and his associates have carefully crafted their worship services to enhance the likelihood that Christians will cave in to the power of peer pressure. They kick off their meetings with the testimonies of those who allegedly once feared deception but now embrace the exotic experiences of the Counterfeit Revival as a genuine move of God. The “time of testimony” is followed by a “time of teaching” designed to further pressure people to work themselves into an altered state of consciousness. The grand finale is a “time of ministry” in which virtually anything goes. The peer pressure to participate during the ministry time is so potent that even otherwise discerning Christians often end up casting caution to the wind.

During the “time of testimony,” pastors and participants routinely testify that once they were blinded by the devil but now their eyes have been opened. Once they doubted that God could be involved in such bizarre manifestations as believers pawing the ground like an angry bull, but now they “know” experientially that God often moves in mysterious ways.

Often, as the initiated give their testimonies, they model the effects of the manifestations. Recall that while Stephanie Wimber was testifying to the power of God upon her life, she was bending violently at the waist. It wasn’t long before people in the pews were mimicking her strange behavior.

Stephanie Wimber’s testimony gave way to a time of teaching. As she walked back to her seat (still bending at the waist), a Vineyard pastor began reciting his rendition of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. He hammered home the notion that there were two categories of believers: the initiated and the uninitiated. Before God knocked Paul off his horse, he was an uninitiated Pharisee. Thereafter he joined the ranks of those who had experienced the power of God firsthand.

The pastor’s message was cleverly designed to pressure people into becoming initiated like the great apostle Paul, rather than remaining uninitiated like the apostate Pharisees. The “time of testimony” and the “time of teaching” place enormous peer pressure on people to participate during the “time of ministry.”

Leaders of the Counterfeit Revival seem well aware that people in crowds are prone to believe that the behavior of their peers is a standard that should not be questioned. They further reinforce this proclivity by intimating that to resist these manifestations is tantamount to resisting the Holy Spirit.

According to Larry Randolph, speaking at the Toronto Airport Vineyard, “the neutral ground is dissipating by the hour. You can’t stand in the middle anymore and say, ‘Well I don’t know. Maybe it’s God, maybe it’s not.’ You’re going to get rolled over.”³⁹ In Randolph’s estimation, the song the Holy Spirit is now singing is, “I’m a Steam Roller, Baby. And I’m Going to Roll Right over You.”⁴⁰

THE EXPLOITATION OF EXPECTATIONS

As proficient as leaders of the Counterfeit Revival are in using peer pressure as a means of psychological manipulation, they are equally expert in elevating the expectations of followers. Subjects are systematically programmed to believe they are poised to take over the sociopolitical systems of society.

According to Arnott, God is about to exact vengeance on His adversaries and restore the church to its proper place. “Wouldn’t it be wonderful,” he muses, “if the Lord would start to move in power and restore the church to its proper place and make us the head and not the tail?”⁴¹

Counterfeit Revival leader Bob Jones suggests that the star status of the leaders of this endtime church will be even greater than that of the apostle Paul. Despite the fact that Paul, under divine inspiration, penned two-thirds of the New Testament epistles, Jones tells devotees, “Paul will be more anxious to talk to the endtime apostles and prophets than the endtime apostles and prophets will be to talk to Paul, because what the prophets of this generation will do will be far greater than what he had done. The saints in the New Testament will wait in line to greet the apostles of this generation.”⁴²

Subjects are led to believe that if they enlist in “Joel’s endtime army” these promises will become living reality. Paul Cain claims that this army will be so potent and powerful that “no demon, no man system, no enemy will stop them or hinder or resist them.”⁴³

Cain elevates expectations to a fever pitch. He assures devotees that they will be “invincible”; that God is offering them a “greater privilege than was ever offered to any people of any generation at any time from Adam clear down through the end of the millennium”; and that they are “gonna have more than just a little omnipotent surge — you’re gonna behold that glory and become that glory.”⁴⁴

What Cain prophesied as the “greatest revival of all times,”⁴⁵ Randy Clark claims is now reality. He tells credulous Christians that “people are being raised from the dead and temples [are] being hit by lightning or fireballs and knocked off their things [sic]. It’s all over. Germany and Africa. It’s everywhere. God’s doing it.”⁴⁶

More “Evangelastic” Stories

Clark and Cain are not alone in circulating “evangelastic” stories. Rick Joyner, for example, elevates expectations by telling the faithful that “an eight foot by ten to twelve foot size mist” suddenly appeared in one of their meetings. He claims that this experience was so vivid that one of the women present, Christine Potter, not only saw “this cloud of the Lord” but also felt “an intense heat, as though her clothes were on fire.” According to Joyner, Christine was so hot it “looked like she was trying to remove her clothes in order to escape being burned.”⁴⁷

The evangelastic stories used to enhance the expectations of believers are now becoming so bizarre that it is a wonder that anyone still takes them seriously. Charisma magazine, for example, has circulated a story titled “‘Holy Water’ Triggers Healing Revival.”⁴⁸ Followers of the Counterfeit Revival were told that plain old bottled water, when “blessed” by a charismatic bishop, was suddenly transformed into “miracle water.”⁴⁹ Those who drank this miracle water not only were so mightily touched that they “fell down under the power of God,” but also were miraculously healed of such ailments as “cancer, tumors and heart disease.” Millions are reportedly hearing about the miracle water from secular sources. Among them are “prominent politicians, celebrities and doctors,” all attempting to acquire some of the miracle agua for themselves.

Leaders of the Counterfeit Revival seem to bank on the fact that expectations aroused by stories such as Charisma’s “miracle water” or Clark’s “resurrections” can give birth to a broad range of mystical experiences. When they “slay” subjects “in the spirit,” they apparently understand that the expectations of their followers will give birth to the experience itself.

By way of illustration, almost everyone reading these words can successfully navigate the length of a common wooden plank resting on the ground. Suspend that same wooden plank between the twin spires of a cathedral and you have an entirely different proposition. The fact that you are now suspended hundreds of feet in the air naturally introduces the anticipation of a possible fall. The notion of falling easily gives rise to the fall itself.

Creating a Miracle

Another classic case of expectations giving birth to experiences can be found in the story of a young Bronx boy named Joseph Vitolo. In his book, The Story of Hypnosis, Robert W. Marks recounts that in 1945 nine-year-old Joseph was kneeling on a rock in an empty lot when he saw a vision of the Virgin Mary. Mary promised Joseph that she would appear on successive nights and that a miraculous spring would emerge from the ground on the night of her last appearance.

Following the announcement, crowds trekked to the site of the alleged vision. On one night 25,000 people surged to the scene with flowers, candles, and statues of saints. It was automatically assumed that Joseph had a special anointing. Thus a steady stream of cripples were brought to Joseph so that he would lay hands on them.

While Joseph was not able to accomplish anything out of the ordinary, the expectations of the crowd were such that they began to create their own “miracles.” On one of the nights a light rain began to fall and a woman screamed, “It’s pouring, yet Joseph doesn’t get wet.” Despite the fact that news reporters standing near Joseph observed that he was as soaked as anyone else, the expectation of the miraculous created the illusion.

Another woman claimed she saw an apparition in white materialize behind Joseph. In reality the apparition was nothing more than another woman protectively covered with a white raincoat.

Marks points out that the expectations of the crowd were such that “if imagination and hysterical contagion had been left to do their hallucinatory work, the crowd would have created its own miracle. And it is highly probable that Joseph could have produced some real ‘cures’ and real ‘visions’ if the hypnotic effects of the situation could have progressed far enough.”⁵⁰ The expectations of the crowd had been heightened to such an extent that, as Marks says, they were “no more capable of resisting the proper hypnotic suggestion than Pavlov’s dog was capable of resisting the stimulus to salivate.”⁵¹

THE SUBTLE POWER OF SUGGESTION

The power of suggestion is incredibly potent. In an altered state of consciousness, this power is significantly magnified as people become hypersuggestible. Add to this potion peer pressure plus enhanced expectations, and people become willing to accept virtually anything that enters their minds.

Remember Twain? He was virtually boiled to death in his own bile as he watched Hicks “scamper and jump when Simmons the enchanter exclaimed, ‘See the snake! See the snake!’ And hear him say, ‘My, how beautiful!’ in response to the suggestion that he was observing a splendid sunset.” Whether the suggestion came from Simmons or the subject himself (autosuggestion), the result powerfully enhanced the performance of “the professor.”

Hypersuggestibility

First, it should be noted that some people are far more suggestible than others. Statistically, “one out of twelve Americans is susceptible to creating a memory out of thin air, then believing it.”⁵² Such fantasy-proneness has been identified as the “Grade Five Syndrome.”⁵³ While Grade Five personalities are generally very intuitive and intelligent, they also have vivid, visual imaginations. Thus they are highly susceptible to the power of suggestion. To begin with, they are very trusting. Second, they desire to please (particularly an authority figure). Third, they have the capacity to accept contradictory experiences. Fourth, they have a marked propensity for affiliation with new or unusual events. Fifth, they are apt to relate everything they experience to their own self-perception.⁵⁴ This complex of characteristics makes Grade Fives particularly susceptible to spiritual fantasies, “psychic and out-of-body experiences, and the occasional difficulty in differentiating fantasized events and persons from nonfantasized ones.”⁵⁵

Subtle Suggestions

Furthermore, the subtle power of suggestion can be brought to bear on an individual either directly or indirectly. An example of the direct approach is Rodney Howard-Browne’s now famous phrase, “Fill, Fill, Fill! Let it bubble out your belly!” or John Arnott’s mantra, “More, Lord! More, Lord!” (Arnott says, “I know how to say ‘More, Lord!’ in about fifty languages now.”⁵⁶)

Indirect suggestions are far more subtle. They can involve “embedded suggestions and commands, paraverbal shifts of tone, voice directionality, enunciation, syntax, and pacing; the use of truisms, binds, double binds, and other semantic variations.”⁵⁷

I have attended and analyzed Counterfeit Revival meetings with “performance professionals,” including a stage hypnotist and an expert on sleight-of-hand/sleight-of-mind. They were readily able to identify numerous instances of these indirect suggestion techniques. They also pointed out that these techniques are not typically learned by formal instruction, but rather by frequent imitation. For example, Kathryn Kuhl-man studied Aimee Semple McPherson; Benny Hinn studied Kathryn Kuhlman; and someone today is no doubt studying Benny Hinn!

Crowd Dynamics

Finally, as underscored by Robert Marks, “people in crowds are more easily influenced than people taken singly. This fact has been capitalized on by stage hypnotists as well as evangelists, political orators, and dictators.”⁵⁸ In fact, as Marks points out, “the effect of suggestion on crowds seems virtually without limit. It can make black appear white. It can obscure realities, enshrine absurdities, and impel men pitilessly to cleave the skulls of their brothers.”⁵⁹

While epidemics of sardonic laughter, sneezing, and even suicide can appear to be spontaneous, in reality they are often the result of subtle stimuli and suggestions. As noted by Charles Baudouin, “In the sphere of movement, suggestion by imitation is common. Immoderate laughter readily spreads through a crowd; yawning is contagious.”⁶⁰ Once epidemic suggestion contaminates a movement, human beings can “behave like beasts or idiots and be proud of it.”⁶¹ No one “is immune to the force of mass suggestion. Once an epidemic of hysteria is in full force it strikes intellectuals as well as morons, rich and poor alike. Its wellsprings are subconscious and biological, not rational.”⁶²

When Rick Joyner’s devotees sensed “nuclear fire,” saw a glorious “cloud,” and smelled the “fragrance of flowers,” they may not have been aware that singing one song over and over for three hours had caused them to become hypersuggestible. That, however, does not alter the facts. The three-hour repetition of a spiritual song, being slain in the spirit, or even a spiritualistic seance have at least one thing in common — they all involve subjects becoming extremely susceptible to spontaneous suggestions. Charles Baudouin concludes that “in the first place, a condition of mental relaxation is imposed upon the participants. Secondly, an emotional state is invariably aroused by approximation to the mysterious. Thirdly, there exists an expectation that remarkable things will happen.”⁶³

Leaders of the Counterfeit Revival capitalize on these expectations to create the illusion that they are endowed with supernatural powers. Rodney Howard-Browne dupes devotees into visualizing that his fingertips come off and a full volume of anointing flows from his hands; John Wimber conditioned constituents to believe a spiritual power emanated from his hands like electricity; and Franz Anton Mesmer promulgated the principle that a magnetic force pulsated from his hands.

What leaders of the Counterfeit Revival attribute to a dose of the anointing and Mesmer ascribed to the doctrine of animal magnetism, James Braid candidly acknowledged to be the dynamic of suggestion. Pagan religions and pseudo-Christian cults have long capitalized on the power of suggestion to promote their practices. Counterfeit Revival leaders have followed in their train.

Psychosomatic Symptoms and Sickness

Dr. William A. Nolen, Chief of Surgery at Meeker County Hospital in Minnesota, has spent many years investigating claims of supernatural healing here and abroad. He concludes that “when evangelical healers dramatically call on God to transmit His power through them to cure their patients’ diseases, they are using the power of suggestion in the hope that it will so affect the patient’s malfunctioning autonomic nervous system [the system that regulates such functions as digestion, heart rate, blood pressure, etc.] that the disease or symptoms caused by the derangement of that system will be cured.”⁶⁴

Like hypnotists and Hindu gurus, these “healers” use the power of suggestion to create placebos for psychosomatic symptoms and sickness. In truth, however, there is nothing supernatural about this kind of healing. Hinn and Howard-Browne can “heal” asthma, allergies, and arthritis, but then, so can mesmerists and medicine men.

The difference between the “magic” of mental manipulations and genuine miracles is dramatic. Christian apologist Dr. Norman L. Geisler has pointed out that when Jesus and the apostles healed people, the miracles were always one hundred percent successful and immediate, and there were no relapses:

God never performed a miracle “slowly” nor did an “80 percent” healing. Biblical miracles were 100 percent and immediate. In the case of the few immediate cures in the contemporary signs and wonders movement, most are clearly of the psychosomatic type and none are immediate healings of incurable diseases. There is nothing supernatural about these kinds of cures.

Such cures are done regularly by Hindu gurus and by many other false religions and cults. Even non-Christian doctors and counselors witness these kinds of cures in their patients. Both spontaneous remission and psychosomatic cures of the same nature as these “signs and wonders” occur apart from any pretense to the supernatural.⁶⁵

While leaders of the Counterfeit Revival can create the illusion of “lengthening” legs, they can’t recreate an amputated limb; while they can create the illusion of slaying subjects in the spirit, they can’t resurrect the slain; and while they can create the illusion that someone’s vision has been restored, they can’t replace a missing orb. In the end they create only disillusionment and self-deception. The power of the Spirit creates life and limb. The power of suggestion only creates a lamentable lie.

After Mark Twain failed to convince his mother of his con, he was left to contemplate how easy it had been to make someone “believe a lie and how hard it is to undo that work again.” By God’s grace, we will be empowered to undo what Twain could not.

NOTES

¹The entire account is found in Bernard DeVoto, ed., Mark Twain in Euroption (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1922), 118–29.²Rodney Howard-Browne and others claim to be dispensing the “new wine” of the Spirit.³James Wyckoff, Franz Anton Mesmer (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975), vii.⁴Vincent Buranelli, The Wizard from Vienna (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1975), 110.⁵Ibid., 65.⁶Ibid., 110.⁷Ibid., 110-11.⁸Albert Moll, Hypnotism (New York: DaCapo Press, 1982), 11.⁹Ibid., 14-15.¹⁰Robert W. Marks, The Story of Hypnotism (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1947), 152.¹¹J. Gordon Melton, Jerome Clark, and Aidan A. Kelly, “New Age Almanac,” as quoted in John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996), 322. Mary Baker Eddy, once a patient of Quimby, took his system, modified it with her own ideas, and developed the Church of Christ, Scientist, commonly known as the Christian Science Church, one of the best known of the mind science cults.¹²Charles T. Tart, “Transpersonal Potentialities of Deep Hypnosis,” Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 1 (1970): 37.¹³Rick Joyner, “The Heart of David: Worship and Warfare,” Conference Report, April 1996; audiotape transcript.¹⁴Ibid.¹⁵Ibid.¹⁶Ibid.¹⁷Elizabeth L. Hillstrom, Testing the Spirits (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 79.¹⁸Arnold M. Ludwig, “Altered States of Consciousness,” in Altered States of Consciousness, ed. Charles Tart (Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor, 1972), 16.¹⁹Lynn Andrews, as quoted by Ankerberg and Weldon, 23.²⁰John Arnott, The Father’s Blessing (Orlando: Creation House, 1995), 182; also John Arnott, “Go for the Kingdom,” Toronto Airport Vineyard, audiotape transcript; John Arnott, “Understanding and Responding to Moves of God Conference,” Calgary Family Church and Downtown Full Gospel Church, 25 April 1996; audiotape transcript.²¹Larry Thomas, No Laughing Matter (Excelsior Springs, MO: Double Crown Publishing, 1995), 48.²²Rodney Howard-Browne, Carpenter’s Home Church, Lakeland, FL, 9 March 1993; audiotape transcript.²³Ibid.²⁴Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, quoted in Fear Is the Master (Hemet, CA: Jeremiah Films, 1986); videotape.²⁵Ankerberg and Weldon, 21.²⁶Hillstrom, 120-21.²⁷Arnott, Father’s Blessing, 96, 167.²⁸Mona Johnian, The Fresh Anointing (South Plainfield, NJ: Bridge Publishing, 1994), 129-30.²⁹John Arnott and Guy Chevreau, “Pastor’s Meeting,” Toronto Airport Vineyard, 19 October 1994; audiotape transcript.³⁰John Arnott, Discovery Church, Orlando, FL, 29 January 1995; audiotape transcript.³¹Wes Campbell, “Spiritual and Physical Manifestations of the Holy Spirit,” Toronto Airport Vineyard, 15 October 1994; audiotape transcript.³²Ibid.³³Ibid.³⁴Ibid.³⁵Ibid.³⁶Hillstrom, 122.³⁷Ibid.³⁸John Arnott, “Catch the Fire,” Midland and Wales, U.K., 2 February 1996; audiotape transcript.³⁹Larry Randolph, “Renewal and Revival Today,” Toronto Airport Vineyard, 18 November 1994; audiotape transcript.⁴⁰Ibid.⁴¹John Arnott and Guy Chevreau, “Pastor’s Meeting,” Toronto Airport Vineyard, 19 October 1994; audiotape transcript.⁴²Mike Bickle and Bob Jones, “An Interview with Bob Jones” (Belper, Derbyshire, U.K.: Banner Ministries, 1989); audiotape transcript.⁴³Bob Jones and Paul Cain, “Selections from the Kansas City Prophets” (Belper, Derbyshire, U.K.: Banner Ministries, n.d.); audiotape transcript.⁴⁴Ibid.⁴⁵Ibid.⁴⁶Randy Clark, “Catch the Fire: Questions and Answers,” Toronto Airport Vineyard, 14 October 1994; audiotape transcript.⁴⁷Quoted by Richard M. Riss, “Impression of Morningstar Conference from Kent McKuen,” 24 April 1996; e-mail communication.⁴⁸Cincilla Grant, “‘Holy Water’ Triggers Healing Revival,” Charisma, June 1996, 21–23.⁴⁹Ibid., 21.⁵⁰Marks, 150.⁵¹Ibid., 150.⁵²Jon Trott, “The Grade Five Syndrome,” Cornerstone, vol. 20, no. 96, 16.⁵³Gradations of hypnotizability range from 0 (almost no hypnotizability) to 5 (extremely hypnotizable).⁵⁴This information was summarized from a variety of sources, including Dr. George Ganaway, “Historical Versus Narrative Truth,” Journal of Dissociation 4 (December 1989): 205-20; and Steven Jay Lynn and Judith W. Rhue, “Fantasy Proneness,” American Psychologist, January 1988, 35-44.⁵⁵Judith W. Rhue and Steven Jay Lynn, “Fantasy Proneness, Hypnotizability, and Multiple Personality,” in Human Suggestibility, ed. John F. Schumaker (New York: Routledge, 1991), 201.⁵⁶John Arnott, Discovery Church.⁵⁷Vance L. Shepperson, “Hypnotherapy,” in Psychotherapy in Christian Perspective, ed. David G. Benner (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 164.⁵⁸Marks, 190.⁵⁹ Ibid., 191.⁶⁰Charles Baudouin, Suggestion and Autosuggestion (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1954), 80.⁶¹Marks, 193.⁶²Ibid., 195.⁶³Baudouin, 82.⁶⁴George Abell and Barry Singer, eds., Science and the Paranormal (New York: Scribners, 1981), 193-94.⁶⁵Norman Geisler, Signs and Wonders (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988), 121.

While promoters of the Pensacola Outpouring allege nearly two million participants to date, an examination of the revival reveals its serious distortions of biblical Christianity, concluding the movement is simply the latest outbreak in a long history of Counterfeit Revival. Characterized by an overemphasis on subjective experience in opposition to objective tests for truth, nonbiblical spiritual practices, Scripture twisting, and false and exaggerated claims, the Pensacola Outpouring threatens countless believers and depicts to the world a tainted stripe of Christianity. In post-Christian times as these, evangelicals more than ever need to return to the basic teachings and practices of the historic, biblical Christian faith.

What is today touted as the Pensacola Outpouring had its genesis on Father’s Day in 1995. In recalling the events of that day, John Kilpatrick, pastor of the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida, said he suddenly heard what he first thought was a mighty wind but later discovered was a river of the Holy Ghost. The force of the river was so pronounced that Kilpatrick claimed, “My ankles flipped over.” After being pulled up to the platform by his pantlegs, Kilpatrick shouted, “Folks, this is it! Get in! Revival’s come!” He goes on to exclaim:

And man, when I said that it was like dynamite exploding [explosion sound]. And it looked like somebody had taken a machine gun and mowed people down. Even out in their pews. Even out in their pews [sic]. I mean, they were falling out of the pews, they were falling down between the seats, they were falling out up here without anybody even touching them. A little like [machine gun fire sound], you know, somebody just cut ‘em down.

Man, I hit this floor up here. And evangelist [Steve Hill] saw me up here by the pulpit, and I was looking about half drunk, you know. And he just waved his hand like that and said, “More, Lord.” And I said, “Whap!” And I hit the floor and I stayed there from 12:30 to 4 o’clock….I was laying there thinking, you know. It felt like I weighed 10,000 pounds. It didn’t feel like you was pinned to the floor or nothing like that, but you’re just so heavy. Just felt so heavy. It felt wonderful.

I thought, “Dear God, whatever this is, don’t take it off of me.”

But one of our worship team ladies that fell in my arms—long after revival broke out a lady came up to me during the revival and she said, “Brother Kilpatrick, your wife is so sweet. She sings so good in that worship team.”

And I thought, “Worship team?”

She said, “You know, the blackheaded one that was laying in your arms up there on the platform.”

I said, “That’s not my wife.”

She said, “It’s not?”

She just fell out under the fire too and just happened to land in my arms. And so I said, “Lord, this don’t smell like Brenda here.”¹

The trance state John Kilpatrick experienced on that Father’s Day in 1995 was merely a harbinger of things to come. As the next two years rolled on, his followers would experience manifestations ranging from sardonic laughter to spasmodic jerks.

One man in particular experienced such unusual convulsions on the platform in Pensacola that he became the center of attention. When Steve Hill (the evangelist credited by Kilpatrick as a primary catalyst for the Pensacola Outpouring) realized that he was losing his audience, he turned to the man and said:

Now some of you are watching this young man up here. I want to tell you exactly what he is doing, and then I want you to turn your eyes from him. He’s interceding for your soul. Some of you are on the verge — it’s like we’ve got you with a thread and you’re hanging over hell. It’s intercession in the deepest form right here. It’s moanings and groanings, words that can’t be uttered. God’s put it on him. You can’t tell me God doesn’t love you, friend. You can’t tell me God doesn’t love you when He will stricken[sic] another young man who loves God with all his heart, cause him to fall to the ground and experience the moanings and groanings and the birth pains. He’s giving birth to you, friend. He’s giving spiritual birth to you. He’s dying for you right now. He’s dying that you might have life.²

Pensacola promoters claim that “in less than two years Evangelist Steve Hill has won hundreds of thousands to Christ.”³ Hill identifies two out of the “hundreds of thousands” as alleged drug dealers. As reported on the Brownsville web site, “Police officers had arrested three men in the Brownsville area for suspected drug dealing. For some reason, the police officers brought these men to one of our revival services instead of jail. Two of the three men responded to the altar call and were saved.”⁴

Not only does Hill assert that police officers have brought suspected drug dealers to the revival instead of to jail, but also he claims that congressmen are weeping under the power of God in Pensacola. Hill states,

We’re having politicians come in here now. Congressmen. I’m talking about Washington DCers are coming into this place now. It’s getting serious. Would you say that with me? It’s getting serious. When it gets to Washington, it’s getting serious. One of the congressmen that was with us from up north, his statement was this — I believe he made it to Charlie, or somebody — He said, “I’m bringing back 12.” So we proclaim that in a very short while our congress, our senate is ablaze with the power of the gospel, that they’re on fire! That they’re on fire with the power of the gospel, that their lives are changed and transformed. Those of you that have that kind of doubt, would you open your eyes and watch what’s happening? You still can’t see it. We’re telling you, we’ve already had them here. The Congressmen are here. They’re weeping under the power of God. They’re already here. We’re not dreaming. They’ve already been here.⁵

In addition, Pensacola promoters proclaim that they are having an impact on crime in Pensacola. They point out that “crime in the city of Pensacola had dropped off significantly,” and that “the driving force behind the declining crime rate” is “the revival.”⁶

Pensacola spin doctors use salvation statistics, converted congressmen, and crime conditions to draw a distinction between the “Toronto Blessing” and the “Pensacola Outpouring.” Michael Brown, an apologist for Pensacola, has gone so far as to deny any relationship between the two: “The bottom line is that there is no formal or informal relationship between Toronto and Pensacola, and the spirit and thrust of the meetings are very different.”⁷

One of the most disturbing deceptions of all is that Counterfeit Revival leaders like Brown have co-opted Jonathan Edwards and dishonestly claimed him for their own. Brown demeans my book Counterfeit Revival for a lack of serious scholarship regarding Edwards and cites unnamed “Edwards scholars” assisting on Yale University’s project, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, to lend academic credibility to his criticisms.

SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION

Let’s take a closer look at a small sampling of Pensacola fabrications masquerading as facts.

Fabrication: “Police officers had arrested three men in the Brownsville area for suspected drug dealing. For some reason, the police officers brought these men to one of our revival services instead of jail. Two of the three men responded to the altar call and were saved.”

Fact: While salvation statistics vary wildly from source to source,⁸ the men referred to above are two of the “hundreds of thousands” who were supposedly saved as a result of the “Pensacola Outpouring.”⁹ However, the Pensacola Sheriff’s Department has stated unequivocally that this did not happen and, moreover, that it could not happen.¹⁰ When Pensacola promoters were confronted with this fabrication, they promised to remove it from their web site.¹¹ Sadly, however, they continue to circulate this fabrication as a testimony to the authenticity of the “Pensacola Outpouring.”¹²

Fabrication: “We’re having politicians come in here now. Congressmen….So we proclaim that in a very short while our congress, our senate is ablaze with the power of the gospel…that their lives are changed and transformed….We’ve already had them here….They’re weeping under the power of God.”

Fact: Despite Steve Hill’s dogmatic declaration that congressmen are in Pensacola “weeping under the power of God,” he has not provided a shred of evidence to support his claim. His proclamation that congressmen will be changed and the Senate ablaze with the power of the gospel is at best an unrealized fantasy.¹³

Fabrication: “Crime in the city of Pensacola had dropped off significantly….The driving force behind the declining crime rate [is] the revival.”

Fact: According to the Pensacola Police Department, this widely circulated story has no basis in reality. As the police pointed out, total crimes have, in fact, risen from 83,849 in 1995 to 85,581 in 1996 (a total increase of 1,732 crimes). “Forcible sex” was up from 52 to 69; “assault” was up from 623 to 656; “drug possession” was up from 647 to 660.¹⁴ As Assistant Chief Jerry Potts reported, “Contrary to a widely circulating rumor, crime rates in Pensacola have not decreased dramatically.”¹⁵ By way of contrast, as reported in the Orange County Register, 13 March 1997, the crime rate in Orange County, California (home of the Christian Research Institute) has dropped at least 23 percent.¹⁶

Fabrication: “There is no formal or informal relationship between Toronto and Pensacola, and the spirit and thrust of the meetings are very different.”

Fact: First, in sharp contrast to this denial by Pensacola’s Michael Brown, evangelist Steve Hill confessed, “We’ve received a lot from the Toronto church on how to pray with people and care for folks…we model a lot of what is going on here from them.”¹⁷

Furthermore, Pastor Maul Ely, speaking from the pulpit of the Brownsville Assembly of God, declared to raucous applause that no less an authority than God Himself had specifically revealed to him a direct connection between the “Toronto Blessing” and the “Pensacola Outpouring”:

The Lord said, “Son, draw the tabernacle on a piece of paper.” So I just opened up my notebook and I drew the tabernacle. Nice rectangular lines.

And the Lord said, “Now, put there at the western side of the tabernacle,” He said, “write down Azusa.”

I said, “Okay.” How many know you need to do what He tells you to do, whether you understand it or not?

He said, “Now, go all the way across to the eastern part of the tabernacle, the entrance,” and He said, “write Cleveland, Tennessee.” So I wrote Cleveland, Tennessee.

He said, “Now, go to the northern side and write Toronto.” Oh, oh! I feel it.

He said, “Now, go to the southern side of the tabernacle and write down Brownsville.” You ain’t heard nothin’ yet!

He said, “Now, draw a line from Azusa to Cleveland, Tennessee”—how many know that the first wave of the Holy Spirit came to America started on the western coast and went across to the eastern coast? — He said, “Now draw a line from the northern side at Toronto to Brownsville”….He said, “The lines that you have drawn have made a cross across the tabernacle.” And He said, “Now look at America. I have made a spiritual cross across America.” And He said, “I want My people to realize that it’s in your weakness of burying your cross that the church becomes powerful.” ¹⁸

Finally, it is significant to note that prior to Father’s Day 1995, Brenda Kilpatrick and staff members of the Brownsville Assembly of God had made pilgrimages to Toronto and received “an impartation.” In addition, Pensacola revivalists, such as Steve Hill, have candidly acknowledged that they have been prayed for by John Arnott in Toronto and that Arnott and members of the Toronto staff have been to Pensacola.¹⁹

Fabrication: Hanegraaff misused Edwards’s material to suit his own purposes. Brown, conversely, has consulted scholars working on the Yale University project, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, who have lent their academic credibility to his critique of Counterfeit Revival.

Fact: On the one hand, since Brown does not name these Yale scholars it is impossible to evaluate this claim. On the other hand, Dr. Michael Bowman, the coordinator of another program concerning Edwards’s works, STEP: The Edwards Project (which is releasing the complete works of Edwards on CD-ROM), was concerned enough about Michael Brown’s lack of scholarship and fabrications to release the following statement:

Having just finished Hanegraaff’s Counterfeit Revival, I do not see any inaccuracy in his review of Edwards’ Distinguishing Marks²⁰ treatise. Overall, I felt that Hanegraaff’s analysis was right on. Edwards did not condone excesses, but felt that they could be present in true revival. Edwards realized that the remorse that the repentant individuals feel, when they realize what they have been saved from, can occasionally lead to emotional outbursts. The bizarre and “drunken” behavior in the “counterfeit revival” movement has nothing to do with repentance. What concerns me the most about this issue is that mainstream Christianity does not seem to seriously and forcefully condemn this movement!²¹

Under the guise of academic credibility Brown not only grossly misrepresents Jonathan Edwards but he also grossly misrepresents me. While space and time do not permit a complete accounting of his deceptions, let’s take a moment to look at how he misleads unsuspecting readers in a new book²² in which he confronts the critics of the Pensacola Outpouring and impugns the research and reasoning of my book, Counterfeit Revival.

Brown accuses me of committing the logical fallacy of guilt by association, suggesting that I implicate John Arnott as being a prosperity teacher by virtue of his association with Benny Hinn.²³ The reality is in Counterfeit Revival I never indict Arnott on those grounds at all, let alone through guilt by association with Hinn. What I actually write is that Hinn “has had a profound impact on such Counterfeit Revival leaders as John Arnott,”²⁴ which is true since Hinn had been increasingly asked to pray over the Arnotts after John was allegedly told by God to “hang around people that have an anointing.”²⁵ I do, however, expose Hinn’s health and wealth teaching proclivities, offering substantive quotes by Hinn as evidence.²⁶ Curiously, Brown then accuses me of indicting Hinn based on an out-of-date quote reflecting a view that Hinn allegedly repented of long ago. Brown fails to acknowledge that I provided a 1996 quote of Hinn in addition to an older quote to substantiate that Hinn has taught and continues to teach a health and wealth message.²⁷ Moreover, Brown ignores the fact that Hinn continues to market books that promote a prosperity gospel.

Brown also accuses me of exhibiting a “lack of serious scholarship.” The following is what he refers to as a “representative” example. Brown states, “On page 269, n. 66, Hanegraaff writes that: ‘The ruling sect of Jews in Jesus’ day, the Pharisees were empty, unprincipled religionists,’ a sweeping statement that is almost unthinkable in Christian scholarship at the end of the twentieth century.”²⁸ Brown fails to acknowledge Jesus’ own sweeping statements about Pharisees (e.g., Matt. 23:1-7, 13-36; cf. Luke 7:30). Moreover, Brown quotes only the portion of my footnote that would support his contention, cutting off my statement mid-sentence and thus mid-thought. The remainder of the sentence reads, “who, for the most part, rejected Christ and attributed Christ’s works to Beelzebub, or Satan” (emphasis added). Brown therefore accuses me of making a sweeping statement only by omitting the qualification for the statement.²⁹

While much more could be said, unmasking all of the fabrications of Pensacola spin doctors would be an endless project. As they continue to seduce unsuspecting subjects through fabrications, fantasies and frauds, Blaise Pascal’s poignant words (in Pensees) ring down through the ages: “Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established, that unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”

MANIFESTATIONS VERSUS MESSAGE

As Pensacola promoters endeavor to spread their movement worldwide, they dogmatically declare that bizarre manifestations are not the focus of this revival. The facts say otherwise.

One of the videos used by Pensacola promoters is entitled “Honey, Where Are We From?” It features the testimony of a pastor and his wife who become so spiritually inebriated that they can’t remember where they are from. First, the wife becomes incoherent, and her husband intervenes to explain what she is attempting to say. Then he, too, becomes disoriented and is unable to think or speak rationally.³⁰

The sensational physical manifestations of Alison and Elizabeth Ward are also strategically utilized to arouse people’s expectations for similar experiences. The sisters have been brought up before the entire congregation to describe and display their mysterious experiences, thus giving the people a sense that they are having a close encounter with the divine. Peer pressure is brought to bear as Elizabeth tells prospects, “After standing there so long watching those people being touched by God, I guess my spirit got hungry.” When she finally threw caution to the wind, she said, “The shaking went on for about three days….I couldn’t eat and I was shaking in my sleep. My family had to feed me through a straw. My whole body was convulsing for three days.”³¹ Her sister, Alison, says she shakes in the sanctuary because “it feels good.”³²

Baptisms at Brownsville are used as yet another promotional gimmick. In a widely used promotional video some of the baptized jerk so violently that baptizers can no longer control their behavior. In one clip the subject shakes so severely that someone is actually kicked in the face.³³ Physical danger is part and parcel of the process. Pensacola leaders point out that “the power of God falls during the Friday night water baptisms, and sometimes even the workers are overcome by the Spirit and have to be carried out of the water.”³⁴ Ironically, a word of caution has come from the Brownsville pulpit about not sitting too close to other people during the time of ministry out of concern that someone under the influence of a manifestation might injure nearby worshipers.³⁵

Thousands who have viewed the videos and subsequently experienced the manifestations testify to radically changed lives. Nevertheless, my 11-year-old son David and I recently attended a Christian convention during which the manifestations of Pensacola were promoted. He rode on an elevator with a couple of ladies who were still glowing from their spiritually intoxicating experience. They were delirious over the life-transforming work that the manifestations had produced in them. Suddenly, one of the ladies noticed my son’s name tag. Instantly she began shrieking, “I know who you are. You’re the son of the Bible Answer Man. You are a cursed child.”

My son David is not the only child who has tasted the fruit of Pensacola. Several children from a youth group traveled to Pensacola and experienced such severe twitching that when they returned to their classrooms, they were unable to do their schoolwork. After these children were dismissed from school, their pastor encouraged them to view their expulsion as persecution for the sake of Christ.³⁶

BIBLICAL PRETEXTS

More bizarre than the manifestations themselves are the biblical pretexts that are used to validate them. As a case in point, Charisma magazine recently ran a series of articles designed to undermine my credibility and integrity.³⁷ One article was a critical review of my book, Counterfeit Revival titled “They Called Jesus a Counterfeit, Too.” Even more telling than the overt deceptions contained in the article were the texts author Jon Ruthven used to legitimize the manifestations of counterfeit revival hotspots, such as Pensacola. Ruthven, an Assemblies of God minister and associate professor of systematic theology at Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, writes,

Hanegraaff demands proof for the biblical grounds of charismatic revivalism. Yet he seems to ignore that many times in Scripture people who were influenced by the Holy Spirit acted in unusual ways.

When the Spirit “rushed” upon Saul in 1 Sam. 19:20-24, he stripped off his clothes, prophesied before Samuel and “lay down naked all that day and all that night” (v. 24, NKJV). Ezekiel displayed even more bizarre behavior after God told him to lie on his side, put “the iniquity of the house of Israel” on himself for 390 days, burn his hair and cook his food over human excrement! (Ezek. 4:4-5, 12; 5:1-2, 4). Isaiah was told by God to walk naked through Jerusalem for three years proclaiming judgment on the city (Is. 20:2-3)….We can only imagine how Hanegraaff would react to these types of behavior if they were to appear today. He seems to assume that Christian orthodoxy is a rationalistic, sterilized Calvinism that functions entirely on an intellectual level — devoid of the subjective spiritual dimension. ³⁸

Before examining Ruthven’s abuse of Scripture, it should be noted in passing that his stereotyping of me in this review as an anticharismatic Calvinist and an antispiritual rationalist is disingenuous at best and, at worst, dishonest. A closer look at my background or a careful reading of my books would forever dispel this myth.

As for his use of the Bible, while at first blush his arguments from 1 Samuel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah may appear compelling, a careful examination will expose their absurdity:

1 Samuel 19:20-24. The fact that Saul stripped off his clothes, prophesied before Samuel, and laid down naked all day and night (v. 24) provides no validation for the peculiar manifestations in places like Pensacola.

First, as should be obvious, Ruthven’s interpretation of Saul’s nakedness cannot be used as normative behavior for Christians today. If it were, we would be compelled to endorse counterfeit revivalists who decided to parade around naked as a sign of spiritual enlightenment!

Furthermore, as a professor of systematic theology, one would presume that Ruthven is aware of the basic hermeneutical principle that narrative passages must always be interpreted in light of didactic or teaching passages (e.g., Scripture records Judas hanging himself, but it teaches that suicide is wrong).

Finally, this passage clearly reveals God’s judgment against Saul, not his blessing. In context, Saul is seeking to destroy David but instead is humiliated by the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit had once come upon Saul to minister through him, on this occasion the Spirit came upon Saul to resist his evil intentions.

Ezekiel 4–5. Professor Ruthven claims that Ezekiel displayed even more bizarre behavior than Saul. By this reasoning, the precedent is in place for today’s revivalists to push the envelope beyond even nakedness.

First, the very fact that Ezekiel was engaged in an unusual process is precisely why it should not be considered normative for us today. If, indeed, it were the norm, it would not be much of a sign.

Furthermore, what Ruthven labels “bizarre behavior” is in reality extraordinarily meaningful. One need only take the time to read this passage in context to grasp God’s explanation for the symbolism of Ezekiel’s behavior. While unusual, it is neither random nor bizarre.

Finally, as with Saul, Ezekiel’s actions represent God’s judgment, not His blessing.

Isaiah 20. In yet another vain attempt to justify the radical behavior of today’s counterfeit revivalists, Ruthven uses the fact that God told Isaiah to walk naked through Jerusalem for three years.

First, as should be obvious to Professor Ruthven, the wording in Isaiah does not necessitate the notion that the prophet was stark naked. Complete nakedness would have been considered religiously, as well as socially, unacceptable — particularly in light of Middle Eastern culture.

Furthermore, as Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch point out, “With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the feelings upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency.”³⁹

Finally, as previously noted with regard to Saul, if God had instructed Isaiah to walk around stark naked and if that is justification for Pensacola proclivities today, then if they really do start stripping, God can be blamed for setting the precedent for their bizarre behavior.

Tragically, Ruthven’s reasoning process is the norm rather than the exception for counterfeit revivalists. One need only scan books by Pensacola leaders, such as John Kilpatrick, Steve Hill, and Michael Brown, to find even more outrageous examples of texts taken out of context and used as pretexts for Pensacola extravagances.

Aping the Practices of Pagan Spirituality

Out of all the bizarre manifestations I have witnessed in today’s Counterfeit Revival, one scene has been indelibly etched into my consciousness. One Sunday morning I sat in the sanctuary of the Brownsville Assembly of God and watched in horror as a woman in the choir began to jerk her head violently from side to side. An hour went by, then another. All the while the violent shaking continued unabated as intermittently she bent spasmodically at the waist.

A church member noting the look of concern on my face quickly attempted to assure me that this woman was merely under the influence of the “Holy Ghost.” When I asked if she was certain it was the Holy Ghost, she seemed incredulous. “What else could it be?” she snapped. “We’re in church, aren’t we?” She went on to report that this woman had been shaking violently in the sanctuary for more than a year and a half.

Several months later on CNN’s Larry King Live, King asked me if there was a substantial difference between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the cults. In response I pointed out that Christianity was historic and evidential — not a blind leap into a dark chasm, but faith founded on objective fact. I went on to say that in sharp distinction, cult leaders attempt to subjugate their followers’ critical thinking faculties because the mind is seen to be the obstacle to enlightenment.

A striking parallel from paganism can be found in the ashram of Poona, India, where devotees of the late guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh engage in repetitive physical motions in order to work themselves into an altered state of consciousness. Their frenzied behavior produces a mind-altering form of hyperventilation, which empties the mind of coherent thought. In the end, they personify Rajneesh’s rendition of the mindless man.⁴⁰

Sadly I had to acknowledge that what was once relegated to the ashrams of cults is now being replicated at the altars of churches, as Christians are beginning to ape the practices of pagan spirituality. Dr. Elizabeth Hillstrom concurs: “Having largely set aside their ability to think rationally and critically or to exercise their will, they have become hypersuggestible, which means that they are likely to accept any ‘spiritual truth’ that enters their minds. Even more remarkably, they seem to be primed for mystical experiences and may attach great spiritual significance to virtually any event or thought no matter how mundane or outlandish.”⁴¹

What heightens the danger of this kind of activity in churches is that Christians do not expect a counterfeit. While virtually the same methods employed in cultic communes can now be experienced in Christian churches, there is a significant difference. In the ashrams of Poona there is no pretense. Despite such dangers as spirit possession or insanity, Hindu gurus openly encourage trance states through which devotees tap into psychic realms and discover their “higher selves.” At the altars of Pensacola, however, these practices are cloaked in Christian terminology and attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than the pantheon of Hindu deities.

Whether in the ashrams of cults or at the altars of churches, the result of achieving an altered state of consciousness is always the same. It dulls the critical thinking process because the mind is seen to be the obstacle to enlightenment. As the worship leader of the Brownsville Assembly of God, Lindell Cooley, has prophesied, “The Lord is saying, ‘I’m bypassing your mind and going straight to your heart.’ …The heart is what matters to the Lord.”⁴² Though counterfeit revival leaders repeatedly express this concept, it is in reality a false dichotomy or a fictional antagonism. Not only are the mind and intellect of tremendous importance to the Lord in living the Christian life, but from the perspective of Scripture the heart is more a matter of understanding than of sentiment.

John Wesley correctly stated, “It is a fundamental principle that to renounce reason is to renounce religion, that religion and reason go hand in hand; all irrational religion is false religion.”⁴³ While he recognized physical manifestations as a natural response to an encounter with the gospel, he also attributed enthusiasms such as falling, laughing, and jumping to the “simplicity” of people and to the ploys of Satan. Wesley recounted the story of a meeting that took place in 1773. A hymn was sung over and over some 30 or 40 times, resulting in bodily agitations on the part of some of the people present. In response to this phenomenon, he wrote, “Satan serves himself of their simplicity, in order…to bring a discredit on the work of God.”⁴⁴

Years earlier, in 1740, an epidemic of laughter had broken out during a gathering in Bristol. Wesley said, “I was surprised at some, who were buffeted of Satan in an unusual manner, by such a spirit of laughter as they could in no wise resist.”⁴⁵ A short time later the “spirit of laughter” returned. One lady present was “so violently and variously torn of the evil one” that “she laughed till almost strangled; then broke out into cussing and blaspheming; then stamped and struggled with incredible strength, so that four or five could scarcely hold her.”⁴⁶

Pensacola practices, such as jerking spasmodically, laughing uncontrollably, and falling backward into trance states, are conspicuous by their absence in the ministry of Jesus Christ and the apostles. Conversely, they are commonplace in the world of the occult. Peter warned believers to be wary of just such pagan practices. He admonished believers to “be clear-minded and self-controlled” (1 Pet. 4:7).

It should also be noted that these practices are harmful and characteristic of neurological diseases such as palsy. Dr. Oliver Wilder-Smith warns, “[For] somebody who’s shaking their head violently for a long period of time, the potential for physical damage is massive because your cervical spine, which is a very delicate organ, is just not built for that sort of activity. I’m sure she’ll be having degenerative changes of all of the joints in her cervical spine very rapidly….The purely physical consequences of shaking your head for hours on end are very, very damaging from a purely medical point of view.”⁴⁷

The spiritual consequences can be even more damaging. My concern for this woman and scores of others like her prompted me to plead with Pensacola pastor John Kilpatrick to consider the physical and spiritual consequences. While acknowledging that the woman I identified in his church “shakes like she has palsy,” he defiantly paraded her across his platform as a trophy of the “Pensacola Outpouring.” Ominously he shouted, “If you don’t want your head to start shaking — you make fun of someone in the choir shaking — come here a minute, girl. Come down here a minute. Hurry up. Hurry up, if you don’t want your head to do like this, you better lay your mouth off of her.”

The violent shaking that Kilpatrick deemed to be a mark of revival would for me become the mark of God’s wrath. Kilpatrick went on to prophesy judgment upon me: “I want to say something this morning to Hank Hanegraaff….if you want to keep any kind of a semblance of a ministry, you better back off from this revival and what God is doing. You better back off, because I am going to prophesy to you that if you don’t, and you continue to put your tongue in your mouth on this move of God, within 90 days the Holy Ghost will bring you down. I said within 90 days the Holy Ghost will bring you down.”⁴⁸

While the “prophet” Kilpatrick said his words were a direct revelation from the Lord, the prophet Moses said that we need not fear those who utter false revelations: “You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:21-22).

BACK TO BASICS

A tragedy in modern-day Christianity is that people are looking for experience of God in all the wrong places. The real experience is found in getting back to basics.

Prayer

The body of Christ must rediscover the joy of genuine worship by developing a passion for authentic prayer. The Tuesday evening prayer meetings at Brownsville involve a practice known as “sweeping the sanctuary,” in which groups of people in militaristic fashion join hands and walk throughout the sanctuary and campus to bind hindering spirits that would threaten the revival.⁴⁹ But genuine prayer is not about binding Satan or other sensationalistic ventures.

It is crucial that we become so focused on the real purpose, power, and provision of prayer that once again genuine prayer becomes our priority. While prayer involves supplication of our Lord, it is much more than that. Ultimately, prayer is the submission of our wills to God. That is precisely why R. A. Torrey said that “to pray the prayer of faith we must, first of all, study the Word of God, especially the promises of God, and find out what the will of God is.”⁵⁰

Through prayer we have the privilege of expressing adoration and thanksgiving to the One who saved us, sanctifies us, and one day will glorify us. Through prayer we also confess our sins with the sure knowledge that “He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). And through prayer we indeed petition the Lord to send forth His people to boldly proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ (Matt. 9:38; Col. 4:3), asking that He would open the hearts of the unbelieving so they might believe and be saved (e.g., Rom. 10:1).

F. B. Meyer has well observed that “the great tragedy of life is not unanswered prayer, but unoffered prayer.”⁵¹

Scripture

The Scriptures not only form the foundation of an effective prayer life, but they are also foundational to every other aspect of Christian living. While prayer is our primary way of communication with God, the Scriptures are God’s primary way of communicating with us. Nothing should take precedence over getting into the Scriptures and getting the Scriptures into us.

One of the most important means of getting the Scriptures into us involves the faithful pulpit ministry of the local church. Unlike Pensacola’s propensity for severe holiness preaching based on emotional anecdotes, a genuine pulpit ministry must maintain substantive Bible-centered instruction week in and week out. More than exposure to intensely emotional sermons is needed in order to sustain a healthy Christian life.

If we fail to eat well-balanced meals on a regular basis, we will eventually suffer physical consequences. What is true of the outer person is also true of the inner person. If we do not regularly feed on the Word of God, we will suffer spiritual consequences. Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35).

Fellowship

As we rediscover the power of prayer and renew a passion for Scripture, we also need to rededicate ourselves to experiencing fellowship as a community of faith. We ought not think that we can find quick-fix solutions to our often distant and troubled relationships. Running off to Pensacola for an impartation to bring back to our home church is not the biblical prescription for healthy fellowship.⁵² Neither is the real experience found in focusing in on ourselves. Rather, the genuine biblical experience is found through focusing out on others. The question we should be asking is not, “What can an esoteric experience in church do for me?” but, “How can I use my experiences for the edification of others?” A sad commentary on modern Christianity is that when members of the body hurt, too often we relegate them to finding resources outside the walls of the church. That is precisely why the apostle Paul exhorts us, “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality” (Rom. 12:10-13).

While counterfeit revival leaders clamor for unity without regard for truth, genuine fellowship can be experienced only in concert with the enduring truths of our Christian confession. In the words of J. I. Packer, “We are not entitled to infer from the fact that a group of people are drawing nearer to each other that any of them is drawing nearer to the truth.”⁵³ We must never forget that it was for precisely these biblical truths that the martyrs spilled their blood. Hugh Latimer, who was burned at the stake for his confession of faith, cried out, “Unity must be ordered according to God’s Holy Word, or else it were better war than peace.”⁵⁴

Witness

If more than 1.8 million⁵⁵ people have experienced the Pensacola Outpouring in some way, one would never know it from examining the immediate vicinity of Brownsville. When I was in Pensacola, I personally interviewed a number of people on the street within a block from the Brownsville Assembly of God church.⁵⁶ None of them had been positively impacted in the least by the so-called revival. Others who say they have canvassed the Browns-ville neighborhood report similarly.⁵⁷

Do you want a real spiritual experience? Equip yourself to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Pet. 3:15-16).

If the early Christian church had one distinguishing characteristic, it was a passion to communicate the love, joy, and peace that only Christ can bring to the human heart. As we find ourselves entrenched in an era of esotericism, it is essential that Christians rediscover the ultimate experience of being used as a tool in the hands of almighty God in the process of transforming lives. Too many today believe that the task of apologetics is the exclusive domain of scholars and theologians. Not so! The defense of the faith is not optional. It should be part of basic training for every Christian.

AN ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE

Nowhere is there a more clear-cut contrast between genuine and counterfeit revival than when it comes to an eternal versus an earthly perspective. While the preaching of the Great Awakening was focused on eternal verities, the promises of counterfeit revivalists are often focused on earthly vanities. The more we listen to their messages, the more crystal clear their common refrain becomes. Leaders of the counterfeit revival demand the kingdom now! — in this life, with all its attendant material wealth, physical health, and public accolades.⁵⁸ Jesus, however, said, “My kingdom is not of this world….My kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36). As evidence of this, John’s gospel relates how quickly the shout, “Hosanna!… Blessed is the King of Israel!” (12:13) gave way to the cry, “Crucify him!…We have no king but Caesar” (19:15).

Like modern-day counterfeit revivalists, the sights of many would-be disciples of Jesus were focused on earth, not eternity. In sharp contrast, the leader of the first Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, was utterly convinced that in genuine revival the Spirit of God is at work “to lessen men’s esteem of the pleasures, profits, and honors of the world, and to take off their hearts from an eager pursuit after these things; and to engage them in a deep concern about a future state and eternal happiness which the gospel reveals—and puts them upon earnestly seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”⁵⁹

Like Edwards, C. S. Lewis understood the utter folly of aiming at earth. As he so concisely put it, “Aim at heaven and you get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.”⁶⁰

NOTES

¹John Kilpatrick, In Times Like These (Pensacola, FL: Brownsville Assembly of God, 30 May 1996); videotape.²Steve Hill, Brownsville Assembly of God, 30 May 1996; videotape.³Michael Brown, From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1996), back page promotion.⁴Brownsville Revival Testimonies web page at www.brownsville-revival.org/html/testimon.htm.⁵Steve Hill, Brownsville Assembly of God, 6 April 1997; videotape.⁶Dr. Carl Sightler, “Results from the Revival,” Brownsville Revival web site (see note 4).⁷Dr. Michael L. Brown, “Pensacola: God or Not?” Destiny Image Digest, Winter 1997, 39.⁸The Brownsville Assembly of God reports as of 10 August 1997, over 115,000 have responded to the altar calls since the revival began 18 June 1995 (www.brownsville-revival.org). Dale Schlafer, Becoming an Agent of Revival: Revival Primer (Denver: Promise Keepers, 1997), 21, reports 102,000 converts. A publisher’s blurb on the last page of Dr. Michael Brown’s book, From Holy Laughter to Holy Fire: America on the Edge of Revival (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1996), says, “In less than two years, Evangelist Steve Hill has won hundreds of thousands to Christ….” A widely distributed promotional flyer for Awake America at Anaheim CA 28-29 September 1997 with Pastor John Kilpatrick and Evangelist Steve Hill states: “In Pensacola hundreds of thousands of people have come to Jesus.” In an Internet Reapernet Chat session, 6 May 1997 (chat.reapernet.com), Dr. Michael Brown wrote: “As for the question of why we are now speaking about numbers of people responding to the altar calls as opposed to numbers of people being ‘saved,’ the reasoning is simple. In point of fact, all of us HATE exaggeration and hype, and from the start, conservative figures were being used. Actually, between 250,000-300,000 people have responded to the altar calls, not the 103,000 figure you may see. But we know that not all of these people were actually being saved or coming back to the Lord, therefore we used a very low number for people ‘saved.’ However, since we cannot follow-up on every individual, and since we don’t want to exaggerate anything in the slightest, we speak now of those coming to the Lord or responding to the altars calls, also avoiding unnecessary controversy. Of course — and this is the good news! — we can point to multiplied thousands of radical converts, and really, hundreds of thousands around the country through the revival.” In Good News (July-August 1996 np), Steve Hill is quoted as saying: “We’re seeing a thousand people saved a week, but we are very conservative with the figures.”).⁹To the extent that true conversions have taken place as a result of the Pensacola Outpouring, I rejoice (Phil. 1:18). Of course, what I am concerned about is the kind of Christianity these converts are being led into and the kind of Christianity this movement is depicting to the world. Conversions do not relieve teachers of responsibility and accountability for their unbiblical teachings and practices.¹⁰My office contacted the Pensacola Sheriff’s Department on March 20, 1997 (Sheriff Loman and Sergeant Spears — Brownsville is in their district). Not only were we told that this did not happen, but also that the only possible reason for suspected drug dealers to be taken to a revival would be if it were part of a parole stipulation ordered by a parole judge.¹¹See Bible Answer Man program interview with Michael Brown, 20 March 1997.¹²As of 25 July 1997 this fabrication remains on the Brownsville AOG web site.¹³As Christians we must not make public claims without verifiable evidence to back up those claims (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:21; 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28).¹⁴Statistics available through the Pensacola Police Department.¹⁵Steve Rabey, “Pensacola Outpouring Keeps Gushing,” Christianity Today, 3 March 1997, 57.¹⁶Orange County Register, 13 March 1997, Metro 1. Of course, CRI does not claim responsibility for the drop in Orange County’s crime rate.¹⁷Steve Hill, “Heart to Heart, with Evangelist Steve Hill,” Destiny Image Digest, Winter 1997, 14.¹⁸Maul Ely, Brownsville Assembly of God, 16 March 1997; audiotape.¹⁹Hill, “Heart to Heart,” 14.²⁰Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1997), 83-101.²¹Michael Bowman, e-mail message to Debra Bouey (forwarded to CRI 29 July 1997, CRI files).²²Michael L. Brown, Let No One Deceive You: Confronting the Critics of Revival (Shippensburg, PA: Revival Press, 1997).²³Ibid., 242-43.²⁴Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, 106.¹⁹²⁵As quoted in ibid., 47.²⁶Ibid., 106.²⁷Ibid.²⁸Brown, Let No One Deceive You, 244.²⁹These points, in addition to numerous others, concerning Brown’s indictment of Counterfeit Revival were brought to my attention through a very thoughtful analysis written by Shawn Paul Suave. Many who have undertaken the arduous effort of analyzing Brown’s arguments have highlighted similar issues.³⁰“Honey, Where Are We From?” In Times Like These (Pensacola, FL: Brownsville Assembly of God, 8 June 1996); videotape.³¹Larry Walker, “Sisters in the Fire: Alison and Elisabeth Ward,” Destiny Image Digest, Winter 1997, 27.³²“Amy Elizabeth Ward, ‘Mercy Seat,’ Alison Ward,” In Times Like These (Pensacola, FL: Brownsville Assembly of God, n.d.); videotape.³³“The Voice of Many Waters,” In Times Like These (Pensacola, FL: , Brownsville Assembly of God, n.d.) (testimonies from baptismal services); videotape.³⁴Michael Brown, “Revival in Brownsville?” Destiny Image Digest, Winter 1997, 36.³⁵E.g., Brownsville Assembly of God, Sunday evening service, 16 March 1997, personal eyewitness testimony of Hank Hanegraaff.³⁶CRI’s research included interviews with eyewitnesses to this case.³⁷See Charisma, July 1997, 36-41, 60-62.³⁸Jon Ruthven, “They Called Jesus a Counterfeit, Too,” Charisma, July 1997, 61.³⁹Franz Delitzsch, Isaiah, Volume VII in Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1976), 372.⁴⁰Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, quoted in Fear Is the Master (Hemet, CA: Jeremiah Films, 1986); video.⁴¹Elizabeth L. Hillstrom, Testing the Spirits (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 79. ⁴²Lindell Cooley, “1997 Conference on the Ministry,” Grand Rapids, 7 January 1997, as cited in G. Richard Fisher and M. Kurt Goedelman, “The Murky River of Brownsville: The Strange Doctrine and Practice of the Pensacola Revival,” The Quarterly Journal, April-June 1997, 17.⁴³Quoted in Os Guiness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 32⁴⁴John Wesley, as quoted in Ronald A. Knox, Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994 edition), 533.⁴⁵Ibid.⁴⁶John Wesley, as quoted in Nick Needham’s appendix, “Holy Laughter — The Experience of John Wesley,” Was Jonathan Edwards the Founding Father of the Toronto Blessing? (Welling, Kent, England: self-published, 1995), 39.⁴⁷Dr. Oliver Wilder-Smith, Bible Answer Man radio program, 15 May 1997.⁴⁸John Kilpatrick, “God’s Ears,” Brownsville Assembly of God Revival Service, 6 April 1997; videotape.⁴⁹For frank and unashamed accounts of these prayer meetings, see the Brownsville Assembly of God official web site (www.brownsville-revival.org).⁵⁰R.A. Torrey, The Power of Prayer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 123-24.⁵¹John Blanchard, Gathered Gold (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1984), 231.⁵²Another significant problem with the Brownsville revival is the lack of accountability offered for new converts. The Brownsville AOG acknowledges that they do not know whether the vast majority of the thousands upon thousands of recorded conversions have been baptized, enrolled in a discipleship program, or regularly attend church. (Fax response from Rose Compton of the Brownsville Assembly of God, Pensacola, FL, 13 December 1996.)⁵³Blanchard, Gathered Gold , 37.⁵⁴Ibid., 39. Hugh Latimer (1485–16 October 1555) was an English reformer who was burned at the stake under the authority of Catholic Queen Mary Tudor.⁵⁵Figure as of 7 September 1997 (www.brownsville-revival.org).⁵⁶2-4 May 1997.⁵⁷E.g., Joseph R. Chambers, “False Brags and Real Facts,” The End Times and Victorious Living, March–April 1997, 7. See also the report offered during the 10 June 1997 Internet Reapernet Chat session (chat.reapernet.com).⁵⁸While this particular criticism applies more to counterfeit revivalists in general (see Counterfeit Revival, 67-162, especially 105-9) than specifically to the Pensacola revivalists, the latter have exhibited such tendencies. For example, John Kilpatrick says, “When God blesses somebody or God promotes somebody, I want to warn you now, expect self-promoters to become jealous. What did Jesus say? He knew what He was talking about. He said I will bless you with houses and land and mothers and fathers. He said no man has ever given up anything in my Kingdom. I will bless you with houses and land. Mark 10:29-30….He said if you give it up and you sacrifice, I will see it and I will bless you and I will promote you but when I promote you, you won’t get rid of any of those things and suffer and sacrifice any of those things but what I will bless you and repay you. He said I will give you those things in this life but you are going to have them with persecution….God has got His hand on you…and [is] going to bless you even more as this thing continues to go along…and He is going to bless you even more because it is a law of God, a principle of God.” (John Kilpatrick, “Moving on Up,” Brownsville Assembly of God, 12 January 1997, tape no. 509, part 2. Transcript provided from official Brownsville AOG web site, (www.brownsville-revival.org.) Stephen Hill is quoted as saying: “Yes, I love the anointing. But I believe there is more. You see, my shadow isn’t healing the sick yet. I want my shadow to heal the sick. I want the dead to be raised. I want people to call me when their son or daughter dies, asking me to come to the funeral parlor. I want to see the dead raised. So there is more“ (emphasis in original). (Steve Hill, “Heart to Heart, with Evangelist Steve Hill,” Destiny Image Digest, Winter 1997, 18.)⁵⁹Jonathan Edwards, Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2, 267.⁶⁰Edythe Draper, Edythe Draper’s Book of Quotations (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 305.