THIRD WAVE OF THE SPIRIT AND THE PENTECOSTALIZATION OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY: A WESLEYAN CRITIQUE
by
Laurence W. Wood
The greatest challenge to a self-understanding of the Wesleyan tradition today is the trend toward the "pentecostalization" of many Christian denominations throughout the world. By pentecostalization I mean placing the categories of spiritual gifts, physical manifestations, and spiritual warfare (demon possession) in the forefront of Christian meaning and ministry.
The choice to emphasize these things is a choice not to focus on the essentials of the gospel. None of these issues is distinctly Christian. They all can be developed without any reference to Jesus Christ. The focus of the gospel is spiritual formation. To emphasize gifts, phenomena, and demon possession is to de-emphasize the gift of the Spirit in justification and sanctification; it is to overdo issues which are secondary in the Scriptures. A choice to emphasize these pentecostal themes is a choice against a Wesleyan-evangelical-catholic interpretation of the Christian life.
This pentecostalizing process began in the early 1900s with the emergence of classical pentecostalism which arose out of the Wesleyan/ Holiness tradition in a revival meeting in Los Angeles, California. My purpose here is to show that these pentecostal distinctives may at times be legitimate aspects of ministry, but they are not the focal point of the gospel. My critique will indicate ways in which the Wesleyan movement needs to think of itself in the light of this pentecostalization. Otherwise, the distinctives of the Wesleyan tradition will be eroded.
A. The Wesleyan theological tradition has discouraged the tendency to redefine life in the Spirit in sub-Christian terms such as acquisition of personal power to perform miracles.
Understandably, the emphasis on power and the acquisition of gifts are attractive to those who feel deeply their brokenness because of abusive relationships and the resulting emotional deprivation and sense of personal insignificance. The drawing power of pentecostalism is undoubtedly related to the epidemic need for the masses of people in the world today to feel good about themselves. However, this anthropocentric focus may become a narcissistic substitute for the source of true spiritual identity, which is being renewed in the image of Christ.
To be sure, this tendency also can be seen in some instances in the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition. After all, the phrases "power from on high" and "the baptism with the Holy Ghost" are popular expressions used in the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition. This terminology contributed to the rise of pentecostalism with its emphasis on an emotionalist interpretation of Christian experience. The earliest pentecostals were members of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement, though they were largely from the economically lower class in American society (even as the earliest Methodists were). Unfortunately, their leadership was also largely uneducated. The appeal to the physical evidence of speaking in tongues, along with the outbursts of other emotional behaviors, served as a self-validating sign of their theological and biblical correctness. It should be noted, however, that pentecostals now have well-established Bible schools and colleges with highly educated scholars and some desire to reclaim their heritage as Wesleyans.[1]
My criticism of pentecostalism is not its display of emotion, but its implied claim that its theology of the Holy Spirit can be proved through certain emotional behaviors. It may be appropriate to make a joyful noise with shouts of praise. Methodists have a long history of this practice. Yet, one should remember Paul's words that worship should not foster confusion, but respect the principles of decency and order (1 Cor 14:40).
1. The pentecostalist concept of tongues tends toward a pagan practice of equating human speaking with divine speaking. The response of the Wesleyan tradition has been to issue a caution to pentecostalism and subsequently the charismatic movement. Any focus on the acquisition of spiritual gifts as the means of grace and as the goal of the Christian life tends toward the ecstatic experiences of paganism, which the Old Testament fought against and which Paul cautioned against.
To be sure, ecstatic experiences are not condemned by Paul in 1 Cor. 12-14, but the tone of his comments are largely negative. He downplays their importance and specifically exhorts the Corinthians to seek the fruit of the Spirit (1 Cor. 13). The gifts of the Spirit are not intended to be sought as such since they are given solely by divine choice (1 Cor. 12:11). The "love chapter" of 1 Cor. 13 is highlighted as the goal and essence of the Christian life. This agape love is not an emotional quality characteristic of an ecstatic experience, but an intellectual and spiritually-discerning quality of love which sanctifies the whole of human life.
In contrast to the universal seeking for the gift of forgiving and sanctifying love, the gifts of the Spirit are given solely by divine choice, not by human seeking. Nowhere does Paul command or encourage Christians to seek for spiritual gifts, though ft is normal to desire spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1).[2] Since the gift of tongues was so highly prized among the Corinthians, Paul could even wish that all the Corinthians had it (1 Cor. 14:5). Yet the gift of tongues is the least and most inconsequential of all the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:27-31). This is not to imply that agape love is without emotion, nor that ecstatic experience is unChristian. Indeed, emotion and ecstatic experiences are evident aspects of a biblical understanding of the Jewish and Christian experience.
The ecstatic responses of the Corinthian Christians were similar in kind to the ecstatic religions associated with fertility cults. Corinth was a center of pagan worship where the devotees became passionately immersed in the divine through acts of sacred prostitution with the priestesses. The gifts of the Spirit as appearing in Corinth, such as prophecy and healing, were not distinctly Christian. Seers, magicians, witch doctors, and divine healers in other religions are common, as in ancient pagan religions and in Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. They make many claims to marvelous healings.
One significant difference between pagan tongues-speaking and prophetic speaking in the Bible is described by Yehezkel Kaufmann: "Paganism ... views the speech of the rapt prophet as the very utterance of a god who has taken possession of him. Even inarticulate words and sounds have value as the communication of the indwelling god." But in the Bible "we never hear of recording the words of ecstatics to discover their hidden divine meaning, as was done, for example, at the Delphic oracle." Nor do the prophets speak the exact words of God, but "the prophet repeats the word of God that came to him beforehand. He recounts his experience of the divine revelation ... almost invariably in the past tense." There is first the revelation from God, and then the prophet's "embodiment of it in his utterance."[3]
2. The Word of God in Scripture is never in a pagan way identified with the exact words of a human being. There is a tendency toward paganism whenever the tongues-speaker believes that her or his words are the very words of God. The Fundamentalist-Reformed doctrine of inspiration, with its identification of the very words of the Bible with the very words of God, tends toward a pagan theory of inspiration. This is why the Wesleyan/Holiness theologian H. Orton Wiley says that revelation is "coincident with" but "not identical to" the Scriptures. The Scriptures, he says, are "the record" of revelation. In this sense, Wiley says the Scriptures are the Word of God because they "contain" the Word of God.[4] B. B. Warfield was on firmer ground when he acknowledged that the truth of Christianity does not depend on any doctrine of inspiration, but on the independent facts of history.[5] In an otherwise brilliant exposition of the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration, his need to see the words of Scripture to be exactly the words of God comes close to a mechanical and hence a pagan view of inspiration. This tendency can be seen especially in his literalistic exposition of the Scriptures as "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16).[6]
When Socrates defined the inspiration of the prophets and poets by the gods, he said in typical pagan fashion that "what they say is true, for a poet. . . is beside himself, and reason is no longer in him." They are "possessed" and in a state of "divine madness." Hence soothsayers and poets are not speaking themselves, but rather it is "the god himself who speaks, and through them becomes articulate to us."[7]
On the other hand, Paul says that the point of inspiration is that it secures the reliability and trustworthiness of the Scriptures for instruction in righteousness and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16). He makes no claim that his words are literally the words of God. Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would come upon them to remind them what he had taught them. They were to be witnesses and not "possessed mouthpieces" of the very words of God. A "witness" is someone who gives a report of what has been seen and heard. The apostolic "witness" was one who had seen and heard the Word of God grounded in the historical reality of Jesus and then "reported" what had become known. It was through the ordinary means of human understanding based on the facts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection that served as the foundation for the apostolic inspired witness. Hence, any view of Scripture as literally being the exact words of God or any Christian gift of prophecy or tongues which claims to make one simply a mouthpiece of God is "enthusiasm" and "madness," terms which Socrates gladly embraced to describe the pagan understanding of inspiration.
Paul did not want to stifle the work of God in Corinth. Hence the advice Paul was giving in 1 Cor. 12-14 can be seen as unclear. Was tongues designed for believers or unbelievers? (1 Cor. 14:22). Was tongues an intelligible language (1 Cor. 14:21) or an ecstatic utterance (1 Cor. 14:2)? It would seem that Paul meant by "prophecy" intelligible proclamation and by "tongues" an unintellgible babble or meaningless sounds under the stress of unrestrained emotion. Hence this ecstatic utterance can be "interpreted" but not "translated" since there is no real linguistic communication.[8] Paul did not want to de-Christianize these Corinthians, but neither did he not want to encourage the practice of tongues-speaking either. Pagan ecstatic utterance was apparently too easily replicated in Christian worship. Paul claimed that he spoke with more kinds of tongues (intelligible languages?) than any of them, and hence his advice was something that they should accept. The well-known motto of A. W. Tozer of the Christian Missionary and Alliance Church, "Encourage not, forbid not," seems to express the intent of Paul's thinking. It is remarkably unScriptural to take a minor, fringe practice, about which Paul's tone of advice was overwhelmingly negative, and make it the essential meaning of the gospel.
This confusion over the possible meanings of speaking in ecstatic utterances was only one of many problems which Paul was seeking to resolve among the Corinthians. These problems were cited by Paul as evidence of spiritual immaturity and not the experience of those who are truly Spirit-endowed (1 Cor. 3:1; 14:20, 37). Throughout church history, the practice of speaking in tongues seems to have been associated with those movements which were experiencing much insecurity, distress, or persecution, and they generally were outside the mainstream of Christian belief and thinking (Montanists, Waldenses, Shakers, Mormons). Other religious phenomena have also surfaced, especially during the times of great spiritual awakenings.
B. Paroxysms often surfaced in the great revivals of the past, but they were downplayed and/or rejected.
1. John Wesley himself saw strange bodily and emotional responses (paroxysms) which occasioned disturbances in his meetings. There was a group of French Prophets who had fled to England in the 17th century because of persecution. They sought to win over the Methodists to their ecstastic form of faith. Some infiltrated the Fetter Lane Society in London. On one occasion Charles Wesley found himself in a situation where one became his bed-fellow. As they got ready for bed, Charles reports that this French Prophet "fell into violent agitations and gobbled like a turkey. I was frightened and began exorcising him with, 'Thou deaf and dumb devil,' etc. He soon recovered out of his fit of inspiration. I prayed and went to bed, not half-liking my bed-fellow. I did not sleep very sound with Satan so near me."[9]
In his Journal John Wesley reported a few instances in the early years of the Methodist Revival when giggling erupted in some of his meetings. He described this laughing phenomenon as an evil which forcibly took hold of persons and caused them to act violently and be almost strangled by the devil (Wednesday, May 21, 1740). In another incident, Wesley records in his Journal (Friday, May 9, 1740):
I was a little 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, though it was pain and grief unto them. I could scarce have believed the account they gave me, had I not known the same thing ten or eleven years ago [1730, which was before his call to ministry and subsequent conversion]. Part of Sunday my brother and I then used to spend in walking in the meadows and singing psalms. But one day, just as we were beginning to sing, he burst out into a loud laughter. I asked him, if he was distracted; and he began to be very angry, and presently after [I also began] to laugh as loud as he. Nor could we possibly refrain, though we were ready to tear ourselves in pieces, but we were forced to go home without singing another line.
2. Peter Cartwright spoke out against paroxysms at Cane Ridge, Ky., where Presbyterians and Methodists came together for camp meeting services in 1801. In his autobiography, Peter Cartwright, the famous Methodist "backwoods preacher," gives an extensive and vivid account of this revival. He describes it as a mighty work of the Spirit of God which affected more than twenty-five thousand people. He also describes a number of unusual phenomena (jerks, barking, running, jumping, fainting) which swept through the revival meeting; but he rejects these phenomena as having come from the Lord-except the "jerks" which he says were a judgment from God. While the lay people in general encouraged these behaviors, Cartwright says most Methodist ministers (including himself) spoke out against them. These kinds of behaviors came from people, he says, who were "weak minded, ignorant, and superstitious persons." He comments further that the gift of prophecy "was the most troublesome delusion of all" because it "made such an appeal to the ignorance, superstition, and credulity of the people, even saint as well as simier."[10]
Peter Cartwright was not opposed to displays of emotion. He was one of the early Methodist preachers who was known for his fiery zeal and daring tactics. Yet his focus was not on alleged supernatural displays of divine power, but on the conversion of sinners. The primary means of his evangelistic ministry was through the campmeeting experience. He judged that the "signs and wonders" which characterized many people at Cane Ridge were largely the product of hysteria, not the Holy Spirit.
3. Just as pentecostals believe that the gift of tongues was a sign of the baptism with the Spirit, similar physical phenomena are now being promoted in the Vineyard movement as evidence of the Holy Spirit. Such practices as being "slain in the Spirit," barking, oinking, and roaring are alleged signs of the working of the Spirit. These behaviors are an expected part of the rapidly expanding Vineyard Christian Fellowship which began with the ministry of John Wimber in Anaheim, California, in 1977. Wimber's ministry inspired the larger development of what Peter Wagner calls The Third Wave of the Spirit (also the title of his book). The First Wave was the pentecostals; the Second Wave is the charismatics; the Third Wave is the Vineyard movement. Whereas pentecostals and charismatics believe that the gift of tongues is a sign of the Spirit's presence, the "Third Wavers" believe that the gift of healing is the proof of the Spirit's power in one's life. Wagner's book provides many stories of "power encounters," although "the reader is given insufficient data to make an independent judgment as to the validity of the experiences. This creates an appearance of reality for what might be only wishful thinking."[11] The "Third Wavers" have grown rapidly. It is reported that their membership in 1988 was in excess of 24 million.[12]
The promiment spokespersons for this movement include John Wimber, Peter Wagner, Charles Kraft, John White, and Don Williams. The prominence given by them to miraculous phenomena is clearly stated by Wimber when he describes his concept of "power evangelism" as a "spontaneous, Spirit-inspired, empowered presentation of the gospel ... preceded and undergirded by supernatural demonstrations of God's presence." This action of the Spirit includes special communications from the Holy Spirit, healings, exorcisms, and other miraculous happenings.[13] In the journal Equipping the Saints (Fall, 1994), Wimber admits that these phenomena are a controversial aspect of the Vineyard movement, but he justifies them on the ground that Jonathan Edwards supposedly encouraged them as valid expressions of the work of God. The difference between the understanding of these excesses as they occurred in the past great revivals and as they occur in the Vineyard movement is that Wimber considers them normal and mainstream.
4. Some proponents of this so-called "Third Wave of the Spirit," such as psychiatrist John White, are trying to reconfigure the history of revival moments as if paroxysms were an essential and expected part of the meaning of revival. Two biblical instances of being "slain in the Spirit" are examples of those who were overcome with fear because of the extraordinary nature of their visions (Dan. 10:9; Rev. 1:17), not signs of the coming of the Spirit in power. Both Daniel and John were told that their fear was not appropriate, but to arise and carry on with their divine assignments (Rev. 1:17; Dan. 10:10-12). The instance in John 18:6 was simply a case of wicked men being overcome with shock at the courage of Jesus.[14]
An obvious intent of White's defense of the phenomena prevalent in the Vineyard movement is to encourage others to be open to these physical phenomena. White has put forth the best possible interpretation of the history of paroxysms, though not without forcing them to fit his analysis. His appeal for others to be open to "unusual experiences" concludes with the expectation that such phenomena will enhance one's relationship with God, though he allows that one's relationship to God does not depend upon these paroxysms. There is, however, a subtle suggestion which this psychiatrist unfairly plants in the minds of his readers that easily entices and misleads Christian people who want to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit.
Suggestions to be open to hysterical experiences can become a form of manipulation and abuse, which White as a psychiatrist knows. To be sure, expressing one's emotions is healthy spiritually and psychologically; but paroxysms are inappropriate and unhealthy expressions of emotions. While Jonathan Edwards reports phenomena happening in New England "as probable tokens of God's presence," these phenomena were incidental and not considered an inherent aspect of revival.[15] For White, these phenomena are moved to center stage.
Don Williams believes that "signs and wonders" are not only proofs of revelation, but "they are revelation." He says that these miraculous phenomena are normal experiences in the life of real Christians and not something extraordinary. If miracles are not regularly occurring in one's life, this means one is faithless toward God.[16] The Vineyard movement sees miraculous phenomena as a self-validating proof of Christian experience. Charles Kraft, a missions professor of anthropology at Fuller Theological Seminary, reports in Theology, News, and Notes (November 1987) that his own spiritual life became vital and meaningful only through observing religious phenomena when Wimber once taught a class on "Signs and Wonders" in 1982.
The President of Fuller Theologial Seminary, along with other professors, now have put distance between themselves and the Vineyard movement by issuing an official task force report entitled Ministry and the Miraculous. It is openly critical of the "signs and wonders" movement, noting that this emphasis is not the focus of their seminary. This Fuller report considers the "signs and wonders" movement to be "uncongenial to the evangelical tradition."[17]
5. John Wimber and his associates seem to be enamored with "power." Their book titles highlight "power." Note Power Evangelism, Power Healing, and Christianity With Power. Their understanding of "power" is not the New Testament meaning of being energized inwardly with the character of Christ. Rather, their description of power looks more like manipulation and control. The opening pages of Charles Kraft's Christianity With Power begins with the concept of power defined as supernatural phenomena. He believes that if one is a power-filled Christian, one can expect God to be manifest in miracles on a regular basis. Kraft reports the powerlessness he felt as a missionary. Attending Wimber's "Signs and Wonders" class in 1982 brought him into higher dimensions of spiritual vitality. When he saw students apparently healed, his faith came alive. He admits that he now struggles with doubt and has to fight off the temptation to think that the alleged healings can be explained in normal, natural ways. But he has been successful in resisting these doubts, especially since learning that Wimber also struggles with such doubts.[18]
The "signs and wonders" movement inevitably plays into the hands of principled atheists (some are my friends) who would like to believe in God, but say they can't because of the suffering of innocent children and the extensive and pointless evil in the world. We do not have adequate answers for these dilemmas. We believe there are good reasons which God knows, even if we do not. We live by faith and trust in the "secret assistance of the Holy Spirit" (as Wesley said) in the daily affairs of our lives without demanding explicit and absolute proof for anything. We have adequate grounds for believing, and that is all that faith requires. The healing emphasis in the Vineyard movement undermines the meaning of faith because it is based on the power of "signs and wonders."
6. The underlying assumption in the Vineyard movement is that divine healings and exorcisms function as essential aids to faith. One of the evangelical themes of the Wesieyan Revival in England in the 18th century was the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. In contrast to this Wesleyan emphasis, the Vineyard movement stresses miraculous phenomena as the proof of faith. Kraft claims that the "Third Wave of the Spirit" is different from pentecostalism because it sees healings as the primary evidence of the Spirit working in one's life rather than tongues.[19]
This fosters an attitude of codependency on God instead of a healthy-minded relationship. The purpose of one's relationship to God should not be built on the concept of what one can get out of it. The purpose of prayer, for example, is not to ask God to do those things for us which we really could do for ourselves. Kraft chided a "charismatic" believer for thinking first of depending on a doctor to treat his sprained ankle instead of turning to God for his supernatural assistance.[20]
This concept of power is an unnatural application of the biblical principle of faith in divine healing. Even though Kraft believes in the value of medical doctors, this attitude fosters a superficial and hyper-spiritual ;lotion of healing and perpetuates a childish dependency on God, as if God did not intend for us to take care of ourselves and each other in normal ways. To be sure, I believe that God does work miracles of healing for special reasons; but God does not suspend the normal operation of divine laws. God is not a wand-waving magician. Nor is God driven by the codependent need to provide people with quick fixes to their problems.
The late president of Asbury Theological Seminary, Frank Bateman Stanger, regularly preached on divine healing. He taught a special course and wrote a book on that subject. But his focus was on the spiritual and relational sources of healing provided in the larger context of the worshiping community. He specifically did not allow his ministry of healing to upstage the Wesleyan/Evangelical message. Nor did he embrace a "signs and wonders" mentality, as if the reality of God's revelation were on trial. President Stanger's ministry of healing was in keeping with the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition.
I was disappointed in reading Christianity With Power because Kraft emphasizes uncritical accounts of divine healing that encourage a codependent relationship to Christ. This intensifies the insecurities and immature thinking of God so prevalent in popular forms of Christianity. The reports of unsuccessful attempts to cast out a demon from a certain woman for a period of five hours is inhumane.[21] If the woman was really demonized, is the power of Christ so weak? Was this woman not more likely suffering from an anxiety disorder which caused her enormous mental distress?
The accounts of healing which Kraft reports are riddled with evidence of gullibility. It is not a mark of spirituality to be uncritical and superstitious. Wesley, with logical and critical probing, evaluated the claims of many Methodist people who testified to having experienced the perfection of love in their lives. This critical evaluation was not looked upon by others as negative and unspiritual. But Kraft makes far too much of alleged claims of divine healing. Such credulity is not a mark of spirituality.
The question concerning how Kraft knows when a person is possessed of a demon raises another serious issue. Kraft claims that his approach is "balanced," unlike pentecostals and the typical television evangelist. His and Wimber's "more balanced" approach even appeals to "academics," Kraft claims.[22] But there is lack of "balance" evidenced when Kraft portrays himself as having a special divine authority to act on behalf of God. "We have been given authority over diseases, affected body parts, damaged emotions, curses, bondages, and whatever other things the enemy uses to enslave people. So we command them to be well."[23] The extreme to which he takes this "authority" is seen in his claim that "I bless" certain people and audiences.[24] I can understand that he would offer the blessing of the Lord. But to speak with "I bless you" borders on blasphemy. The consequences of this exaggerated claim of speaking directly for God is that some impressionable theological students are now beginning themselves to replicate this authoritarian style. Undoubtedly it gives them a sense of power and importance as they imitate a faculty member who has moved into extremism, but this will incapacitate students when as pastors they need to relate to people in a mature and responsible manner.
7. The "signs and wonders" emphasis of the Vineyard movement seems to have little in common with the "signs and wonders" of the New Testament. This phrase roots in the Old Testament designation of God's miraculous deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian captivity. In every instance in the Old Testament where "signs and wonders" is used, it always recalls the original saving event of this redemption from Egypt (Dt. 6:20-24; 26:5-9; Josh. 24:17; Dt. 4:34; 7:19; 11:3; 29:3; Jer. 32:20-21; Acts 7:36). Peter was the first to link this designation of the Exodus event with Jesus' resurrection from the dead (Acts 2:22). It was deliberately chosen to show that the Easter event is the New Testament counterpart to the Exodus event.
Throughout the New Testament, whenever the phrase "signs and wonders" occurs, it is used to show that the New Exodus has taken place (which the prophets had foretold would occur as the basis for the restoration of Israel-Ezek. 37:12). This New Exodus is the Easter Event. All the miracles of the New Testament are like signposts to indicate the arrival of the New Kingdom through Jesus' resurrection from the dead. This is not suggest that the day of miracles is over, but rather to place the significance of this phrase in perspective. The miracles which accompanied the ministry of the apostles were an overflow of the larger meaning of Jesus' resurrection.
There were isolated miracles throughout the Bible, but there are three major periods of the history recorded in the Bible where there was a heavy concentration of miracles. One was the cluster of "signs and wonders" connected with the ministry of Moses in leading Israel out of the bondage of Egypt. A second concentration was connected with the ministry of Elijah and Elisha during the reign of Ahab and the near fatal crisis when Israel was almost overrun by the cult of Baal (1 Kings 18-20). The third is in the Gospels. These concentrations of miracles are all connected primarily with the history of salvation. By contrast, the "signs and wonders" in the Vineyard movement have cheapened the biblical meaning of this phrase by its application to the largely privileged, middle-class folks who supposedly are being healed from ordinary illnesses which sooner or later everyone is expected to have to bear.
If the "signs and wonders" movement of the "Third Wave of the Spirit" is an authentic return to the New Testament period of "signs and wonders," why not emphasize raising the dead? Jesus raised the dead (Luke 7:22). Jesus gave his disciples power to raise the dead as a wonderful sign of the Messianic kingdom (Matt. 10:8). One of the miracles performed by Elijah during the crisis of Baalism was to raise the widow's son (1 Kings 17:22). Jesus raised the widow's son (Lk. 7:14) and Lazarus from the dead (Jn. 11:44). These types of miracles are difficult to imitate or be mistaken, especially when one has been put in the grave for several days like Lazarus. One of the key proofs of Jesus' Sonship was his resurrection from the dead, something accessible to public scrutiny (1 Cor. 15:5-6). Peter raised Tabitha from the dead after she had been prepared for burial (Acts 9:40). Paul raised a young man who fell out of a window (20:10). Wagner does in fact report instances of resurrections. However, these do not seem to be directly related to the activity of the Vineyard movement, but ones about which he has heard.
C. S. Lewis in Miracles points out that God does not work miracles as if he freely pours them out like salt out of a shaker. Lewis shows that miracles and martydom relate closely.[25] The real miracles in today's world are needed in the difficult life-and-death "missionary" situations where there is victimization, including starvation, war, death, and the slaughter of innocent children. Our lack of concern for the larger spiritual and social needs of our world is what we should be chided for, not because we as affluent Americans failed to pray over a sprained ankle.
The main focus of faith should not be asking God to give us proofs of his love through what he can do for us through miracles. God does not want us to be simply dependent servants, but loving friends (John 15:15). Friendship assumes affection for one another based on a mature degree of self-reliance. When one friend over-depends upon another person to meet needs, the relationship is too lopsided to be a mature friendship.
8. The Vineyard movement trivializes the meaning of friendship with God because it espouses a codependent relationship with Him. Friendship with God is established through the ordinary means of grace (prayer, the Scriptures, the sacraments, public worship, private devotions). The purpose of worship of God is not to participate mystically in God's oneness in the pantheistic sense of losing one's own identity and being merged into God. The purpose of worship is not to manipulate a sense of intimacy with God through creating an environment designed to generate emotional ecstasy.
Prayer choruses sometimes function like a magical mantra. When repeated often enough, they submerge one's own sense of consciousness into the larger feeling of cosmic oneness. This is not the purpose of divine worship. God is the One who confronts us as the divine other. Intimacy with God is not the loss of one's own personal identity, but the enrichment of our own personhood through establishing and developing a grace-enabled friendship with the Lord. The purpose of worship is to present each one mature in the Lord (Col. 1:28). The "spiritual worship" of God is "the renewing of our minds" and doing "the will of God" (Rom. 12:1-2). The promotion of an ecstatic feeling of oneness with God is more pantheistic than Christian and typifies the normal pagan view of worship where the devotee is absorbed into the divine. Though some may experience ecstasy and flights into spiritual realms unknown, this is the unusual and not normal meaning of worship (2 Cor. 12:1-6). Paul's exaltation into spiritual heights threatened his humility, and so God reminded him of his earthiness with a "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor. 12:7).
A healthy worshiping experience is designed to enhance one's friendship with God. When worship blurs the distinction between God and us through mystical absorption, we have abandoned the meaning of Christian worship. The practices of being "slain in the Spirit" and other paroxysms seem to fall into this category of sub-biblical worship. When the use of prayer choruses manipulates worshipers into a frame of mind which makes them suggestible to losing consciousness and falling on the floor, this is not biblical worship. True worship involves the affirmation of one's personal identity through relationship to the Father through the Son by means of the Holy Spirit. Worship and intimacy with God is not fostered through falling unconscious on the floor. Worship is a total act of the whole person in friendship with God.
An unhealthy codependency is reflected in Kraft's statement that "if God is alive, he must still be revealing himself' in physical demonstrations of miracles.[26] The assumption is that, if God is not performing miraculous demonstrations as evidence of divine existence, then there is no awareness that God is real. This focus is not on healing hurting people, but rather on apologetics-to prove that God is alive today. Kraft admits that not everybody is healed, but, he says, at least there are enough people healed to prove that God is alive today. I call this type of apologetics "codependent" because it is a subtle form of attempting to control God by "commanding" him to prove his love to us. If Job had demanded this type of reassurance, he would never have survived his ordeal. If Jesus had felt that way in the Garden of Gethsemane, he would never have gone to the cross, but would have given up in despair before his enemies.
This emphasis upon the objective proofs of God's presence in the world as evidenced by his power to work miracles is a sub-biblical understanding of power. The "power from on high" which Jesus promised to his disciples (Acts 1:8) was divine energy (dynamis) which empowered them to live truly and completely as disciples and to become effective witnesses of God's reality in a hostile world. This "power" of the Holy Spirit is purifying power (Acts 15:8-9) which cleansed the disciples from their fears and prejudices and allowed them to be released from the threatening fear of their enemies. This "power from on high" was a power to love God truly and fully (Rom. 5:5). No longer did they "follow afar off," but boldly and with deep devotion and commitment they became witnesses of their Lord. The power of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost is the power to be true disciples (Jn. 14-17).
The concept of raw power as miraculous phenomena is more akin to a pagan notion than to the New Testament. Wimber interprets power as the phenomenal display of God's work in the world. It is the practical proof of the gospel. One reviewer rightly calls Wimber's approach "runaway pragmatism" because "the usefulness of signs and wonders is so raw, so unvarnished, one can scarcely tell where pragmatism ends and manipulationism begins.[27]
9. The role of experience seems at times to be more decisive for "The Third Wave of the Spirit" than for the Scriptures. An appeal to phenomenal experience is an essential element for the Vineyard movement. In fact, the defenders of the movement appeal primarily to experience to left its validity.[28]
One of my personal friends went to Toronto to be a neutral observer of the Vineyard Church revival. He is a theologian in a United Methodist seminary, and one of his areas of expertise is in the history of revival movements. He believes that the "Toronto Revival" is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of many people, but he says, "It's theology is absolutely terrible."
The Wesleyan tradition should not be enticed to embrace the Vineyard movement because of its attempts to make God available in the everyday affairs of human life. Its theological deficiencies are most evident in its unacknowle4ged accommodation to the action-packed, thrillermotivated, emotion-filled movie culture which dominates the American way of life today. Unfortunately, it is boring for many people to go to a traditional church where one has to engage the mind in worship through the reading of the liturgy and hearing the Word of God expounded. After all, we are used to being entertained with powerful stories and dramatic scenes in the movies and on television. The Vineyard movement is a religious counterpart to this cultural trend which places more emphasis on experience than critical, objective truth.
What is so dangerous about the appeal to experience is that most anything can be defended according to experience. "To test the spirits" is to test the spirit of truth according to the apostolic witness which is based on objective, historical facts (1 John 4:1-5). Unless one's experience can be seen as a confirmation of what is taught in Scripture, then any appeal to experience is hollow at best. In his sermon "The Witness of the Spirit" (Sermon XL.V), Wesley says that any attempt to construct a doctrine from experience is fanaticism ("enthusiasm"). He argues that doctrine must be derived from Scripture. Scripture alone is the immediate source of belief, though experience "confirms" that we have properly understood the Scriptures. No doubt today many are being brought to Christ and various paroxysms are functioning as aids in developing spiritual vitality. But this is not "the more excellent way" which Paul advocated in 1 Cor. 13:1 - the way he contrasted with phenomenal manifestations.
The appeal to experience as the primary method of interpreting the Scriptures is liberalism to the core, except that classical liberalism (as in Schleiermacher) was based on a rationally enlightened understanding of experience. The inroads of an experienced-based theology leads in many directions - including to "New Age" thinking and eclectic religion. The longterm threat of pentecostalization is that its credulity may be setting itself up to be undermined by a more "enlightened" analysis of human experience and thus open the door to a new kind of sophisticated liberalism which will overthrow it. This happened to the German institutions of higher learning in the 18th century when the popular and subjectivistic forms of Pietism undermined the leadership of those who were committed to Lutheran Orthodoxy and hence weakened the theological leadership of the German universities. Enlightenment thinking then swept away both the Pietists and the Orthodox. History has a way of repeating its patterns of the past.
10. A case can be made that the pentecostalization of American Christianity is no less culturally conditioned than the various liberal theologies. It is a reflection of the general trend of our secular/pagan culture to trust "feeling," "emotions," and "passions" in making ultimate decisions about values and truth. The Fuller Report argues that the "signs and wonders" movement is culturally conditioned by the general American attitude that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - which implies that we have the right to live without inconvenience and suffering.
We as Christians actually are called "to a life of the cross, of selfdenial, not to a life of reliance upon miracles to free us from the ailments and agonies that we are heir to on earth."[29] The Fuller document further insists that "the gospel does not clearly vindicate itself to the world when ministers proclaim the occasional release of affluent individuals from bearable aches and pains while thousands of starving children call in vain to be fed and thousands of oppressed people plead in vain for justice."[30] The main point of the gospel is not miraculous phenomena. The Reformers of the church believed that "preoccupation with miracles seduced believers from the heart of the gospel's spiritual message and moral mandate, and they returned the churches to the heart of the matter, lefting faith and sanctifying obedience."[31]
11. The Wesleyan theological tradition has not understood "miracles" to be a primary focus of the gospel, though it certainly accepts that on occasion God may perform a miracle for a special purpose. The formation of Christian character in relationship to Christ, with the Scriptures, tradition, reason, and experience all interwoven, is the intent of the gospel. Spiritualistic movements in our day often prefer to look to their own experiences for theological understanding rather than to the Scriptures.
I have not found in Wesley's writings indication that miraculous phenomena and ultra-emotionalism are evidences of a post-conversion experience of one having received the Holy Spirit. The decisive significance of Pentecost was not the "signs" and "gifts" of the Spirit, but the Spirit Himself. Wesley shows in his sermon on "Scriptural Christianity" that the gifts were operative before Pentecost, but the promise of the Spirit in the prophets was linked to the sanctification of Israel.
Jesus defined the work of the coming Holy Spirit in terms of "oneness," "love," and "sanctification." Jesus does not link the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost primarily with the gifts of the Spirit or with physical manifestations (Jn. 14-17). To be sure, the gifts of the Spirit are important for "the common good" of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7) and should be exercised according to the principles set forth in Scripture. But it is a remarkable misreading of the book of Acts to focus on spiritual manifestations as the decisive work of the Holy Spirit. Peter pointedly defined the work of the Spirit of Pentecost in terms of "cleansing." Paul's description of "life in the Spirit" is related to sanctification (Gal. 5:13-26). When the whole of Paul's writings is considered, there is relatively little reference to phenomena or gifts of the Spirit. His only reference to the gift of tongues was in a negative context where it was being abused. The decisive meaning of the Spirit's coming in power is to enable disciples to live out the meaning of Christian character (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 4:31; Ezek. 36:24-26; Rom. 2:28; Acts 21:8). The Holy Spirit is called "Holy," Wesley points out in his sermon "On Grieving the Holy Spirit" (CXXXV), because it is the Spirit's task to make us holy (cf. Rom. 1:4).
Wesley observes that "God divided them [the gifts of the Spirit] with a sparing hand." He suggests that "perhaps not one in a thousand" possessed the extraordinary gifts, and "probably none but the teachers in the Church, and only some of them (1 Cor. 12:28-30)." Wesley then says: "It was, therefore, for a more excellent purpose than this that `they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.' It was to give them (what none can deny to be essential to all Christians in all ages) the mind which was in Christ, those holy fruits of the Spirit."
Unusual behaviors occurrred in the early stages of the Methodist Revival in Wesley's time, but they were understood as pre-conversion struggles of those under conviction seeking to be freed from the power of evil (see Wesley's Journal for April 21, 24, 29, May 1, 2, 20, 1939; May 9, 21, 1740). George Whitefield even chided Wesley for tolerating them.[32] In his Journal (June 12, 1740) Charles Wesley wrote: "The power of the Lord was present in his word, both to wound and heal. The adversary roared in the midst of the congregation; for to him, and not to the God of order, do I imput those horrible outcries." The occurrence of these emotional excesses disappeared early in the Wesleyan Revival. In this sense, the attempt to claim Wesley as support for the so-called "Third Wave of the Spirit" is intellectually dishonest.
Quite the contrary, Wesley in "Scriptural Christianity" explicitly warned against embracing phenomena as evidence of the Spirit. In his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, he links the special giving of the Spirit of Pentecost in Acts 8, 10, 19 to "sanctifying grace." In A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Wesley's entire account of the Wesleyan Revival is focused on the fruit of the Spirit as the single evidence of the work of the sanctifying Spirit. In Wesley's writings there is no essential connection made between the converting and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and "miraculous" phenomena. Wesley never wrote any defense for paroxyms in his meetings, and he certainly did not promote them. He did in a plain-spoken manner speak out against fanaticism. His sermon "The Nature of Enthusiasm" is a vigorous example.
In accord with John Wesley, the Wesleyan tradition has stood against the excesses of emotionalism and has cautioned against allowing these natural human phenomena to become a substitute for the real evidence of the Spirit, namely, the fruit of the Spirit-love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, etc. (Gal. 5:22-23). The power for human transformation resides in the love of God poured out in the believer's heart through the ordinary means of grace (prayer, reading and hearing the Word of God in Scripture, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, and fellowshiping together in the Christian community and worship). Wesley insisted on these ordinary means of grace through "the secret assistance of the Holy Spirit" as the normal means through which the Holy Spirit works in the life of the Christian.
Subjective emotional phenomena can become replacements for liturgy and the sacraments-which ground experience in the objective historical events of salvation. To focus attention on an emotional overdose, as if one could bypass the ordinary means of grace and secure a quick fix through a self-validating ecstatic experience, is patently fanaticism. This is not at all to suggest that emotion should be repressed. Indeed, one fruit of the Spirit is joy. It is certainly understandable that at times one may be overcome with so much joy and emotion that there may be unusual forms of expression. But to promote, to program, and to expect certain emotional responses as the decisive evidence of the Holy Spirit is to detract from the true meaning of revival.
C. The most sinister feature of the pentecostalization of American Christianity is reflected in its unhealthy obsession with demon possession.
In his Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth wrote: "The very thing which the demons are waiting for, especially in theology, is that we should find them dreadfully interesting and give them our serious and perhaps systematic attention."[33] While the Scriptures certainly do recognize that evil often deeply resides in the depth of one's being, there is little said in the actual preaching and teaching of Jesus about demon possession, though on occasion he cast them out. In fact, there are only five specific instances where the casting out of demons was accompanied with paroxysms. There is one in Matthew (9:32-33); there are four in Mark (1:23-36; 5:220; 7:25; 9:17-29). The two recorded in Luke (8:27-33; 9:37-43) are the same as in Mark (5:2-20; 9:17-29). There is not a single instance of demon possession in the Gospel of John.
Other references to Jesus or the disciples casting out demons seem to reflect a practice of delivering people who were suffering from a more generalized oppression of unclean spirits rather than to spectacular incidents involving paroxysms (Mark 6:7, 13). This was the general meaning of exorcisms in the Christian tradition in the 2nd and 3rd centuries according to The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome. Jesus marginalized references to the demonic (Lk. 10:20). There is no reference to demon possession or instruction on how to deal with demons in the recorded sermons of the apostles in the Book of Acts. There is only one instance of demon possession in Acts (19:11-16). The substance of the apostolic preaching was the history of salvation which culminated in Easter and Pentecost, with an invitation for the people to "receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith" (Acts 26:18).
To be sure, there were miraculous phenomena which accompanied the activity of the apostles. But these activities were not identified as the main focus of the gospel. Jesus made it clear that, even though one possesses the gifts of the Spirit and even has the ability to "cast out demons," these phenomenal things do not qualify one for the Kingdom: "On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me'" (Matt. 7:22-23). The only qualification for entrance into the Kingdom of Christ is a relationship of obedience to and love for Christ (Matt. 7:24). There is no indication that miraculous phenomena are a necessary or even incidental requirement for membership in Christ's Kingdom. Rather, the apostolic preaching concluded with a call for faith in Christ instead of an invitation for hearers to be exorcised of their demons. There was, in fact, a reluctance to speak about these supernatural phenomena in comparison to uplifting the person of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of God's Spirit.
1. In an important sense, demonic powers were marginalized and demythologized in the New Testament. Demonic powers are downsized in comparison to the popular and sensational notions widespread in Jesus' day. In the pre-exilic writings of the Old Testament there is virtually no trace of teaching about an organized demonic realm. There is scarcely any acknowledgment of a spirit world other than Yahweh, though belief in demons and a spirit world was rampant among Israel's pagan neighbors. The unique contribution of the Hebrew religion was its belief in the reality of God as a personal subject who created the world out of nothing and who transcends it. There is no other ancient religion which developed this biblical idea of a self-existing God. No power c compete with Yahweh.
Jesus made little use of belief in demons to explain the nature o human behavior. In the strict sense of the term, he was not an exorcist. exorcist is one who casts out devils through incantations and magical rituals. Jesus simply spoke words of freedom to those in bondage. This is why Jiirgen Moltmann says that Jesus de-demonized the world. Healing occurs for people physically and emotionally when the stigma of the demonic is removed as their relationship to Christ and their fellow human beings is restored.[34] The source of evil in the world is identified as sin, that is, disobedience to God. The cure for evil is faith in Christ. His power over evil forces was his authority to rebuke wickedness because God alone is the source of wholeness and holiness and is sovereign over all creation.
Wickedness is demonic because it represents separation from God. Wickedness is a relational problem because it is alienation from God. The Fall is a fall away from God. Unlike Paul, Peter, James, and John who never mention demonic possession, what is now happening in the Vineyard movement is a remythologizing of the demonic and an upgrading of the status of the powers of evil as if Jesus and Satan were co-powers competing for control of God's universe. This is a resurgence of Persian dualism. This divine-demonic dualism is fundamentally contradictory to the teachings of the New Testament.
2. Because the demonic is identified with the irrational, it is easy to confuse it with negative and destructive human emotions such as insecurity and fears. Just as there are some people who claim their words and decisions come directly from God, as if their own human spirit were identified with the Holy Spirit, so there are those who mythologize the demonic by equating negative human emotions with Satanic possession.
Symptoms of demonic and other abnormal behavior resulting from damaged emotions are similar. Emotional deprivation results in repressed anger and anxious feelings. In order to deal with the loss of meaningful relationships with significant persons in their lives, people will often become very possessive and self-centered. Theologically, we call this self-centeredness pride. In the emotionally disturbed person, pride is intensified beyond the normal feeling of self-sufficiency. It is connected with deep-seated feelings of anger from personal injury which has been sustained unjustly. The consequence is irrational, driven behavior where one acts in an out-of-control manner.
This attitude of pride (self-centeredness) and sense of being driven and out of control (the sense of being "possessed") corresponds to the irrational behavior which defines the meaning of the demonic. The origin of this drivenness and self-centeredness is the same, the loss of meaningful relationship. The fall of the king of Babylon, metaphorically called "O Day Star, son of Dawn" (wrongly translated "Lucifer" in the King James Version), is explained as a fall away from relationship with God through pride (Isaiah 14:12). The explanation for Adam's fall away from God was pride (Gen. 3:5). The resulting behavior and loss of relationship with God was destructive and murderous behavior (Isaiah 14:12; Gen. 3:14-4:16). The Fall in each case uses the language of driveness and being out of control (Gen. 3:24; Isaiah 14:12-21). It is as if people were "possessed" by an unnatural disposition which prohibited them from Milling their true nature.
The dysfunctional symptoms of being "cut off' and "cast away" (Isaiah 14:12, 19) from God are like the symptoms of those who have suffered the loss of meaningful relationship early in childhood and have experienced destructive emotions, feelings of unworthiness and a loss of personal identity. The difference is that the emotional death and destruction which small children feel is not their own choice. They are made to pay for the faults and failings of others.
In paganism, natural disasters are thought to be evidence of demonic fury and demons are mythical expressions for destructive emotions. Demons are thus mythical expressions for otherwise normal phenomena which produce fear. The demonic is largely a culturally conditioned concept borrowed from Zoroastrianism and is reinterpreted today to represent the split within one's inner being which prevents one from feeling wholeness and personal integrity. This split divides one against oneself. Sometimes this inner division is so great that it leaves a person with severe pathological feelings of persecution, or they may become burdened with multiple personalities, or afflicted with a variety of anxiety disorders. This spiritual deformation fills one with fear. Fear is a feeling of distrust and insecurity because it is rooted in the loss of a meaningful relationship with other human beings and with God.
3. As our modern age is increasingly becoming more pagan, we can expect the return of superstitious fears. With the increase of dysfunctional families and broken relationships in our world today, we can expect more and more people to attend so-called deliverance meetings where self-styled exorcists will allegedly cast out their demons. This is an understandable mechanism for explaining their fears. Undoubtedly some will be helped by this mythologizing of their anxieties. Others will be disillusioned. Many will live in constant terror that demons may haunt and seize them.
I am sympathetic with those who embrace a psychological explanation for the demon phobia so widespread in popular Christianity This is not because I wish to explain away spiritual warfare, but because I wish to emphasize human responsibility. Of course, one must recognize the existence of evil powers, which the Bible teaches; but to picture them literally as gremlin-like creatures inhabiting human bodies is mythical. To ascribe negative human emotions and behavior to demon possession is superstition. It is as if one is not taking seriously the emotional pain and hurts which afflict people with damaged emotions. Indeed, those who are afflicted with anxiety know only too well how real is their struggle for survival. The emotional deprivation and loss of hope is a life-and-death warfare. Only through the grace of God can one be delivered from an alienated self.
This psychological re-interpretation of the demonic does not mean that one is resorting to a spiritualizing and allegorizing of theology, as if one could pick and choose what one wants to accept from Scripture. What is intellectually compelling about belief in the God of Jesus Christ, and what preserves orthodox faith from the atheistic critique, is the history of saving events culminating in Jesus' resurrection from the dead. This core of salvation history is open to historical criticism and can be established with a remarkable degree of probability. There is not only this objective basis for faith in rational argumentation. There also is the personal and existential dimension of faith. All that contributes to the meaning of personhood is derived from the gospel. The basic ingredient of our feeling of personal wholeness is a trust in the goodness and meaning of the universe.
4. Stories of demon-possession found in the writings of the Vineyard movement often sound like action-packed movie thrillers. Bizarre stories are told in Kraft's book, Defeating Dark Angels. He regularly talks to demons and gets information from them. He knows their names. He has provided a long list of their names, which correspond to the names of emotions for the most part. He is able to distinguish between those who are very weak demons and those who are very strong.
Julie was a thirty-five-year-old missionary. She was the daughter of an alcoholic and suffering from depression. Kraft says "it was clear" that she "was inhabited by a demon." This demon spoke German, and because they were unable to understand him, they were not able to get adequate information from him in order to cast him out. So they located an English-speaking demon who informed them that its demon leader was a spirit of control. By pressure and wearing down the demons, they were able to cast them out and free this poor soul from depression.[35] One wonders if this could be an instance of abusive behavior on the part of a minister who has controlling power over the life of an innocent person.
Kraft thinks that what is needed is a paradigm shift in our worldview which will allow for these myths to be literally believed. But a more responsible evaluation is contained in the Fuller Report: "The burgeoning ministries of miraculous healing could signal a paradigm-shift away from the biblical world."[36] When Kraft reports that artifacts (two rings and a necklace) from Brazil were literally housing evil spirits, one can easily conclude that such a worldview is animism and paganism. Kraft's seminary colleague and friend, Peter Wagner, says that innocent tourists have picked up demons as they visited pagan temples.
What is appalling is the careless manner in which the word "research" is used. Wagner speaks of his alleged research into the reports of healing and demon possessions,[37] but there is no evidence of research other than his own uncritical opinions which he offers without adequate support. What is surprising is that Kraft and Wagner are supposedly committed to critical scholarship, but their approach to Christianity seems more like a pathological and emotionally unbalanced fantasy.
5. Significant evangelical spokespersons have warned against overdoing the category of spiritual warfare. We have already noted that Fuller Theological Seminary has declared such an emphasis to be unfriendly to evangelical beliefs. Many others agree.
Dennis Kinlaw has written a compelling article entitled, "Putting Demons in Their Place." He shows that any discussion of the demonic is complicated by the fact that fallen human beings have a natural affinity for evil. He cites Dorothy Sayers who says that, when a playwright introduces the devil into the cast of characters, it is most difficult to keep the evil one from becoming the hero. Kinlaw, an Old Testament scholar, demonstrate the demythologized and marginalized interpretation of the demonic in the 'I Old Testament in comparison with their pagan neighbors. In the Gospels, 3 the demonic realm becomes more noticeable, perhaps because of Jesus' concession to popular superstition. From Romans and throughout the rest of the New Testament, the demonic recedes into the background. There is no word about demon possession and no explanation about exorcisms. This; all came later in the Christian tradition after the New Testament writings. The message of the New Testament is that God alone is sovereign over the , world, and human beings are responsible for their own evil.[38]
Tony Campolo has warned the Evangelical community not "to overdo the Perreti thing." He shows that the powers of darkness are not,, "the little gremlins who hide behind doors or lurk in dark places waiting to get us." Evil forces are much subtle than that. They seek to destroy human life through "systems and structures" which are made to look; attractive. They express themselves in destructive means through gangs, drugs, crime, witch-craft, covens, and through educational and social institutions. He says: "I am not sure little demons are lurking on shelves or hiding behind furniture waiting to get us.... What I do know is that there are many people in our world who have fallen under the influence of evil and need to be delivered from the powers of darkness."[39]
Those who claim to be part of a "signs and wonders" movement have self-consciously and intentionally taken a position which in reality focuses attention away from the essence of the gospel. Of course, it is much less intimidating and far more sensational to focus on "signs and wonders" than on the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:2). Yet, from the earliest liturgy of the early Church Fathers through the present time, the work of the Holy Spirit is identified primarily with sanctification. Kraft intentionally sidelines sanctification as the meaning of the coming of the Spirit in favor of miraculous phenomena.[40]
6. Pentecostal leaders themselves disagree with the overworked emphasis on so-called "signs and wonders" in the Vineyard movement. Pentecostals admit their own responsibility for extremes which have occurred in their own tradition and which "surfaced in the charismatic renewal, and [have] appeared again in the so-called `Third Wave' movement."[41] One Pentecostal leader, Donald Gee, says "'signs and wonders' are blessedly and truly Pentecostal," but "they are divinely incidental. Their purpose is to `Confirm THE WORD' (Mark 16:20)."[42]
Cecil Robeck, a Pentecostal theologian and editor of Pneuma, The Journal for the Society for Pentecostal Studies, has warned that overdoing spiritual warfare is dangerous business. He quotes the same warning found in Karl Barth: "It has never been good for anyone ... to look frequently or lengthily or seriously or systematically at demons.... It does not make the slightest impression on the demons if we do so, and there is the imminent danger in so doing we ourselves might become just a little more than a little demonic."[43] Robeck says that if "one peers over the edge of the crater and into the darkness below, it seems the greater the chance of falling into the abyss." From his own experience in the pentecostal tradition, Robeck observes how this has happened on many occasions.[44]
7. Catholic Christianity interprets the coming of the Spirit in terms of strengthening and sanctifying grace (sealing or imprinting upon the believer the righteousness of Christ). This meaning of the coming of the Spirit with power to live the Christian life is reflected in the baptism liturgy in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as seen in The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 217 A.D.). After the new converts had been baptized with water (representing forgiveness of sins and regeneration), they were to dress and present themselves immediately to the bishop, who laid hands on them and sealed them with oil with these words: "Make them worthy to be filled with Thy Holy Spirit and send upon them Thy grace, that they may serve Thee according to Thy will." Confirmation (as the bestowal of the Spirit was later called) was postponed for new converts after the 5th century A.D. to a later time subsequent to water baptism.
Originally water baptism (Easter) and Spirit baptism (Pentecost) were separate components of one larger baptismal liturgy. This was the basis for the distinction which came to be made between water baptism and confirmation (laying on of hands). This is the meaning of the coming of the Spirit to seal and to strengthen the believer. This twofold distinction was to become the historical and theological basis for the Wesleyan doctrine of two works of grace. But the Vineyard movement stresses the coming of the Spirit in terms of miraculous demonstrations which are pragmatic proofs of the gospel. The focus on spiritual gifts in pentecostalism and the charismatic movement is biblically-based, even if overworked. But the "signs and wonders" emphasis in the Vineyard movement, with its theology of the coming of the Spirit reflected in paroxysms and in miraculous events in order to provide objective proof of the truth of the gospel, is sub-biblical.
8. The dramatic phenomena emphasized in pentecostalism and now in the Vineyard movement are easily replicated from one place to another and are not even distinctly Christian. What cannot be counterfeited is the fruit of the Spirit. Fruit in a grocery store is called "produce." It cannot be manufactured except as plastic decoration. The fruit of the Christian life can only be produced by the Holy Spirit, and that is the final test of Christian character. Patrick Sherry has shown in Spirit, Saints, and Immortality (1984) that the final proof of the truth of the Christian faith is demonstrated in the holy lives of the people of God (i.e., the sanctified ones).
The only religion with its essence being love is the Judeao-Christian faith. Other religions are based on fear. Emotional ecstasies in pagan religions are a normal way of seeking refuge from the fears and insecurities of human life. The mystery religions of the first century provided a powerful threat to Christianity because of their emotional appeal to the masses of the illiterate people of the Roman Empire. Christianity finally won out against the mystery religions because of its intellectual and historical foundation in objective reality.[45]
Obviously the center of pagan religion at Corinth, with its appeal td meeting the emotional needs of its people, also posed a threat to Christians there. Some in the Corinthian Church were even cursing Jesus in tongues (1 Cor. 12:3). The elevation today of emotional and physical evidences as the decisive feature of Christian revival is just as inappropriate today as it was to early Christians in the first century. Because language related to baptism and infilling of the Spirit sounds emotional, it can easily degenerate into excesses unless it is properly linked to the objective reality of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
Karl Barth admitted shortly before his death that he had never developed an adequate doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The reason, he said, was his fear of the subjectivism of Pietism and liberalism. He noted that the securalism of our day, its individualism and appeal to "feeling," are an outgrowth of Pietism and Enlightenment rationalism. He pointed out that Enlightenment rationalism is a development out of the "autonomous" mystical implications of Pietism. Pietism preached a doctrine of the indwelling Spirit who became the self-authenticating principle of ultimate truth for the "autonomous" individual. Enlightenment rationalism is the secular version of Pietism. Reason and feeling are like two sides of the same coin. To avoid any possible thought that he was forming an alliance with liberalism, Barth avoided the subjective dimension of faith reflected in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Because of this neglect, he hoped that one of his own students would pick up where he left off and develop a more adequate doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Jurgen Moltmann is attempting to do just this.[46]
The excesses of the Vineyard movement appear to be expressing the secular spirit of this age with its super-spiritualizing and emotionalizing of truth. Undoubtedly, the rationalistic skepticism of our secular age entices even sophisticated and rationalistic people to fall for the irrational as a compensation for their skepticism. Kraft calls for "a worldview shift" away from rationalism, but his obsession with power, demanding that God be revealed in miraculous phenomena, is an example of how skepticism turns itself into fanaticism and credulity. Hence, his worldview is a shift toward the pagan and secular.
Barth's caution about emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit is well-placed. The trend to overdo the subjective and emotional interpretation of faith is strong in our narcissistic culture. The widespread skepticism and rationalism prevalent in our day snares many people into the compensation of fanaticism. The excesses of the current pentecostalization of American Christianity is one such trend. We should not allow ourselves to be intimidated into silence about the work of the Holy Spirit. We must continue to strive for a balance which integrates the personal, subjective ministry of the Holy Spirit into the rational, objective history of Jesus Christ.
Conclusion. The gifts of the Spirit, physical/emotional manifestations, and spiritual warfare (demon possession) are not essential aspects of the gospel. These can be developed without any reference to the uniqueness of Christ. Whenever the Spirit is emphasized in isolation from Christ, the gifts of the Spirit will often be the focus rather than the fruit of the Spirit (sanctification). For the Holy Spirit is called Holy because his task is to make us holy by our being renewed in the image of Christ. None of the gifts of the Spirit has any essential connection to Christ. That is why Wesley, in his sermon on "Scriptural Christianity" (based on the text, "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit"), says that the unique purpose of the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost was to make us holy - to be like Christ.
The uniqueness of this gift of sanctification provided by the Holy Spirit was promised by the Old Testament prophets and became a reality' at Pentecost with the disciples of our Lord (see Wesley's sermon on "Christian Perfection" [II. 11]). That is why the Wesleyan tradition hay always insisted on the essential connection between the gift of the Spirit and sanctification. Whenever there is an emphasis on the Holy Spirit that, does not at the same time relate the ministry of the Spirit to the lefting and sanctifying work of Christ, there can only be a sub-biblical focus on gifts, manifestations, and spiritual warfare which detract from the rational, objective person of Jesus Christ.
Endnotes:
