#1: THE "SUPERNATURAL" OF BROWNSVILLE IS NOT BIBLICAL
The supernatural events in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament,
are truly miraculous. God intervenes and performs acts that no human
effort could possibly duplicate. For the purposes of this analysis, I
will restrict the illustrations that follow to the Gospels and Acts
(although God's intervention in the rest of the Bible is consistent with
what happens in the Gospels and Acts).
Consider the miracles in the New Testament, from Matthew through Acts.
Jesus heals blind people, walks on water, feeds multitudes with a small
boy's lunch, commands a life-threatening storm and calms it, raises
people from the dead, and comes back to life from the dead Himself. In
Acts, people speak in understandable languages they had not known
previously, God heals a man crippled from birth, a building is
physically shaken by the power of God, people are struck dead, an angel
lets Peter out of a guarded prison, another prison suffered an
earthquake that opened doors and loosed shackles, Paul does not die from
the bite of a venomous serpent, and so on. The overarching defining
quality of a biblical miracle is this: God intervenes in a way that
cannot be duplicated by human effort. Note also that there is virtually
always a very practical reason for the supernatural event (including
deeds of Jesus Christ that, according to comments in the New Testament
itself, served to attest to his deity).
Now, consider the so-called "miracles" emerging from the "Brownsville
Revival". I have either witnessed all of the following myself (in person
or on video tape), or heard reports of the following from eye-witnesses.
People fall over (this is called "slain in the Spirit" or
"prostration"), people laugh, people belch, people jerk, people bow at
the waist, people vomit, people crawl on their hands and knees and bark
like dogs, people scream and shriek, people dance, people jump off of
platforms into an imaginary "river" flowing just off the platform,
people tuck their hands under their armpits, flap their arms, and cluck
like chickens, and so on ad infinitum. The overarching defining quality
of the "Brownsville miracle" is this: things happen that can be
duplicated by mere human effort. Note that in virtually all cases
there is no practical reason for the supernatural event. Rather, people
are pursuing experiences for the sheer sake of the experience. Next I
contend that not only should these demonstrations not be called
"miracles," but they should not even be called "manifestations" of the
Spirit.
#2: THE OUT-OF-HUMAN-CONTROL "MANIFESTATIONS" ARE NOT BIBLICAL
One of the trademarks of the "manifestations" coming out of Brownsville,
and cloned elsewhere, is that when the Spirit takes over a person, that
person is no longer in control of himself or herself. Thus, we have the
jerking, bowing or whatever is going on taking place at work, driving
down the street in the car, at school, and so on. This
out-of-human-control notion is at odds with what the Bible says.
In 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14, Paul provides Christians with
the longest and most detailed treatment of things pertaining to the
Spirit. Note that in most of these three chapters, I believe Paul is
speaking in an illustrative or representative way, not exhaustively
(note that this is more generous to the revival than many opponents
allow). In other words, when Paul cites specific manifestations of the
Holy Spirit here and there in these chapters, he is never providing his
readers with an absolute, inviolable list. Paul is not, in effect,
saying, "these and only these are genuine manifestations of the Holy
Spirit." Rather, Paul is speaking generally and representatively. He
supplies one list of manifestations in 12:8-10, another list in 12:28,
another list in 12:29-30, and still another list in 14:26. Not a single
one of these lists exactly duplicates one of the other lists. This is
why I do not believe Paul's intent was to stipulate an absolute,
inviolable list that limits the Spirit's activity to these and only
these manifestations. What Paul was doing was, in effect, saying that
whatever the Spirit does, it will be consistent with certain principles.
That is, anything anyone claims the Spirit is doing, should conform to
what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Note, then, what is true of the operation of the Spirit in general, in
14:27-30. People speaking in tongues in worship should be limited to two
or three in number. Someone must interpret these messages (implying that
if an interpreter is not present, the people can choose to remain
silent). Two or three prophets should speak in a worship service. Other
people in general should weigh (evaluate the authenticity of) what is
said. If a revelation comes to someone who is not speaking, the one
speaking should stop, and allow the next person to speak. In verse 30
Paul points out that people are capable of prophesying "in turn." All of
Paul's instructions in these four verses, as well as in these three
chapters generally, assume that the activity of the Spirit is of such a
nature as to leave people in control of what is happening. Thus Paul's
conclusion, "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of
prophets" (14:32). That is, even prophets, a term Paul uses in a general
sense here of anyone vocalizing anything from the Spirit, are capable of
controlling themselves and complying with the restrictions Paul commands
in these verses. Note again Paul's severe warning in 14:37-38. Anyone
claiming something different than what Paul commands here, including
that the Spirit takes control away from a person, should, in Paul's
words, be ignored.
I argued first that what takes place at Brownsville should not be called
the "supernatural," or "miraculous," in the biblical sense. The signs
and wonders in the Bible are of a totally different nature than those
that are taking place in this modern revival. Here I am arguing that the
physical demonstrations taking place at Brownsville should not even be
called "manifestations" of the Spirit. Paul is clear that
"manifestations" of the Spirit, though of supernatural origin, are of
such a nature that they remain under the individual's control.
#3: THE ANTI-VERIFICATION INTIMIDATION IS NOT BIBLICAL
Following the approach of numerous cults, proponents of the "Brownsville
Revival" often resort to intimidation to attempt to stymie criticisms to
what is happening. One well-known televangelist, for example, told some
of his critics that God would smite them dead. (God didn't.) A document
published by the "Brownsville Revival" says people who criticize the
revival could be guilty of the unforgiveable sin of blaspheming the Holy
Spirit (I have this document in my possession). In a sermon delivered in
1997 to the Missouri District, the highest official of the Assemblies of
God told Missouri ministers that God would bring judgment upon people
who spoke against this revival. In denominational literature, the
Assemblies of God has repeatedly warned ministers not to be guilty of
"quenching" the Spirit, or "grieving" the Spirit as it related to this
revival. Finally, I know of a whole Bible Department at a large
Pentecostal college that has been given the gag order against providing
biblical evidence to students against the "Brownsville Revival".
In stark contrast to the approach of revival proponents, the Bible
itself commands fearers of God to evaluate and test claims of the
supernatural. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, God commands Israel not to gullibly
follow anyone claiming to foretell the future by dreams or a prophet who
performs signs or wonders. Instead, they should obey the written
documents given to them by Moses, which preserve the commands of God. In
Deuteronomy 18:21-22, God warns the Israelites not to follow a so-called
"prophet" who says something will happen in the future, but it does not
in fact transpire. In Matthew 7:15-23, Jesus commands his followers to
"watch out" for false prophets. These prophets, among other things,
could prophesy, drive out demons, and perform many miracles in Jesus'
name. In Acts 20:28-30, Paul commands the elders in Ephesus to "keep
watch" over themselves and others, because, "Even from your own number
men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples
after them." In 1 Corinthians 14:37-38, Paul writes the following
conclusion to three chapters on spiritual manifestations. "If anybody
thinks his is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that
what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he
himself will be ignored." Note that the written Word of God has
hierarchical authority over so-called spiritual manifestations. In 1
Thessalonians 5:19-22, Paul commands the following. "Do not put out the
Spirit's fire." (The proponents of Brownsville quit reading after this
verse.) Paul goes on to say, in the same context, "Test everything. Hold
on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil." All of these verses speak in
the context of the Spirit's activity. Finally, John commands us, "test
the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false
prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).
God's Word commands his followers to test both people and claims of the
supernatural. God's Word, as well as the Gospel, can only be supported
by testing claims of truth, especially in the supernatural realm.
Attempting to shut down challenges for fear they will bring an end to
the "revival" makes the authenticity of the revival's claims suspect
from the beginning. Truth will always withstand scrutiny, no matter how
intense that scrutiny may be.
#4: TOUTING NUMBERS TO AUTHENTICATE TRUTHFULNESS IS UNBIBLICAL
Many people who are supportive of the "Brownsville Revival" realize that
there are certain biblical problems evident with what is taking place
there (some of which I have outlined here). But, they reason, the
revival must be of God, because look at all of the conversions taking
place. Could hundreds of thousands of people be converted if God was not
involved? The appeals-to-the-number-of-conversions authentication
attempt fails for a number of reasons.
First, and most importantly, there is no biblical parallel. Whereas it
is true that the book of Acts provides the numbers of converts (2:41;
4:4), there is no accompanying explanatory comment such as, "and this
proves that the message of the apostles was true." In fact, Jesus
actually lost followers because of his message (John 6:60-66), and at
times Paul's preaching only won a few convets (e.g., Acts 17:34).
Witness the number of times Paul and company shook the dust off of their
sandals and left a town because of persistant unbelief in their hearers.
Moreover, the number of converts cannot attest to the truthfulness or
divine sanction of a religion's missionary efforts due to the history of
non-Christian religions. For example, do the millions of converts to
Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries attest to the truth of Islam during
that period? Does the number of converts to Roman Catholicism from the
4th century to the 14th century authenticate the truth of Roman
Catholicism? Turning to the present era, in some countries the Mormons
are claiming more converts than any other religious body. Does this
attest to the truth of Mormonism?
The numerical authentication attempt also fails because it does not
appreciate the nature of response in Pentecostal revivals. I was a
Pentecostal for over forty years, and attended several dozen revivals
during that period of my life. I also attended daily chapel services at
a Pentecostal Bible College for seven years. The following analysis
comes from what I personally observed. In my discussion with other
Pentecostals, I have come to believe it is fair to say what I have
observed is standard in Pentecostal revivals. The following points are
fair and honest generalizations about people who respond by "converting"
in Pentecostal revivals:
1. The same individual may walk forward and "convert" numerous times
during the same revival.
2. The same individual may walk forward and "convert" at virtually every
revival that individual attends.
3. The majority of people who "convert" at Pentecostal revivals were
already Christians who were manipulated into responding by means of an
emotional guilt trip at the close of a sermon. (Many preachers, and
especially evangelists it seems, reserve their most emotionally
wrenching or hard-hitting illustration to the very close of their
sermons, due to the visceral impact it will have. Note that this
manipulative technique is without parallel in the New Testament. See,
for example, Matthew 5:1-7:29; Acts 2:14-39; 7:2-53; 10:34-43; 13:16-47;
17:22-31; 22:1-21.)
4. The numbers that are acclaimed by the sponsors and proponents of the
revival are acclaimed in an irresponsible and dishonest way. That is,
there is virtually never an investigation into whether the "convert" was
already a church-attending believer. If the person was converted from
true paganism, there is virtually never an investigation into whether
the "convert" received instruction and became a faithful, practicing
Christian at some local church back in his or her community of origin.
Thus, the proponents of the revival tout the tally of "response cards"
turned in, and allow people to discuss this number as if it indicated a
genuine number of conversions.
Finally, I believe it is fair to say that 99% or more of the people
attending the "Brownsville Revival" are people who are already Christians,
and whose primary motivation in attending the revival was to witness or
experience "signs and wonders." In other words, neither conversion nor
truth is the issue. Rather, experiencing what people believe is the
miraculous is the issue. People are chasing these "hot spots" all across
the country, and even take costly trips outside of the county, in order
to witness or experience the latest "manifestation" of the Spirit. If
people are "converted" into this kind of religion, it is not a
conversion to biblical Christianity. (Try to find examples in Acts where
people who were already Christians traveled around in the pursuit of
experience "hot spots".)
CONCLUSION
Sadly, the confrontation of pagan philosophies with eternal truth has
taken a back seat to an obsession with superficial and meaningless
experiences. Whereas inexplicable, supernatural experiences such as
those emerging from Brownsville can be found in numerous non-Christian
religions around the world (under the category of "mysticism"), truth
can be found only within biblical Christianity. The unbridled and
gullible lust for the supernatural has trampled the truth of the Gospel
under foot, not only subordinating the importance of truth to the
importance of experience, but also the fact of truth to the fact of
experience. Proponents of the revival, together with mystics in all
world religions, take the position that spiritual experience is
self-authenticating. That is, the position of the mystic is: "Experience
requires no validation just by virture of the fact that I have
experienced it. Any challenge to the validity of my experience is an
affront to reality--at least as I perceive it. How can you challenge
what I have experienced?" Sadly, mystics seldom entertain the thought
that they might possibly be misinterpreting their experiences, and/or
that they might have been influenced into believing they were having an
experience when in fact they were not.
Rather than succumbing to the same errors of mysticism in various world
religions, Christians need to return to the absolute truth of the
Gospel, which is authenticated by the verifiable nature of Christ's
resurrection, as well as by the verifiable nature of the Bible's
truthfulness.
Some proponents of the revival, of course, would attempt to provide us
with two ways to validate the authenticity of their "manifestations" of
the Holy Spirit. First, I have had revival proponents tell me that
people who are "sensitive" to the Holy Spirit, or who are "discerning"
of spirits, can tell what is genuine and what is false. Of course, the
problem with this position is that two individuals, both of whom claim
to be "sensitive" to, or "discerning" of, the Holy Spirit, often
disagree with each other as to what is genuine and what is not. For
example, one well-known televangelist told his local congregation that
the barn yard noises and the jerking would not be allowed. Blowing
people over was allowed, but not these other things. The second way
revival proponents attempt to authenticate their manifestations is by an
appeal to parallels in historic Pentecost. That is, using this approach,
one could say that "jerking" is an authentic manifestation of the Holy
Spirit because you can find that people jerked in various revivals over
the past couple of centuries. Of course, the problem with this
"authentication" is that if a manifestation was in error in its initial
occurrence, then all we are doing is perpetuating that error by copying
it today. What Christians need is an objective source external to
themselves to authenticate spiritual experiences. I believe the only
reliable source that does this is the Bible.
In sum, Pentecostals have before them two options. First, they can
continue to allow modern human beings to tell them what is authentic or
not authentic. They can compromise their own God-given faculties of
evaluation, and, like cults all over the world, depend completely on a
few individuals who claim to have some mysterious "anointing" that is
available only to a select, exclusive club. Or, they can return to the
authority of the thing God intended his people use to authenticate
claims of the supernatural: the written Word of God. There is no middle
road. (I would not hesitate to invite anyone who reads this present
document to evaluate its claims of truth with the written Word of God
and come to his or her own conclusion.)
One final disclaimer. I do not presently think, nor did I ever, that the
proponents of this revival are evil people who are deliberately and
knowingly deceiving people for their own profit. I think it is possible
that they are sincere in their beliefs, but they are nonetheless
mistaken.
POST SCRIPT
On a personal note, I used to have anger directed at people who were
leading Christians away from being truth-contenders into becoming
thrill-seekers. Now, the primary emotion I
sense with respect to others is that of profound sadness--that people
who claim to be obedient to the Word of God are so quick to forsake its
authenticating function for the sake of experiences devoid of objective
meaning. Pentecostal Christians have, in effect, exchanged their
birthright of verifiable truth for a bowl of mystical porridge.
- - 
- 
- 
- - 