Written by Dr. Neil Chadwick
|
|
|
During the past few months, a number of people have responded to the article, "The Brownsville Revival, An Analysis." Some of the responses have been favorable, many have not. Here are three examples from various sides of the question:
"Most of your information on the Revival is not accurate. You need to visit it first hand before making such incorrect judgements . . . you are sadly mistaken about your information on the Revival."
"I am vitally interested in the blasphemy called the "River Revival'. Thank you for posting articles that tell us what is happening."
"I have been to Brownsville. I enjoyed it very much. I was especially blessed by Steve Hill's call to repentance and holiness. I like the Passion for God, the intense worship, and the intercession. I'm grieved that people criticize so harshly this revival. I'm not condoning the "manifestations" that take place. Neither am I discrediting the revival because of them. That's like "throwing baby out with the bathwater."
One person allowed their response to be published, and it is included in the web-site under the title, Brownsville Revival, a Response.
The original article was written by a former colleague of mine, a deeply spiritual man with a sincere devotion to Christ and a strong commitment to the ministry of the Word. At the time I knew him, both he and I were teaching Bible and ministry related subjects at an Assemblies of God Bible College.
One of the criticisms of his article came as the result of his having asked me not to include his name. Already, he had received what could well be called "hate mail" because he had spoken openly about his views. I think most reasonable Christians would agree, that even if one disagrees with the position of another Christian, hate mail and character attacks are not the way we express our disagreements. The author of the article had his fill of such attacks, and did not want to subject himself to them any more.
The reason I agreed to publish the article on this basis was simply because I felt that it had merit; not that I agreed with everything it stated, but particularly because it raised the question concerning the place of the Bible in a process of evaluation of religious experience. The fundamental question is this, "does anything go?"
In addressing this question, some begin with the correct belief that "with God anything is possible". He can do anything He wants to do, and therefore, who are we to question, or place limits on what God has done or is doing? But to apply the "omnipotence" attribute of God to this situation is not totally satisfactory. Just the other day in a conversation with my teen-aged daughter, she pointed out that there are some things that God has clearly decided not to do, things which we would agree are "impossible" for Him to do. For example, my daughter said (quoting Scripture), it is impossible for God to lie. Besides, it appears that God has placed self-imposed limits on His own activity. Because He has revealed His true nature to us in Scripture, we can easily discover that God has decided that He will not do certain things. For example, He has chosen to honor the free choice of his created humans - though His omnipotence makes it possible, He has chosen not to violate human free choice.
So then one must follow with the question, what has God chosen to do, and what has He decided is off-limits concerning the use of His own power? The answer to that question must be found in the revealed Word of God, the Bible. To go outside for validation opens those of us who are fallen creatures to all kinds of possible deception and harm. One might claim, for an extreme example, that self-mutilation, such as gouging out one's eye or cutting off one's hand is something that will improve one's spiritual condition, and even find Biblical justification for such activity. But we all agree that responsible interpretation of Scripture, and an understanding of the character of God will not allow for self-mutilation.
The question we're all dealing with, and the question which occasionned the Brownsville Analysis article is this, "Does experience validate experience?" If someone says, "I know what it is that I experienced, and I know this is of God", is it necessarily of God? Knowing what we now know, how many today would follow allow Jim Jones to talk us into taking poisonous communion? If it feels like something is from God, is it necessarily from God? Isn't it possible that even a trusted Pastor or Evangelist could get it wrong? How are we to know? Are we to follow in the footsteps of the existentialists and declare that if we perceive at the moment of the experience that it's good for us, it is therefore good, and of God? Most of us are cautious here. We want to have a reliable method for discerning truth from falsehood. For most people who consider themselves to be Christians, that reliable method is none other than a responsible interpretation of God's Word, the Bible.
What then should we make of events like those reported from such places as Pensacola, Florida?
First, we should be open to the possibility that God is visiting His people with a renewed awareness of His presence and power, and believe that this is beneficial to those who worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
But at the same time, we should not accept everything that is promoted to be from God as actually coming from God. Remember, Paul commended the new believers in Berea because of their diligence to study the Scripture to validate the message they were hearing. He also later instructed the Thessalonians to "Test everything. Hold on to the good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - NIV (Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. - KJV)
And John writes to his churches, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
What has taken place in Florida has been attributed by supporters to be the work of the Holy Spirit. The tragic reality is that although there has been much good fruit from what has taken place there, there has also been some bad fruit. The book title "Let's Quit Fighting About the Holy Spirit" comes to mind here. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father in response to the prayer of the Son, in part, in order to bring about an answer to another prayer of Jesus, that we might all be one. How ironic, the church is being split over a conflict concerning the very Person of the Trinity who was sent to bring unity! We also believe that the Spirit was provided to bring about the love of one another which was to be characteristic of the followers of Christ. It appears to me that some members of His disciples' band are not treating some other members with much love, but rather with a harsh, judgmental attitude.
My own desire in publishing the Brownsville Analysis article was to promote conversation. Is it possible that Christians can disagree strongly about interpretations of experiences, express those disagreements, and still love one another? I believe so.
But now, let's become more explicit. It is my own conviction that if a person experiences, or even observes something which he or she cannot validate through a responsible interpretation of Scripture, that person should not continue to participate in such activities. For example, if someone finds himself physically thrashing about in such a way as to do himself harm, or bring injury to others nearby, he should stop doing that. If a person finds herself laughing hysterically in a time and place which is drawing undue attention to herself, or being disruptive of other people as they seek to worship the Lord, that person should bring the laughing under control. If a person is attending meetings which are emotionally charged, but where there is no observable growth or edification taking place, that person should either seek to influence that setting to move in a direction of edification, or chose to attend a setting where such is happening. To attend meetings merely for the sake of having good feelings may develop a dependence on emotional experience, and not adequately prepare the person to withstand the "dry seasons" or storms of life which tend to come to all of us at one time or another.
In one church I know of, a visiting speaker wanted to make sure that the certain type of music associated with the Brownsville revival would be used in the services. He also wanted to know how many had been to Brownsville, and urged everyone else to make the trip. This of course was in line with the stated claim of some Brownsville leaders that "pilgrimages" are both valid and important - that the "spirit" is communicated to those who go there. According to some, this special presence of the Spirit is only available if there is the "laying on of hands". Obviously I take a different view. To put it frankly, pilgrimages to earthly "holy places" border on paganism. Yes, we are all on a pilgrimage, but it's not toward an earthly, but a heavenly city, the New Jerusalem. And while "laying on of hands" has Biblical precedence, it is something which should be practiced within the collection of saints we call the local church. To believe that we must be touched by specially powerful ministers is a dangerous belief. Yes, a woman in the Bible was commended because she pushed through the crowd for a touch, but it was Jesus she touched. And when townspeople began to worship Paul, he and his companion tore their clothes and begged them to stop. To acknowledge that God is at work in a particular way in one place is not to say that is the way He will work in another place. Let us all, with deep humility of heart and mind, "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness". After all, religious experience is not the determining factor, nor is it the goal of Christian living. What matters is the condition of our hearts, and our willingness to submit to the rule of God in every area of our lives. By the time we get that right, the end will be upon us, and we will find ourselves, by the grace of God, and because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the heavenly city, forever to worship and serve the One we love.
|
- - 
- 
- 
- - 