~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

It is past time for me to "weigh in" on the revival in Pensacola, seeing it has been in progress for two years now. In a past issue I gave some brief comments on the Toronto meetings, but they are much easier to reject outright than those in Pensacola, although some of the same objections raised gainst Toronto apply to Pensacola as well. The message coming out of the meetings in Pensacola is undoubtedly better than Toronto, as well as the over-all emphasis. In Pensacola, the themes of repentance and salvation are more prominent, with the goal of bringing people to salvation and right relationship with God. And, maybe due to its taking place in an Assembly of God Church, which is classic Pentecostal, rather than a Vineyard Fellowship (at least the Toronto church once was one) which, affiliated with John Wimber’s Vineyard Fellowship in California, places much more emphasis upon external phenomenon than right doctrine, the whole tenor of the meetings in Pensacola seems more sound. The emphasis seems to be more upon Biblical themes of getting right with God and living for Him rather than experiencing some kind of extraordinary "blessing." Defenders of the Toronto "blessing" often point to the "good fruit" of the meetings, but the claim of good fruit coming out of Pensacola seems more substantial. It is hard to deny that some good fruit is displayed; the whole city is much more aware of the claims of the gospel and the revival is prominent in everyday conversation. But all this is not to say that there are not real problems with Pensacola and some of the same problems that have been in Toronto.

I have not taken the time and effort to examine thoroughly either the Toronto or the Pensacola revivals, so my comments on either of them should be taken in this light. But I can comment upon the observations I have been able to make.

Some months ago we received at the church an issue of Destiny Image Digest, a quarterly magazine put out by Destiny Image Publishers, which publishes books written by some of the leadership of both the Toronto and Pensacola revivals as well as other authors in the charismatic movement. This issue, entitled "Portal in Pensacola," concentrates on the Pensacola revival and contains a number of articles written in support of it by the leaders of it as well as testimonies of those who say they have benefited by it. The purpose of the publication seems to be to defend the revival against its many critics as well as to promote it and inform people concerning it. Since it contains articles and interviews by and with the most prominent leaders of the revival, I take it to be a fairly accurate and official representation of it. I have found it always best to go straight to the proponents of a message or movement to get their view on what they are about rather than depend upon the observations of critics, who, no doubt may have their own viewpoint or biases that filter or skewer the information. So, this particular magazine is the scoop straight from the horses’ mouths, so to speak. But if we should judge the revival from these articles, we may be more troubled than reassured. It is ironic that a special issue of a magazine designed to defend, put on the best face of, and allay anyone’s fears concerning the revival would be troubling.

Why should anyone have fears or concerns about the revival? With most, including me, the concerns center around certain phenomena associated it. For instance, a video put out by the Pensacola church, the Brownsville Assembly of God, presents the testimony of two sisters, Amy Elizabeth and Allison Ward. I received this video several months before I read the magazine on the revival. At that time, I was quite optimistic about the meetings in Pensacola for all the reasons I have already given as well as the report of a trusted and respected pastor friend of mine in Florida who, with some of the men in his church, had visited the meetings. And so I sat down to view the video with quite an open, even hopeful, mind toward the revival, that here was a good alternative to what was taking place in Toronto. But what I saw and heard on the video produced quite a shock. I made it through the first testimony, but not without some concern. Some things seemed irregular about the young lady’s account of God’s dealings in her life. She told of involuntary body movements as she lay on the floor at the front of the auditorium, of God pulling on her arm and lifting her up off the floor until she could stand only on her tiptoes, then dropping her suddenly back to the floor to teach her, she said, that she had to depend upon Him or she would fall. She said she shook violently and uncontrollably for three straight days. Now of course, non-Pentecostal people would bail out of this testimony immediately and consider it nonsense or worse, but having been associated with Pentecostalism all my life, I knew it was not unusual for people to quiver a little, especially in their hands, when they experienced what I felt was the genuine power of the Spirit of God. But I always attributed this to the personal reaction and response of the individual, not to the Spirit of God Himself. But here the shakings were violent and not at all under the girl’s control and caused her some discomfort. Oh, she could resist if she wanted, but she was made to know that if she did she would be refusing to allow God to do what He wanted in her life. All this is irregular, to say the least. Just as may be said of the Toronto phenomena, 1 Corinthians 14:32 says the demonstration of the true Spirit of God, as opposed to the operation of emotional fanaticism or excess, is subject to the person being moved upon. The Holy Spirit does not force people to do anything; He leads and guides but He doesn’t coerce and shove. But I made it through this first testimony despite the hitches, and the song afterwards was good. Then came the second testimony, that of the older sister of the first. Here came the real shock. The pastor introduced her as she sat on a stool behind him at the pulpit. She was tilted on her seat, her head cocked to one side, her whole body shaking, not slightly quivering, in a manner that immediately reminded me of someone with cerebral palsy. My whole heart sank as I heard the pastor speak of this as an undeniable manifestation of the power of God, one of the greatest of the entire revival. While she addressed the audience the shaking became even more pronounced, and she ended her exhortation for people to come forward by collapsing on the floor. I couldn’t help but think that if this were the Spirit of God, then the Spirit is mightily at work in every rest home for the elderly I had ever been in. We had thought that the patients in those homes were oppressed by darkness, suffering affliction from autistic movements and shaking, pitifully no longer in control of their faculties, not blessed of God. The video was so disturbing to me, I just groaned and was yet unable to go to sleep at bed time a while later. How could a pastor of a large Pentecostal church be so ignorant and blind as to consider what I had just seen a work of the Spirit of God?

So, some months after I had seen the video, here came the magazine. Still trying to keep an open mind in the light of conflicting good and bad reports about the revival, I opened it. Surely here I would find something to quell my fears, an account that would level things out and soothe my concerns, seeing it came from the leaders and promoters themselves. But it only deepened my concern.

You may see what I mean when we begin with these excerpts from the opening article by Don Nori, publisher of the magazine:

The disciples of John the Baptist came to Jesus and asked Him if He were the Christ. Jesus’ response was fruitproof that He was: "Go tell John what you see—the blind receive their sight, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news preached to them." These events did not fit anyone’s experience of how "church" should be. There were few Old Testament proof texts to justify our Lord’s actions. Nonetheless, He added this to the end of His answer to the disciples of John: "And blessed are you if you are not offended with Me." Offended?! There are many believers who live in a state of offense against the fresh and exciting things God is doing in the world today. This may come as a shock to you, but doctrine is not the measuring rod of the spiritual validity of revival. Only God’s holy Word can be that measuring rod, and even then it must be read while standing in the light of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus Himself said would be sent to reveal the Savior to the world. Revival demands we look beyond ourselves, beyond our comfort zones, our history, our tradition, and even our theology. God does far more than save souls in revival. He moves us forward in His Kingdom with fresh understanding and illumination into His holy Word. The light of His glory causes us to see things we have never seen, not because those things were not there, but because our light was not bright enough or because we were too low, too earthbound, or maybe just too rigid to see them. Revival stretches our finite understanding of His never-ending Kingdom. It shines a scrutinizing light on things we have always believed and forces us to reconcile our doctrines to a very different reality as it unfolds before us. Fruit-proof is hard to explain away. When a congregation worships in Jesus’ name, prays in Jesus’ name, and preaches in Jesus’ name, the results flow from the throne of the King. Many attempt to explain these mighty moves of God by calling them satanic, as though we can actually pray in the name of Jesus and not be sure who will answer that prayer. Have we become so brazen in our self-righteous positions that we actually believe that when an event occurs as an answer to prayer in Jesus’ name, it is demonic unless it lines up with our doctrine? How foolish! How frightening! ("Portal in Pensacola" by Don Nori, pp.1,16)

This lead article sets the tone of the whole magazine. Right out of the blocks he comes with both barrels blazing at the "critics of the revival," those who dare to take issue with the manifestations on the grounds of doctrine. Now it is quite possible that some of my readers might think that Nori’s comments are full of wisdom, seeing that this disparagement of doctrine in favor of experience has been the battle cry of the charismatic movement since at least the 1960’s.

First of all, no "revival" could hardly compare with the transition between the Testaments and the advent of the Messiah. At least the miracles of Jesus had some obvious practical effect: people were brought from a state of abnormality to normality, from frenzy to a calm well balanced state of mind, not vice versa. There were not strange contortions, uncontrolled laughing while He was trying to preach, and violent cerebral-palsy-like shaking. To answer current offended people, "Go tell them that otherwise rational people bark like dogs and oink like pigs (prophetically, of course, as in Toronto), and otherwise healthy people shake as though in a seizure; and blessed is he that is not so rigid as to reject these things God is doing" hardly seems parallel. By his own admission, these are "fresh and exciting things God is doing" that have little or no Scriptural warrant.

Next he sets up a false dichotomy between doctrine and the Word of God and destroys the foundation by making it appear that none of us can be sure anything we believe is really the truth of God’s Word. We must remain "open" to new revelation via fresh experiences to correct our incomplete understanding of truth. This is a sure recipe for total disaster, my friends. Maybe some people’s doctrine is not founded on the Word of God, but mine is, and I’m not moving off of it for some strange and questionable manifestations.

Nori presents the popular evolutionary view of church history that is getting us into real trouble. True reformations and revivals do not advance God’s kingdom and bring new understanding at all—they can only restore us to Christianity in its original form. Unlike the (false) biological evolutionary model, Christianity did not start out as a cell, then pass to an embryo, then to lower and finally higher forms. It came to us like creation itself—full blown and complete. No improvements are needed, just preservation. As with all other things, because of the human element in Christianity, not the Divine, the law of entropy means a deterioration of the original, requiring renewal from time to time, but not to something new but only original. The great Reformation was in some ways a restoration of the original and in others a restoration of Augustinianism or fifth century formal, ecclesiastical Christianity. In other words, it was imperfect and incomplete. Successive true revivals have been additional phases in restoration, including the Wesleyan and Pentecostal revivals. The church was renewed in sanctification and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But what aspect of the original model is restored by barking, laughing uncontrollably during preaching, and violent shaking as in a seizure? Do all these things demand we look beyond our theology and reshape it? Like I said, we should, I suppose, conclude we were wrong about the autism and palsy in our rest homes. We thought they were manifestations of disease and dementia, but they were works of Holy Ghost revival all along!

For Nori and many others like him today, the "reality" to which we must adjust all thoughts, revelation, and experiences is not the unchanging truth of God’s Word but experiences in "revival." Can anyone see the fallacy here? Ongoing, ever-evolving concepts of what is truth based upon unfolding and ever-changing experience! Surely this is a door into the new age if not a room in it already.

Typical of defenders of these revivals, Nori cites "fruit" as proof they are of God. But here the fruit he cites is "praying, preaching, and worshipping in Jesus’ name." Isn’t he at all familiar with Jesus’ words in Matthew regarding false believers and prophets,

Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons, and perform many miracles?" Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:22,23)

..."Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many." (Matthew 24:4,5)

I wonder why Nori seems so blissfully ignorant of these passages, which, if anything, destroy his "proof fruit"? Anyone could say or do anything "in Jesus’ name;" but this alone does not mean it is actually so. To be truly in His name, it would have to be done "representing all that He is," as names ancient and Biblical times stood for the whole person. And how would we determine what Jesus does and does not stand for? Why, by the teaching of the Word of God, of course. And this is "foolish and frightening"?

You may well ask, "Aren’t there things at Pensacola that you don’t agree with?" Absolutely. However, let me also be quick to say that they are the ones getting 25,000 people each week. Their fruit silences me. Yet I also pray for them. I know that as the light of His Presence shines upon them, God will show them things that angels long to look into, and I may not judge them either!...We are still in the infancy stage of this revival—and it is about to be launched. God is about to blow upon them in ways that will defy all we have ever read of the history of revival. (p.16)

Doctrine doesn’t matter; results are what counts, measured in numbers of participants. How about, "The whole world was astonished and followed the beast"? (Revelation 13:3). And actually, "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life?" (1 Corinthians 6:3), including manifestations, doctrines, and actions whether that of people or angels—they must be judged in the light, not of new revelation but the Word of God (1 Corinthians 5:3,12; 2 Corinthians 2:2), seeing it is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8) I would call this judging, wouldn’t you?

Nori strikes another familiar theme among defenders of the revivals, as we shall see, by hinting that greater revelation is just ahead through the revival. This in itself is troubling. And then there are the claims this will be far greater than anything we have ever seen in history. Its part of modern man’s boast that no one has known much of anything until us; there’s not much need in looking back to the past—forge ahead into the future. Another recipe for disaster.

&This;is going to take me much more space than I thought. We will continue our comments on the Pensacola revival next issue.

Background from Greenfield Graphics.