I appreciate the balanced presentation that “Toronto’s Mixed Blessing” and “The Surprising Works of God” [Sept. 11] bring to the Toronto Blessing controversy. I find great comfort and stability in my traditional, evangelical Christian beliefs, and intellectual satisfaction in my practice of Reformed theology. As a result, I am not prone to emotionalism or “feel-good” religion. However, I also believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to fill us with God’s unspeakable joy and guide us by God’s wisdom displayed throughout Scripture, and in the church. I could be characterized as an evangelical charismatic.
On October 1994, I attended an international, nondenominational conference in Toronto on spiritual renewal and revival sponsored by the Airport Vineyard, called Catch the Fire. There I received a miraculous emotional healing through prayer, which has positively impacted my marriage as well as increased my desire to see others touched by God through the power of prayer. This healing could have happened in a different venue, but for reasons known only to God, he chose to touch me dramatically, powerfully, and emotionally through the prayer ministry of this renewal meeting. If I could have planned my own healing, I would certainly have planned it in a much less conspicuous manner. But his ways are not our ways.
I have seen and heard things at the Toronto Airport Vineyard meetings that appeared odd to me. But life (like Scripture) is full of odd things. In the big picture of God’s kingdom and within the acceptable context of any given meeting, does it really matter? I think not.
—Craig MungonsDavisburg, Mich.
As a Reformed Presbyterian who has never personally experienced the “spectacular” gifts, I find myself startled at how quick a few in both Reformed and charismatic circles are to universalize their own experience with God to all believers. Didn’t the same apostle who so clearly said “not everyone speaks in tongues” also command “forbid not to speak in tongues?” Do these parameters not define the limits of the debate? Clearly the apostle was mindful of restraining fleshly excess that brought disrepute upon the gospel, but would he have approved a censorious spirit as commending the gospel?
I recently observed a woman in a worship service dancing in circles in the aisle. My surprise gave way to a charitable reconsideration when I realized that this woman, unknown to me, may have so experienced God’s merciful deliverance that, like Miriam, she couldn’t help taking tambourine in hand to sing and dance to her Lord.
We in the Reformed church would do well to remember that William Carey, who had a vision for India, was once dismissed as a “miserable enthusiast.” Are we so zealous to certify every miracle as counterfeit that we cannot muster the charity to consider that even some part of this “awakening” could be truly of God?
—Warren Austin GageDallas, Tex.
* Thank you for a fair and balanced reflection on the Vineyard and the Toronto Blessing. As a long-time Vineyard member (since 1980), I have seen our movement have its ups and downs on the road to maturity. Also, throughout the Toronto event, I saw much that pleased me and discouraged me. From those who communicated the essence of renewal with charity to those who spoke with cold and fiery judgment over those offering words of caution, it was clear to me that many among the leadership have matured while others still have some growing up to do.
—David CaldwellColorado Springs, Colo.
I was riveted by the providential juxtaposition of World Vision’s ad following the Toronto revival articles. After the pictures of people participating in the revival meetings, we see World Vision founder Bob Pierce holding a tiny infant, and three suffering children, eyes wide. Above them were the words “Let your heart be broken today.” As a pastor who has been profoundly touched by the renewal movement in the PCUSA, it is my heartfelt desire that passionate, transcendent experiences of God lead into changed lives and hearts. “Let my heart be broken with the things that break the heart of God” is an apt expression of a true disciple’s heart and a compass for a mature disciple’s choices and perspectives.
Thank you for including Richard Lovelace’s historical perspective and astute analysis. I concur that bells and whistles do not revival make. The goal of revival is to produce disciples whose hearts are indeed broken with the things that break the heart of God, and whose lives and choices reflect the Savior’s shaping and molding. Past revivals have always resulted in abounding love for neighbor, including outpourings of missions and social concern.
My prayer is that this “blessing” will result in lives and resources reallocated on a grand scale for kingdom purposes; that disciples will be made who will participate in the Great Commission and whose lives will show forth the Great Commandment-those twin passions that World Vision exemplifies.
—Pastor Susan Finck-LockhartLouisa Presbyterian ChurchLouisa, Va.
* I am not a strict inerrantist, but I did believe that evangelical Christians took the Bible as their guide in all matters of faith and practice. I find no biblical rationale for “pumping and scooping” the Holy Spirit (as if he could be controlled by men). Nor do I find the quote “laughter is the best medicine” anywhere in the Bible.
What needs to be said is that these types of emotional experiences are common in many religions. Despite their value as the “top tourist attraction of 1994,” they seem to serve no other purpose. The miracles of Jesus and the apostles not only met human need (and it was never the need for entertainment), they also pointed people to their only true need: a saving relationship through God’s Son.
Anyone who experiences this relationship with God and expresses no emotion is a pretty cold fish. However, few of us would express love for our earthly fathers with an animal noise. Does our heavenly Father deserve less?
—Anna Kathryn HardinAlabaster, Ala.
Several things about the phenomenon disturb me. One of the more bothersome aspects of the Toronto Blessing is its conflict with the Bible. Nothing in the article convinced me that scriptural teachings about renewal are central to the practices at Airport Vineyard. The attitude of some supporters seems to be that the ends justify the means, however questionable they might be.
Almost as disturbing is the subtle suggestion that God can be found at Airport Vineyard as at no other place. Was Clark Pinnock any more likely to meet with God at the Airport Vineyard than in his own living room? If John Wimber has such control over events that he could “shut things down in a second,” is God in charge in Toronto?
After reading “Toronto’s Mixed Blessing,” I read “The Surprising Works of God,” by Lovelace. Perhaps, if more pastors would spend half as many hours daily studying God’s Word as did Jonathan Edwards, more biblical revival would be taking place. Were we as scripturally discriminating as was Edwards, there might be fewer abnormalities within the body of Christ.
—Pastor Edmond LongWestview Baptist ChurchChattanooga, Tenn.
I have not been to the Toronto Vineyard, but I have seen the fruits borne by those who have been ministered to there.
It seems you have missed the point of what God is doing there. I have seen and talked to someone who went there very wounded and was freed as the Toronto Vineyard teams ministered. Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, “You will be able to tell them by their fruits.” By that test we should discern the Toronto Blessing.
—Beverly Brown ReishusMontgomery Village, Md.
We take strong exception to the sidebar by George Koch [“Pumped and Scooped?”]. In it he refers to “eerie echoes here of the common practices of Hindu gurus” and goes on to refer to Rajneesh and Da Free John. Neither of these men are Hindus. They do not come from Hindu families (Rajneesh was a Jain) and have never claimed to be Hindus. The practices described as part of the Toronto Blessing-“scooping, pumping, howling like animals”-are not part of any recognized Hindu practice.
Any common definition of “cult” would make every cult appear to be Eastern in origin. The fact is the “cults” that you so loudly complain about are mostly Christian. Like it or not, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and even the Toronto Blessing are entirely Christian in theological origin and physical manifestation. Please don’t try to leave them at our doorstep. We have enough problems of our own.
—Arumugaswami, Managing EditorHinduism TodayKapaa, Hawaii
* Bravo for making church history relevant to today’s spiritual and cultural issues! Lovelace’s article on Jonathan Edwards and revival was excellent and timely. The saying that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it is usually proven true. I would also say that those who fail to learn church history are constantly in danger of heresy!
—Bob GrayRichmond, Ind.
SURPRISED AND PERPLEXED
I was surprised and perplexed to find my name in the recent article by James Beverley. He writes, “Both Vineyard pastor James Ryle and psychiatrist John White (who has announced his calling as a prophet) have issued judgments on those who dare to question the current activity in Toronto.”
There is no truth to Beverley’s claim that I have issued these judgments. Why did he say this? Why didn’t he check out the facts to see if they were true?
Concerning the Toronto Blessing, my position has been one of an interested observer—taking note that some of what is going on is undoubtedly generated by the sovereign hand of God, while other aspects are obviously enkindled by eager souls making more of the moment than is appropriate. And there is no doubt that in some instances the Devil’s schemes are being played out on a grand and distracting scale.
But I have not spoken, nor would I speak, with prophetic arrogance against the events in Toronto, or against the people associated with those events. Nor would I dare speak against those who stand back with understandable concern.
—Pastor James RyleBoulder Valley Vineyard ChurchLongmont, Colo.
Both James Ryle and John White have expressed disagreement with my statement [above] in “Toronto’s Mixed Blessing.” Concerning White, upon further review I now realize that I misinterpreted remarks he made last year at the Airport Vineyard. I regret this mistake and have apologized to him. In Ryle’s case, the source for my statement in CT came from a document he wrote entitled, “It’s Enough to Make You Cry” in which he criticizes those who assume that “every Vineyard is connected with the Holy Laughter movement,” calling such critics “the kind of people who crucified Jesus Christ.” I mistakenly read the essay to mean that Ryle is judgmental of any who question the Toronto Blessing, for which I also apologize.
—Prof. James A. BeverleyOntario Theological SeminaryToronto, Ont., Canada
WHO DETERMINES “GOOD” CHARACTER?
In the article by Tim Stafford [“Helping Johnny Be Good: Can ‘character education’ save the public schools?” Sept. 11], he quotes from Thomas Lickona’s Educating for Character: “Good character consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good-habits of the mind, habits of the heart, and habits of action.” Who determines what that good is? Is it God or man? The so-called character education I read about in the article is “man” playing god to determine what is good and bad. “Respect, responsibility, cooperation” sounds good but misses the point.
For the Christian, good character is always determined by God—not some school board. Christians have plenty of material for character education, including: (1) The Ten Commandments, (2) The Beatitudes, (3) The Sermon on the Mount.
—Richard WittemannConcord, N.C.
* It’s encouraging to hear that the educational establishment is beginning to realize the value of character. However, it is also important to understand how they managed to lose track of this basic concept in the first place. I believe the source of the problem to be the lack of accountability of the public school system to its customers: parents. Until this is dealt with, our children’s schools will continue to slide around on the slippery surface of our modern culture. The only effective solution I can think of is a system of educational vouchers.
—Rick CochranIthaca, N.Y.
SANDI PATTY’S MINISTRY
* I am writing in response to your article “Sandi Patty Weds Former Backup Vocalist” [Sept. 11]. I have been an avid fan of Sandi Patty’s for several years and have followed her career closely. I was upset when I heard about her affairs; however, that does not change the effectiveness of her ministry. She has repented for her sins, and I believe she is sorry for what she did. Just because I do not agree with her personal life does not mean she is no longer my favorite vocalist. I will always be supportive of Sandi Patty, and hopefully her number one fan!
—Albert SimonRosemont, W. Va.
* It grieves me to no end what has happened to Sandi Patty. I have been personally hurt from what has happened to some of these Christian artists. It is doing great damage to the kingdom of God. I could only hope that all of this soon will come to an end.
—Johnny BeaverCollins, Miss.
It was noted that “some radio stations permanently pulled Patty’s recordings from their play lists because she did not give biblical grounds for her divorce.”
That is true, but others removed her music on the basis that there are no biblical grounds for divorce and/or remarriage after divorce. The evangelical community cannot with full integrity continue to call for a return to “traditional family values” without a view of marriage that consistently communicates the permanence of this God event.
—Larry WeidmanGeneral Manager, WGRC-FM RadioLewisburg, Pa.
With the “revelations” of Sandi Patty, is it not time to downplay so-called religious celebrities? Is it not Jesus’ humble call which should finally be lifted up as our model for living for him?
Surely Ms. Patty is responsible for her own sins. But has not the evangelical mindset of celebrity status fostered the environs for a person’s fall from grace? We have made much too much of the human in the name of the divine. Are not the warnings coming through to us from all sides?
Enough of showmanship in the name of Jesus. Let Jesus be Jesus and the simple witness be simple.
—Pastor J. Grant Swank, Jr.Church of the NazareneWindham, Maine
I read with sorrow about Sandi Patty’s affairs and destroyed marriage. My heart breaks even more when it appears the church accepts her rationalizing of the flagrant breaking of a covenantal vow she made to her husband. What about righteousness, the “high standards” Patty told CT she wants all us Christians to hold? Should we not hold Christian musicians to the same “high standards” as other ministers of the gospel?
—Ronald D. SvejkovskyBaldwinsville, N.Y.
CHRISTIANS AND THE DEATH PENALTY
Regarding society’s use of capital punishment, Steve Varnam wrote (correctly, I think), “this issue cannot be decided on the basis of Scripture or theology alone” [“A Barely Tolerable Punishment,” Editorial, Sept. 11]. However, it seems to me, the issue which can and must be decided on the basis of Scripture is whether Christians can legitimately support the death penalty.
After all, without the overwhelming support of church people in this country, the death penalty would have long since gone the way of slavery, as it has in all of Europe, and lately under the leadership of a Christian (Nelson Mandela) in South Africa.
The Golden Rule, it seems to me, clearly prohibits Christians from supporting eye for an eye, life for a life theology. Moses, David, and Cain were all murderers for whom God did not demand the death penalty. So much for some “eternal, unchanging principle” supposedly taught in Scripture. As with slavery (also legal in the Old Testament), the word of Jesus is the last word.
—John GoodwinAlbany, Oreg.
It is a puzzle to me how anyone who wants to follow Jesus completely, would be influenced by “legal and socio-economic contexts” or the Supreme Court. Steve Varnam quotes Jesus so well in relation to the adulterous woman. Why need we look further? Isn’t this enough to convince us we should be absolutely against this barbaric custom—especially those organizations that seek the salvation of prisoners.
—Martin JohnsonUlster Park, N.Y.
PLC: MUZZLED OR NOT?
Your headline writer seemed to be carried away with enthusiasm [News, Sept. 11] when composing “Reform-Minded Activists Retain Unmuzzled Voice,” referring to the Presbyterian Lay Committee. The general assembly committee’s report indicates the PLC has now agreed to observe the Evangelical Press Association’s Code of Ethics. That should make a great difference in their reporting and editorializing. I think your readers should know that, at least to this extent, the Lay Committee will be held more accountable, though still “unmuzzled.”
—Rev. Robert I. MillerDuarte, Calif.
Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer’s name and address. Send to Eutychus, Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 708/260-0114. E-mail: ctedit@aol.com. Letters preceded by * were received online
Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
