I was wrong!
I wanted to get your attention, because these pages have been revised. The pointing of the finger and the apparent anger of the language has been somewhat attenuated. An explanation is due:
According to Dr. Michael Brown, associate and important figure in the Brownsville Revival, he met with Hank Hanegraaff in public debate on Friday, October 31, 1997, and due to a mishap of plane schedules or some serendipity (read that benevolent move of a sovereign God), they spent three "quality hours alone together in serious and open fellowship." Michael reported this to a crowd in Fitchburg, Massachussetts on Sunday night, November 2. He was pleased with the outcome, and with a promise of future such get-togethers.
According to Michael, at the end of the debate, Christian leaders grabbed both men and prayed for them as they held hands. Dr. Brown mischeviously whispered to Hank, "I hope you don't get slain in the spirit..." To which Hank replied, equally mischeviously, "I hope I do..." This to me is a testimony to a heart-warming sense of humor in the midst of a very serious struggle within the body of sincere believers. Neither man changed his doctrinal opinion, nor would one expect them to from one encounter. Dr. Brown, at least has expressed warm respect for Hank Hanegraaff the man.
The pages here contained unhelpful invective, leveled against a man. I have had to repent. For this reason, I want to be very careful in the following response to Hank's book. I want to respond to his opinion, written long before his encounter with Dr. Brown. So far, therefore, two things have changed: the introduction, which leveled unwarrented condemnation at an individual, and the story of Sarah Lilliman. Hank treats her case accurately in his book, according to a post I received from Dr. Ruthven, the reviewer for Charisma magazine. He asked me to remove the quote based on further research he had done after the publication of the magazine, which I immediately did.
Confusion is being sown in the Church of Jesus Christ. We ourselves, in our haste to meet publishers' deadlines, or in our haste to correct others and prove ourselves right, fail each other by passing on gossip, or by innaccurately reporting what God has said and done. There is no hope for you, dear reader, until you yourself take the Word of God into your hand, and become more familiar with it than with any other thing. We must begin to utter the Word to one another, not in argument, but in encouragement. As we begin to seek Jesus, our silly differences will fade in the light of His wonderful splendor. These pages seek to answer biblically and honestly objections made to outward manifestations witnessed in churches. These are no substitute for the Truth found only in the Christian Bible. Read, then with this in mind: The author has already been forced to change what he had innaccurately reported, once better information was provided. This, therefore, is but one man's limited opinion of what God is doing on the earth. Take it as opinion, and seek God's perspective above all.
Read Pastor Pete's blog at the River's edgeThis page is still under construction!Last update 11/2/97
What is the criticism?
Many books are being written on the subject of the so-called Toronto Blessing and the Pensecola renewal. The following is an attempt to analyze the nature of the critique and to respond to it in scriptural terms. I am using Hank Hanegraaff's book Counterfeit Revival as my reference for the critics. It typifies the critique in both scope and language.
To make the material in Counterfeit Revival memorable, I've developed the acronym F-L-E-S-H. This acronym will serve to distinguish the genuine work of the Spirit from the counterfeit work of the FLESH (Gal. 5:19-26).
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
In his book, Hank uses the acronym FLESH (Fabrications, Fantasies, and Frauds; Lying signs and wonders; Endtime Restorationism; Slain in the Spirit; Hypnotism) to outline the many criticisms he has of the renewal. In doing so, he opens himself to the same weapon. He readily admits early on that this is a technique he uses to help the reader remember. This technique is taught in any course on homiletics in seminary. It is a tool, as any other tool used in communication, to manipulate the listener psychologically to accept the premises on which the author is about to expound. The tactic is visible in the second sentence of the above quote. Acronyms don't distinguish anything from anything. They implant a desired hypothesis in the memory without distinction or reflection. This is called, by the way, psychological manipulation or brainwashing. Any communicator desiring to convince and influence will use this technique.
As an example, Hank's book can easily be summarized in this form. He uses:
Factual distortions
Many of the followers who at first flooded into Counterfeit Revival "power centers" have become disillusioned and have now slipped through the cracks into the kingdom of the cults.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
The use of generalizations and exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims serves the purpose of establishing doubt and exciting fear. Hank uses this technique often throughout the book, knowing that this is the information that gets passed most readily from mouth to mouth. Hank never speaks of the true disciples who traveled the world over to the "power centers" and returned home determined to walk with God and to establish greater intimacy with Him. Additionally, to say "many have slipped" in the revival and to ignore the "many" that "have slipped" from churches Hank would accept as orthodox is both deceptive and dishonest. If the phrase "many have slipped" can discredit a ministry, then Jesus' own ministry could have been brought down right at the end of John chapter six. All he did was tell his disciples to, "Eat my flesh...Drink my blood," and everybody left, except the twelve.
Hank enjoys using certain words repeatedly to emphasize his points. These words, especially the adjectives he chooses, help to distort the reader's view of the phenomena being discussed. The reader will notice, for example, that laughter in a revival service is never just laughter or joy-filled laughter, but sardonic laughter, a word that means sarcastic and mocking, never desirable. Hank does not want the reader to entertain for one minute that person is laughing simply because he is enjoying himself, and feels free enough to laugh. He emphasizes what he considers abnormal behavior so that the reader will not risk entertaining the thought that the congregation in question might be a group of normal, Christ loving, God-fearing Christians come together to enjoy God and celebrate His goodness. He creates such a mystical, alien atmosphere that the inexperienced reader would fear even talking to a member of such a congregation.
A leader, teacher, pastor or evangelist involved in the present renewal is never just a leader or teacher. When Hank refers to any of these, he at least calls them "counterfeit revival leader so-and-so" (emphasis mine). Rodney Howard-Browne is often referred to as "guru", and is mocked and ridiculed as if his opinion had no value.
For Hank, two kinds of people attend revival services. There is the "devotee", a mind-numbed, weak-willed subject to these pernicious, hypnotic teachers' psychological manipulation, having no mind of his own. Gullible and easily misled, he has come to worship Jesus with other believers. Then there is the wise and discerning, like Hank, who attends, not to worship Jesus with other believers, but to find fuel for criticism of the goings on in the services in order to write another best selling book. One cannot enjoy Rodney Howard-Browne, or the Arnotts of Toronto, or Pastor Kilpatrick of Pensacola without becoming himself a thrall under their psychological domination, a "credulous Christian."
Anyone who is having an experience in the revival services has entered an altered state of consciousness. Although this term is used to denigrate all new-age experiences, and is stolen from new-age writers, Hank does not want the reader to think that the presence of the Holy Spirit might have a tendency to alter one's state of consciousness. This is in spite of the scriptural evidence of states of consciousness that were somewhat other than what one would consider normal:
Dr. Norman L. Geisler has pointed out that, when Jesus and the Apostles healed people, the miracles were always 100 percent successful, immediate, and there were no relapses...
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
As it was in the days of the Charismatic renewal, when cessationist critics John MacArthur, Dale Bruner, Walter Chantry, George E. Gardiner and so many others were quoting each other to sustain their own argument against the charismatic manifestations and specifically against speaking in tongues, the current critics are forced to avoid using scriptures to defend their opinions, because, quite frankly, the Bible does not major in describing physical manifestations. Any physical manifestation could rightly be said to be unbiblical, simply because we have no physical descriptions of manifestations in the Bible. (Indeed, sitting row upon row in pews listening to a one-man show unfold once a week could be deemed quite unbiblical, and yet few are writing books against that unbiblical practice.) Instead, the critics rely on the readers assumed concept of staid, acceptable orthodoxy, as well as his pre-conceived notions of religion in order to ridicule the current outward, physical responses to the Holy Spirit's presence in the services.
In the above quote, Hank alludes to the scriptures, but quotes a doctor. This, for the critics, is arguing biblically. The fact that the doctor is wrong can be ignored, because the doctor is a doctor and Hank is quoting him. When the TV networks want to quote an expert, they film him in front of a lot of books. The books give the impression that the expert has read the books. The "Dr." in front of the name in this quote gives the impression that the man must know more than the reader. He doesn't. The fact is that we don't know what Jesus could not do in Nazareth, but it is written, "He could do few miracles" because of their unbelief. (Some would say that the topic of these pages is simply unbelief.) The fact is, we don't know how far the ten lepers got toward Jerusalem before their healing occurred. We only know it was not immediate. And the fact is, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Go and sin no more lest something worse happen to you." We do not know what happened to the paralytic in the years to come. Hank is clearly wrong in all his assumptions.
Hank relies on the reader's ignorance of scripture and lazy scholarship to drive home his irrational criticism without a trace of real, exegetical analysis. In doing this he is:
Wimber uses what appears to be an elaborate deception to fool followers into believing that Bible translators--who have never had the slain in the spirit experience--incorrectly translate the word sleep in Genesis 2:21...In truth however, Wimber has switched terms. The Hebrew word for "sleep" used here is not yashen as Wimber asserts; rather it is tardemah. While Wimber seeks to impugn the translators, in reality he should be impugned.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Everybody wants to be a Hebrew scholar. I, too, have the same tools both Hanegraaff and Wimber have. It's a dictionary. Looking in my interlinear Old Testament, I see that Hank is quite right. The word that is used is tardemah. Looking in Strong's dictionary, I see that the word is incorrectly translated, exactly as Wimber stated. The word tardemah is the word for "trance", and suggests a state of consciousness that Hanegraaff will not even think a saint of the Bible has experienced. The interesting thing about this word, as I played with my dictionaries, is that it is the same experience Abraham had in Genesis chapter 15, where a deep sleep comes upon him before God walks between the covenant animals. The result of the first trance-like state was the bride of Adam. The second trance-like state brought about a covenant curse that God placed upon Himself, which He Himself fulfilled in His brutal death on the cross. John Wimber was not wrong in his statement concerning translators. He goofed on the Hebrew words he was citing. Hank missed Wimber's point, and in so doing, proved it.
Like hypnotists and Hindu gurus, these "healers" use the power of suggestion to create placebos for psychosomatic symptoms and sickness. In truth, however, there is nothing supernatural about this kind of "healing." Hinn and Howard-Browne can "heal" asthma, allergies and arthritis, but then, so can mesmerists and medicine men.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Hank capitalizes on any word spoken by the targets of his diatribe that he can take out of context and distort. The reader will never find an analysis of the gospel message preached by any targeted leader, but rather, any bizarre jest or strange comment will be emphasized and criticized. Rodney Howard-Browne's appearance at Oral Robert's University is mentioned in the book. There is no mention made at all of the powerful and full presentation of the gospel of salvation he made there and the tremendous response to the call to repentance.
I have attended and analyzed Counterfeit Revival meetings with "performance professionals," including a stage hypnotist and an expert on sleight-of-hand/sleight-of-mind. They were readily able to identify numerous instances of these indirect suggestion techniques. They also pointed out that these techniques are not typically learned by formal instruction, but rather by frequent imitation.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Most bizarre of all, Hank Hanegraaff relies on the writings and observations of hypnotists, witches and secular psychologists to back up his own personal dislikes and discomforts with the current revival. He associates with hypnotists and magicians, and they become his allies in this assault upon the Church.
If this were truly scientific, and not a sardonic, money-making venture, Mr. Hanegraaff would have taken his hypnotists and witches to a Billy Graham crusade, to a Calvary Chapel church meeting, to any prominent preacher's meeting to do a similar analysis.
As one skeptic aptly put it, "I must confess I share in full the general public's disgust with media preachers, who long since tired of preaching the Christian gospel, and in its place substituted a National Enquirer style gospel of cheap sensationalism. (p. 158)
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Many of the followers who at first flooded into Counterfeit Revival "power centers" have become disillusioned and have now slipped through the cracks into the kingdom of the cults.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Tragically, the "lab technician"who experimented on them that night was a hypnotist struggling with homosexuality. In 1995 he died of AIDS.
Hanegraaff in Counterfeit Revival
As any good gossip would, Hank backs up his warnings with anecdotal, but unsubstantiated reports of "devastating" consequences of the revival. As is often the case of the critics, Hanks primary fuel for criticism is a projection of his own inability to use what he calls the "litmus test for any experience, the Holy Bible," against the revival. He accuses the leadership of never using the Bible in their teaching, of relying on experience to substantiate claims of authenticity, and of threatening those that disagree with hell-fire and damnation. Hank, it will be shown, cannot use the Bible as a source for criticism, because there is no standard set for behavior when under the power of the Holy Spirit. He relies on the history of the church and the common religious experience of the last hundred years or so, on man's experience, in fact, to substantiate his claims that the revival is false, and he accuses any leader in the revival of cultic or occultic behavior, and any Christian enjoying the blessings of the revival of being a mindless, auto-suggestible, easily persuaded, scripturally ignorant devotee on the way to a suicide similar to the Jim Jones suicides or the Heaven's Gate's suicides.
In his radio program, Hank often says he only talks of Toronto when asked. He says he avoids descending to personal attacks. He tries to keep the discussion to doctrinal differences. Yet in his extremely personal and insulting attacks on Christians with whom he disagrees he often mentions their names first. Kenneth Copeland gets named as a non-christian cult leader in the context of a discussion of Christian Science (June 24, 1997 radio program). The Pensecola phenomena get mentioned gratuitously on Larry King Live in the context of the Heaven's Gate cult deaths( Larry King Live, the Friday before April 14, 1997). His blindness to his own technique is tragic for him, but devastating to those who find truth in a radio program rather in their own searching of the scriptures.
Ironically, the hypnotist to whom he refers, the "lab technician" who visited John Wimber's church, was highly instrumental in bringing thousands to the Lord during the Jesus Movement of the late sixties. He, in fact, helped to establish the Calvary Chapel movement, which, the last I heard, boasts such "devotees" as Hank Hanegraaff himself. The evangelist's ministry went very sour after his wife left him for another. After a lengthy period of darkness and bitterness, he took on the ministry once again, but never, apparently, with the enthusiasm of the former days. He was used mightily, nonetheless, and he did, indeed, die tragically.
return to outline of the response
Rodney Howard-Browne dupes devotees...
Like hypnotists and Hindu gurus, these "healers" use the power of suggestion to create placebos...
Cain elevates expectations to a fever pitch by telling devotees...
[Randy Clark] tells credulous Christians...
...like Eastern gurus, [revival leaders] work their devotees into altered states of consciousness.
First,...it appears that Wimber uses socio-psychological manipulation tactics to work his devotees into altered states of consciousness.
Like Gnostics in the second and third centuries, many who claim the name of Christ are taking a trip beyond Christianity into the world of the occult.
Hypnotists, Holy Ghost bartenders, and Hindu gurus also depend heavily on expectations.
Despite the fact that endtime restorationists like John Wimber are fully aware of their own mortality, they allow prophets like [Paul] Cain to parade through their pulpits, duping parishioners...
When the Holy Ghost Bartender (who also refers to himself as the Holy Ghost Hitman) arrived at my seat,...he hissed...
...Counterfeit Revival leaders clamor for unity without regard for the truth
While we may rightly judge a person's doctrines and deeds in light of Scripture, we must never pass judgment on their eternal destiny.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
The above quotes demonstrate the spirit operating in Hank when he writes. Since the calumny is not rational, it is impossible to answer such pervasive calumnies on a rational level. For Hank, any minister is a deceiver. Anyone who attends a service to worship Jesus is a dupe. The ministry is juxtaposed with cults, hoping the accusation will stick. It is enough to know that any good is ignored, and any conciliatory gesture is rebuffed.
return to outline of the response
Dr. Norman L. Geisler has pointed out that, when Jesus and the Apostles healed people, the miracles were always 100 percent successful, immediate, and there were no relapses.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
This statement has already been discussed in detail. Ignorance of the scriptures allows such misrepresentations to be digested without discernment. The fact is, concerning actual cases of healing, we of the twentieth century only know what the Bible says and nothing else. Although this is sufficient to measure Truth, it is not sufficient to go beyond what is written into the realm of assumption. No one knows what happened in the lives of each of the people Jesus healed.
When they "slay' subjects "in the spirit," they apparently bank on the fact that the expectations of their followers will give birth to the experience itself.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Hank often relies on the reader's ignorance of scripture to drive home the points he's trying to relay. In his chapter "The Exploitation of Expectations" (Chapter 24), Hank ridicules repeatedly the notion that expectations lead to fulfillment. There is no discussion of the nature of faith which, according to Hebrews 11:1 is the substance of things hoped for (expected in the Greek). There is no mention of the lady with the issue of blood, who said, "If I just touch the hem of His garment I will be healed," who then touched the hem of His garment and was healed. Jesus said to her, "Your faith has made you whole." (Matthew 9: 20-22) How many had touched him that day and not been made whole? What had they expected? Word of that hem-touching got out, because later on, in Matthew 14:36, many begged that they might just touch the hem of His garment, and as many as touched it were made perfectly well! Why? What did they expect? Did those who expected nothing beg to touch the hem of his garment?
In another case where the reader's ignorance serves Hanegraaff's purpose, he relates the vision of another author.
[James] Ryle watched God bring His pet hippo into a garden...As His pet hippo had a big mouth, so His seers would have big mouths; and as the hippo ranks first among the works of God (at least according to Ryle), the prophetic ministry will rank first in authority within the body of Christ. (Emphasis added, both in italics and in highlighting.)
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Much is involved in the above quote, especially concerning the prophetic, its nature and its use. If the reader has a tendency to disbelieve the ongoing presence of prophetic ministry in the church, he will reject out of hand any such vision, as James Ryle describes. Hank, however, adds his touch of ridicule to James' comment that the hippo ranks first among the works of God. Anyone looking at a hippo would wonder where James Ryle would have made that comment. Any scholar of Hebrew would know. The phrase "ranks first among the works of God" comes from Job 40:19. It is a variant translation, where the King James says, "He is the chief of the ways of God." And, in context, God is describing an animal known by the Hebrew word behemoth. The King James version, for lack of a better guess, actually uses this transliteration. As anyone who has studied the word behemoth would know, the description of the animal presented in this passage resembles more a dinosaur than an extant creature, but it has been translated among other things as "hippopotamus." The popular French Segond de Genève translation uses this choice for the word.
Hank relies on the readers ignorance and unwillingness to question. He is writing for an audience that is already credulous and willing to believe any gossip and calumny that doesn't directly affect them or confront their prejudices.
return to outline of the response
Nullifying the Word of God (p.92)
[John Wimber's] notion that 150 followers experienced falling in an unconscious state is no warrant for suggesting that the apostle John was unconscious during his encounter with Christ. As Robert Mounce communicates in his commentary on the Book of Revelation, the apostle John was "experiencing a supernatural phenomenon of such magnitude that to stand as an equal would be tantamount to blasphemy."
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Here is false teaching at its most dangerous. Jesus said, "You nullify the Word of God (void it and make it of no effect) in favor of your traditions." (Mark 7:13) Here Hank is handing down a pernicious tradition from a commentary by one who believes that John's experience on Patmos is not normative. According to John, himself, he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day." We are admonished by Paul to walk in the Spirit, indeed to live in the Spirit. We are to become the actual dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:20). Yet Robert Mounce would claim that it is blasphemous to think that we could experience what John experienced. Could Robert Mounce say "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" (or any other day for that matter) definitively, as John said, and distinguish it from a time when he was not "in the Spirit"? Would Hank Hanegraaff maintain that when John was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day," he was in a normal state of consciousness? How would he know? Has he ever been "in the Spirit on the Lord's day" or any other day?
Remember, too, this was the apostle John who wrote : But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. (I Jn 2:27 NKJ) John does not seem squeamish in admonishing individuals to experience Jesus individually and to the fullest extent. Why would these leaders be so bound?
We must be wary of excessive repetition or musical mantras that produce hypersuggestibility.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
This reasonable sounding suggestion is promulgated among the culturally ignorant who think that worship reached its sublime peak in the cathedrals of Germany during the days of Bach. It is not based on scriptures. In fact, it ignores the Bible altogether. It ignores, for example, Psalm 136, where the phrase "for his mercy endures forever" occurs in each of the twenty-six verses. Is the reader to believe that twenty-six repetitions is OK, but if you read the same psalm twice, you run into trouble? Or three times? So how many times can one repeat a chorus without risk of brain damage? When the Israelites under Jehoshaphat defeated the three armies that had lined up against them, we know they sang, "Praise the Lord; for His mercy endureth forever." We do not know how many times they sang it, presumably more than once. Is it not remarkable that the Israelite army did not become entranced, and go down in defeat? Why do we insist on making doctrine pleasing to us, that has no source in the scriptures?
Hanegraff nullifies several scriptures in sticking to the orthodox cant. Sometimes he even uses other "scholars," to back him up. For example, Jonathan Edwards and he team up to nullify Joel's prophecy, "Your sons and your daughters will prophesy", and I Corinthians 14:1, "Follow after charity, and [strongly] desire the spiritual gifts, but especially that ye may prophesy." Here is what Hanegraff and Edwards say:
Rather than indulging impulses and impressions, Edwards advises Christians to "take the Scriptures as our guide." ...Edwards implores Christians "to be contented with the divine oracles--that holy pure [sic] word of God, which we have in such abundance and clearness."
Hanegraaff in part quoting Jonathan Edwards Counterfeit Revival
The answer to this paradox is clear. The Scriptures, as our guide, that holy, pure word, implore us to seek the greater gifts, especially that we might prophesy. Jesus said we would perform miraculous signs. Joel prophesied that we would dream dreams, see visions, and prophesy. To say otherwise is to nullify what is written and to impede obedience to the pure word.
He accuses Rodney Howard-Browne of denigrating the deity of Christ:
Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus "lay aside His royal robes of deity."
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phil 2:5-8 NAS
If Jesus was not as we are, how could we have the same mind? If Jesus acted as God throughout his lifetime, why did he empty himself? What did he empty himself of? Hanegraaff is wrong. Jesus called himself the Son of Adam, ben Adam. This title was not reserved for deity. Ezekiel was likewise addressed by God throughout the book of Ezekiel. He acted under his authority as a son of Adam, and did what the son of Man was authorized to do through the Holy Scriptures. That is why we, too, can do the works that He did, and greater works than these (John 14:12). It is because we, too, acting in faith, have all the delegated authority Adam had to subdue the earth, which power he gave over to the serpent, and which power Jesus wrested from him through His life, death and resurrection.
He goes on to nullify several of the promises of scripture, by ridiculing the faith of the revivalists in these very promises:
The egocentric refrain sung by the Counterfeit Revivalists is that God is finally going to elevate us to the top echelon of society. Their magic mantra is that He will soon make us the head and not the tail, the lender and not the borrower. Repeatedly they promise prospects that "the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous."
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth...and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only and thou shalt not be beneath...
Deuteronomy 28: 1, 12-13
A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.
Prov 13:22 NKJ
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
II Corinthians 1:19-20
If a critic does not want to believe the promises literally, as they are proclaimed in that holy, pure word which we have in abundance, he should guard himself from criticizing those that do, as if their faith was founded elsewhere. Jesus admonished believers to "abide in His word," exactly as the believers were admonished to dwell in the commandment in Deuteronomy, yet these critics want the powerless church to remain the tail and forget the promises that righteousness brings.
Devotees are urged to come to the Master's table, not in devotion to the Master, but rather to devour what is on the Master's table.
Hank Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies. Thou anointest my head with oil. My cup overfloweth.
David Psalm 23
Doesn't it seem strange, that the master would spread a table before me and be scandalized that I would eat of it. Perhaps the critics are worried about my bad manners, that I would eat in the presence of my enemies. Perhaps this is not a good attitude for the nineties. Or perhaps this is another scripture we can nullify with impunity.
return to outline of the response
Witches and hypnotists as witnesses against the Church?
Arnold Ludwig, writing in Tart's Altered States of Consciousness, confirms that when "a person enters or is in an ASC, he often experiences fear of losing his grip on reality."
Hanegraaff in Counterfeit Revival who is quoting Arnold M. Ludwig, in his article entitled "Altered States of Consciousness," in Charles Tart, ed., Altered States of Consciousness.
In the heat of controversy, the simplest truths are forgotten. Fear, in the presence of God, is not altogether unbiblical. This is discussed in detail in the biblical response. Fear, as presented in the above quote, that is, outside the presence of God, would well be expected. The point is that the source Hank is using here is not a Christian source, nor is it the Bible. It is a study of New Age phenomena. How should that be used to judge, for instance, Abram's experience of fear and horror in Genesis 15?
A classic illustration is provided by best-selling neo-pagan author Lynn Andrews. As she progressed into a trance state, she believed she was going insane: "I was terrified. I began to inhale great breaths of air, gasping. I sobbed uncontrollably. I had finally done it--I had lost my mind."
Hanegraaff in Counterfeit Revival who is quoting Lynn Andrews as she is quoted by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, in their Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs
A classic illustration, according to Hank, is taken from a witch's testimony? (Neo-paganism is another name for witchcraft, or wicca.) And this witch's testimony is going to help the reader decide what is biblical?
In another tragically ludicrous passage, Hank describes the experience of an agnostic reporter, Mick Brown, who had already had an experience at the ashram of Mother Meera, and subsequently went to see John Arnott in Toronto:
Brown says he did not experience long-term change as the result of either his encounter with Mother Meera or with John Arnott. He didn't change his reservations about Christianity, nor did it make him think "that Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Red Indian Shamanism or whatever other kind of manifestation of faith could go out with the bathwater." After leaving the Toronto Airport Vineyard, Brown was more convinced than ever that Christ was merely "a sort of man, someone through whom God was working."
Hanegraaff in part, and presumably quoting Mick Brown, as he is apparently quoted by Mike Taylor in the transcript of an article in the February 1995 Evangelicals Now, entitled "What Happened Next" in the book Counterfeit Revival
The explanation for this is two-fold. First, if non-conversion is proof of counterfeit, then Jesus Himself was counterfeit. He healed everyone who came to him, and we have no proof that they followed Him ever after, but we do know of many who left him in John 6. Second, the working of miracles does not establish the salvation of the worker of miracles, Judas Iscariot, the one of the twelve who betrayed Jesus and of whom Jesus said, "It were better for him to never have been born," healed the sick and raised the dead. The fact is, Mick Brown did not come seeking Jesus, but to prove himself right. Like Hanegraaff, Mick Brown did not look for truth, but for an experience to belittle. He came with a set of prejudices, not with an openness to be taught. And he received what he came for.
Tragically, after a prolonged visit to the Toronto Airport Vineyard, Brown had experienced sardonic laughter but had not encountered a single sermon on salvation. Instead of being saved by the Spirit of the Lord, he had merely been slain by the spirit of laughter.
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
Tragically, Brown did not come looking for Jesus. That he was "slain in the spirit" is not unbiblical. "The Lord causes it to rain upon the evil as well as the good." Jesus healed everyone who came to him with no litmus test. That the experience was comparable to that of an encounter with a guru-ess in an ashram is meaningless. Subjective analysis of experience is only descriptive at best. Who knows how Peter felt, while in a trance? Who knows how John felt when he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day"? What's telling, in this quote, is the comment that Brown had not encountered a single sermon on salvation. Though Hank gives no documentation, either in length of visit or number of sermons listened to, he does include highly critical comments Mick Brown made concerning the sermon he had "heard", though he left in the middle of it to get a beer. Hardly a judge of sermon content, it's surprising that his critique would be used by a Christian against a Christian.
On the other hand, I attended four services in Toronto, each conducted by John Arnott and his team of elders, in which I heard the gospel preached, the invitation being given, and salvations being won in remarkable number. In fact, in the first daytime service I attended, they were looking for an interpreter for two women from the province of Quebec. Knowing French, and having interpreted in the past, I volunteered. I met two Roman Catholic women, one of whom had been saved the previous evening. As we sat and talked, they were telling of how their minds and hearts had never experienced such love and peace, how they had never heard the gospel message before, how deeply they had needed to forgive, and repent from the bitterness that had held them captive. They were, in fact, asking me what they should say to their more staid, conservative priest on their return home.
Indirect suggestions are far more subtle. They can involve "embedded suggestions and commands, paraverbal shifts of tone, voice directionality, enunciation, syntax, and pacing; the use of truisms, binds, double binds and other semantic variations."
Hanegraaff in Counterfeit Revival who is quoting David G. Benner, in Psychotherapy in Christian Perspective who is quoting Vance L. Shepperson in an article entitled "Hypnotherapy"
This is theology at its most ludicrous. The reader is asked to believe that a revival leader is guilty of hypnotism, because he enunciates? This page quotes Hank Hanegraaff's truisms, but reading them does not leave one hypnotized or mesmerized. Perhaps Hank himself would have to enunciate his truisms or change the syntax to gain the full effect.
There is no discussion in his book of taking a hypnotist or a witch to a regular Sunday meeting to listen to a doctor expounding biblical truths after the manner in which he was taught in any decent course on homiletics. If Hank had been honest enough to do this, his expert in the perverted arts would have noticed the scholar varying his semantics, enunciating, making suggestions and even commands, and pacing himself (although it is not clear if pacing in this case is something you do with your feet or something you do with your speech. Rodney Howard-Browne certainly paces with his feet). As to voice directionality, I can only guess...Hank doesn't make it clear. Perhaps one should call on Sheri Lewis and Lambchops, who are into new age theology, to help. Ventriloquism has never been used to my knowledge in any service that I have attended. But then, in Hank's opinion, I am among the deceived.
To me, the gravest accusation of all is that of using binds and double binds! I have no idea what that is. It must be a technique so technical that Mr. Hanegraaff cannot take the time to explain. It is probably an extremely effective weapon in the enemies' arsenal, and I wouldn't even know when it was being used against me! Imagine sitting in what you thought was a Christian service and finding yourself in a bind...and you don't even know it! Or worse yet, a double bind!
Maybe Hank should be taken seriously after all. In his books, he uses truisms regularly to make himself sound reasonable:
In addition it is important to note that God is more concerned with the attitude of our hearts than He is with the position of our bodies.
"In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity."
While we may rightly judge a person's doctrines and deeds in light of Scripture, we must never pass judgment on their eternal destiny.
Furthermore, we experience genuine worship through a passion for praise. (Emphasis Hanegraaff's)
Hanegraaff Counterfeit Revival
In reading the above truisms, one has to check carefully to see that one does not, himself, fall into a trance-like stupor. Hank preaches one thing and practices another. His writing is rife with platitudes with which anyone who knows the word would agree. Consider the first of the above quotes. In spite of the obvious truth of this statement, Hank spends forty pages of his book discussing the phenomenon commonly called being "slain in the spirit", the Pentecostal's proclivity for falling down when the preacher prays for him. Hank maintains that all those who "fall under the power" are being deceived, manipulated or worse. It is unthinkable to him that a visible manifestation of the attitude of the heart might include yielding one's body to a time of "resting", "relaxing" in the supernatural presence of the Holy Spirit. He presumes to judge the experience of millions unbiblical, simply because the phenomenon is not discussed in detail in the Bible. (The biblical presentation is discussed in detail on the Response Page.)
return to outline of the response
How would you define blaspheming the Holy Spirit? What would that be?
Peter Mehegan, on Hank Hanegraaff's program The Bible Answer Man, Friday, June 27
I think it's a conscious, willful, ongoing rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and attributing His work to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.
Hank Hanegraaff, answering the above question on The Bible Answer
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Jesus Matthew 12:32
On numerous occasions, on numerous occasions in our ministry in this church, I've seen this very phenomenon, where people who were in some state of unbelief, either outright total or partial, I've watched the Spirit of God work this work. Back 'em down, knock 'em over--I mean, you wouldn't believe that God would be so rough.
Hank Hanegraff quoting John Wimber from a tape entitled "Spiritual Phenomena: Slain in the Spirit--Part 2," in Counterfeit Revival (p. 192)
Wimber would do better to attribute the manifestations in his sensational stories to Satan. (p.193)
Hanegraaff in Counterfeit Revival
Jesus did not say that the blasphemy came in what we did, he said the blasphemy came in what we said. And, context being examined, the pharisees said that Jesus cast out demons by the power of the prince of demons. Their blasphemy was in their words. Hank, in his own words, states that the manifestations in John Wimber's services should be considered satanic. It is this critic that has drawn the battle lines. As much as the critics claim they seek an equal and open airing of ideas, their ideas themselves close the door on equality and openness.
Friend, it will always boil down to this: Do you dare presume to know what goes on in the heart of another? Do you presume to know what the Spirit would do to me to bless me, move me, get my attention, or destroy me? To what would you have attributed the death of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5? You cannot know. Please, in the discussion that ensues, what has been said has been said. Where forgiveness is sought, let it flow. But do not presume to speak what cannot be known. Let us confine ourselves to the Word, and discover together its fascinating mysteries. There is so much God left unsaid. Let us, too, therefore, endeavor not to say it, but to enjoy one another as we grow in service to Him.
Jesus is Lord, unto whom every knee shall bow, both in heaven and on earth. Let us serve Him and praise Him, and if you fall down, I will pray for you and lift you up and worship Him with you until He comes! Amen
Even so come Lord Jesus.
Antichristian teachers are easily recognized. They attack people and denigrate leaders. Their major concern is to stop any experience that they themselves have not had and cannot understand. To criticize the revival, to ask questions, to seek answers, this is not a blasphemous or damnable endeavor. But to pretend that you know what God is doing in the lives of untold millions, to disdain the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of countless thousands, to attribute to hypnosis and suggestibility the powerful work of repentance and cleansing and to publish your claims, this is to despise the Hand of God and to hate the Blood that bought us. You are not criticizing the revival .You are passing judgment. You are not asking questions. You are answering them. You are not seeking answers, you are diverting the attention of true seekers from the path of Truth. This is no longer warm and open discussion of doctrine. Instead it is an attempt to make the least of these to stumble. Let the reader beware.
Copyright © 1997 - Peter L. Mehegan- All Rights Reserved This page contains personal opinion and commentary. We reserve the right to have our own opinions and the right to state them publicly. We believe that the Constitution of the U. S. gives us this right. Last Updated 11/3/97
If you have comments or suggestions,
email me: 
click
here
These pages created with Netscape Navigator Gold
