I love 
. Do you? Click here.
Copyright © 1992 by Mike McMillan and Bruce Williams. Not to be reproduced for profit without the permission of the authors.
We were startled to discover, in the course of researching for this article, that Dave Hunt has warned in The Seduction of Christianity and other books of the influx of 'shamanism' into the Church. Our use of the term originated independently from his; nor do we support his eschatological speculation that 'the merger of pseudo-Christianity with shamanism is essential to the formation of Antichrist's coming world religion.' (Dave Hunt, Beyond Seduction, Harvest House, 1987, p 3.) We share many of his concerns about the lack of thought and biblical soundness in much of the modern Church, however.
As defined in Encyclopaedia Britannica, fifteenth edition, shamanism is 'a religious phenomenon centred on the shaman, an ecstatic figure believed to have power to heal the sick and communicate with the world beyond.' (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edn, 1991, Vol 26, p 977.) The basic characteristics are that a male or female specialist is able to communicate directly with the unseen world, and so has abilities of healing and divination (predicting the future or gaining divine guidance for others). This person is often epileptic or subject to nervous disorders, and has an intuitive, sensitive personality, often given to moodiness and mood swings. He or she is the choice of the spirits, specially protected by the spirits; but the one who is chosen, often in adolescence, may resist the selection, sometimes for years. Illness inflicted by the spirits eventually breaks this resistance to the calling. An initiation then takes place, often involving a trance and visions. By falling into ecstasy at will, using the imagination, the shaman is believed to be able to communicate directly with the spirit world, by the soul leaving the body or by acting as a mouthpiece or medium. Music, often using drums, may be used in helping to induce this trance. Because of his profession, the shaman cannot do productive work and must be supported by the community, and some use their position for economic gain. He may then obtain political power in some cases. The shaman does not attain his position by formal study of exact knowledge and doctrine, but by his calling, and is taught by the spirits directly.
Some theories of shamanism hold that shamans are psychopathic (in the strict sense of mentally and emotionally unstable). This makes sense if we consider the characteristics of psychoses such as schizophrenia (which is not having a 'split personality'): delusions, false or irrational beliefs firmly held despite obvious or objective evidence to the contrary, which may involve ideas of persecution or the belief that thinking processes, parts of the body, actions or impulses are controlled or dictated by some external force; hallucinations, false sensory perceptions without external stimulus which seem real to the subject, including voices most commonly but also touch, taste, smell and bodily sensations; and visions. There may be incoherence of thought, with a loosening of associations between ideas, or speech which conveys little real information or is repetitive or even incoherent in extreme cases. The expression of emotion may be blunted or flattened, the voice becoming monotone and the facial expressions lacking. A schizophrenic patient usually has little or no insight into his or her own condition and does not realise either that he or she is mentally ill or that his or her thinking is disordered.
In our opinion, there are some features of shamanistic approaches in the 'faith healer' personalities prominent in the USA and now becoming known elsewhere. We do not know how these practices, which are common in Asian and North American paganism, entered the church. What we are convinced of is that they do not belong there.
We have chosen, in the following discussion, to focus on Bill Subritzky, the New Zealand-based but internationally known 'healing evangelist', not out of any personal spite (since we are personally unacquainted with the man, though we have heard him speak), but for three main reasons:
Although we would not go so far as to suggest that Bill Subritzky operates as a shaman, or that he is definitely schizophrenic, it is interesting to note certain elements of his ministry in the light of the above definitions, particularly in regard to healing abilities, communication with the transcendent, calling and direct teaching from the spiritual world, and the seeing of visions, hearing of voices, and smelling of smells which are not perceptible to others present. A New Zealand Herald article on him also contains this interesting paragraph: 'The atmosphere [in one of his meetings] was highly emotional, but throughout the meeting Subritzky remained calm and focused. His tone measured, his message simple and repetitious, he was, in the words of a detached observer, "no Billy Graham"' (New Zealand Herald, 24 September 1986, p 1, section 2).
Mr Subritzky himself notes the need for accountability repeatedly in his books; as he says, 'One of the weapons Satan uses against the children of God is pride. Once we begin to move in the gifts of God, temptation enters our minds in an attempt to deceive us into thinking that we are in some measure better than the next person. In this way, Satan attacks us and our ministry, our natural mind comes into play, and we may begin to hear from ourselves rather than from God. It is necessary for that part of the body of Christ of which we are members to be able to discern that we are really operating in the gifts of God under the anointing of the Holy Spirit and not under some other spirit' (Bill Subritzky, Receiving the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, rev edn, Dove, 1985, p 14). He cautions, 'There are people for whom I prayed for the baptism in the Spirit who were not open to the appropriate admonition, would not receive correction, and were not delivered from a spirit of deception' (Receiving, p 41). He also reminds us that 'there are other voices in the world as well [as that of God]. That is why we must be committed to, and a part of, the body of Christ, where our gifts from the Lord may be tested and confirmed' (Receiving, p 49), and that 'the word of prophecy or an interpretation can originate in the "soulish" realm; i.e., in the realm of the mind, not the realm of the spirit. It may be a perfectly good and valid word, but has arisen purely through the person's mind - not directly from inspiration of the Spirit. I do not go out of my way to stop such a word, because we can very easily damage the faith of some young Christian who is seeking to move in the Spirit. I would stop that person from speaking only when the word of prophecy or interpretation is contrary to the Word of God' (Receiving, p 94. Since Bill Subritzky is not a 'young Christian' this limitation does not apply, even if we accepted his view that it can be more damaging to stop a false 'prophecy' than to let it continue. We do not.)
In another book he ably explains the process of the development of heresies, saying they are 'usually truths taken to extremes so that finally they become a departure from the true Christian faith. Somebody awakens to a particular truth and instead of bringing total balance through the Word of God they major on this particular truth until it becomes out of line with the rest of the Word of God. Finally, in order to sustain their particular argument, increasingly unscriptural points of view are used until in the end the person is in total error' (Bill Subritzky, Demons Defeated, Dove, 1985, p 115. Unfortunately he immediately proceeds to misapply Proverbs 11:1 in support of his remarks.) He is aware of the dangers of authoritarianism with supposed divine sanction: 'On many occasions I have seen disaster strike churches where the pastor has taken absolute authority over his flock, believing that he is hearing from God. When members of his flock have spoken to him concerning certain reservations, they have been told they are in rebellion. Invariably, the pastor of that church has himself fallen from grace as he has entered into some deception or error and considerable division has occurred within that church' (Demons, p 152).
In view of these statements, we expect that he will not be angry if we subject his ministry to examination and criticism, especially in view of his beliefs regarding people who react angrily to such critiques: 'Now the spirit which rises up when we begin to expose the spirit of heresy is the demon of anger. It is noteworthy that, whenever we begin to point out an unbalanced doctrine, particularly one which "tickles the ears" of the believers, then the spirit of anger manifests on the part of the person who is bound by the heresy. They are not prepared to listen because the demon of deception within them is not prepared to listen to the whole truth' (Demons, p 124).
Mr Subritzky, an Anglican layman without formal theological training, acknowledges being influenced by Dr Derek Prince, who has spent much time in pentecostal circles in the USA, going on, however, to claim that 'the Holy Spirit has taught me and expanded my understanding' (Demons, p xi). In fact, he frequently claims to have received special guidance and/or revelation from God (Receiving pp vii (three times), 1, 18-19, 20, 22, 37, 38, 39, 41, 46, 48, 56, 59-60, 71, 77, 89, 96, 99, 100; Demons pp xi, 14, 15, 20, 21, 30, 39, 45 (twice), 48, 60, 61, 62, 78-79, 118, 126, 146, 160, 200-201, 206, 208, 211, 212). This, linked with his claims to perceive spiritual realities subjectively (Receiving pp 1, 5, 25, 31, 34-35, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 51, 64, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 83, 86, 88, 89, 93, 95, 99, 100, 101-102; Demons pp 20, 21, 34, 43, 56, 60, 61-62, 66, 106, 107, 111 (twice), 143, 145-146, 160, 198, 204, 215-216), naturally gives him considerable authority; he counsels other leaders, 'if you are acting in a leadership role remember that the Holy Spirit is the one leading the meeting through you' (Receiving, p 98). His claims to be able to 'discern' what is happening at any time mean that he is the one who interprets the meaning of all events in his meetings to the audience. If one of the people he is praying for disagrees with him over this interpretation he can claim that the person is under demonic deception or that a demon is speaking through them. He does not only claim that his subjective 'impressions' are from God (a claim which we find made or substantiated nowhere in Scripture); he claims to hear the audible voice of God: 'Concerning the audible voice of the Lord, sometimes in a meeting it is totally audible to me. I have been in situations where, as I moved about in a meeting, I could hear the voice of the Lord very clearly telling me about conditions in people nearby, or some other situation' (Receiving, p 41). He effectively summarises much of one book in the other when he says, 'In my book, 'Receiving the Gifts of the Holy Spirit', I describe how I came into the gift of discernment of spirits. I find this, like the other gifts of the word of knowledge and word of wisdom, can be impressions, or thoughts upon my mind, or the audible voice of the Holy Spirit as well as a vision, with the result that as I minister deliverance, the Holy Spirit will show me the parts of the body to which the demons are attached, or names of the demons, or both, and how to pray' (Demons, p 160). He perceives smells as well as sights and sounds, and claims that these (unlike the 'audible' voice of God which appears to be audible only to him) are perceptible to others: 'I find that in many meetings where there is a real anointing of the Holy Spirit, one can smell the fragrance of the Holy Spirit. It is a clearly distinguishable and beautiful perfume, quite the opposite of the horrible smell that is associated with Satan and his demons. Many people are able to physically smell the presence of the Lord as they smell this perfume at the meetings' (Receiving, p 24. Mike wishes to report that he could not.)
Subritzky has achieved the ability to perceive these things by setting aside his intellect, which he distrusts: 'When I attended Law School at University, I was told that one of the main objectives of the course was to make me think for myself and to be independent of mind. While this is commendable as a natural objective, it can lead to problems when we move in the spiritual realm because our natural mind is against God. 'Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be." (Romans 8:7)' (Demons, p 104). A moment's checking reveals that of the three New Testament words for mind the one in Romans 8:7 is not that referring to the intellectual capacity, reasoning, or logic but to the focal point of one's moral preference and world view, what one thinks of, the reflection of one's priorities, convictions and beliefs. Subritzky, like many users of the English Bible and especially the King James Version, is guilty of a 'versionism'; taking the implications of the word used in the English translation to be the implications of the Scripture. It is also not a very good translation of the verse; 'the mind set on the flesh' (NASB, NIV margin) or 'the sinful mind' (NIV) are preferable to 'the carnal mind' (KJV), and certainly to Subritzky's paraphrase 'the natural mind'. Finally, there is a distinct difference between understanding the Scriptures and being subject to the Scriptures, if indeed the Scriptures are what Paul means in context when he refers to the 'law of God'. There are certainly things in Scripture which cannot be truly 'understood' by a mere intellectual approach. But this does not mean that they must be grasped in the absence of thought.
Be that as it may, Subritzky's anti-intellectualism is clear in his writings: 'Our walk with Jesus Christ is not an intellectual walk, but the walk is an act of faith' (Demons, p 68), and 'It is wonderful to be able to pray in the Spirit and speak in tongues when we are under attack in the area of our mind. With the assistance of the Holy Spirit we can then speak past our natural mind direct to God' (Demons, pp 105-106).
'. . . encouragement is needed in speaking out in tongues. If we are prepared to put aside the thoughts of our natural mind and really centre them on Jesus Christ in order to allow Him to speak to us, we will feel a quickening in our Spirit that we should speak out in this way' (Receiving, p 86).
'I discover that many people have difficulty in reading and understanding the Word because their mind gets in the way' (Receiving, p 53). 'I never question the Word of God. If I do not understand it, I just believe it. Then in time the Holy Spirit shows me clearly what is meant by a particular phrase or portion of it. . . . The failure of our natural minds to grasp the spiritual insights which God offers is what prevents our understanding of the Word' (Receiving, p 56). '. . . I believe that in order to know the anointing we must absolutely believe that the Word of God is true from beginning to end and take it into our heart and not our mind' (Bill Subritzky, How to Know the Anointing of God, Dove, 1986, p 34).
Under the influence of someone he identifies only as 'a Pentecostal brother' Subritzky, only a short while after he was converted, experienced frustration because he could not 'sense the anointing of the Holy Spirit'. Every week for nine months this new Christian would be asked by a man whom he respected, 'Brother Bill, do you sense the anointing of the Holy Spirit?' and, when Subritzky replied 'I don't sense a thing,' the 'Pentecostal brother' would say, 'Well, the Holy Spirit is here. I sense his presence.' (Remember the time in which this was happening; in 1971 a 'Pentecostal' was presumably someone with the often anti-intellectual and subjectivist assumptions of the poorer communities of the American South. Pentecostalism is taking on a more intelligent approach recently, but still seems wary of the intellect and committed to the importance of experience.) Finally, the thirty-sixth time, he 'sensed' it, and reports, 'I have known this anointing ever since as I have turned my face, my faith, and my heart towards Jesus in every circumstance, putting my natural mind aside. It had been my mind - even though I was baptised in the Holy Spirit - which had blocked me from knowing that anointing of God' (Receiving, p 25). We would agree; it was his mind which had prevented him having that experience, and it was setting aside his mind which enabled him to have it. What we question is whether this is a good thing, because intelligence is God-given and we are scripturally directed to use it (Mt 22:37, Mk 12:30, Lk 10:27, Ro 14:5, 1 Co 14:14-19, Eph 1:18, 1 Pe 1:13, 2 Pe 3:1, 1 Jn 5:20, Rev 13:18), while we are never directed to seek subjective experiences or taught that they are a means of determining or discovering truth. This, we believe, is why Subritzky uses at least five scriptures in each of his two books out of context (Receiving pp 7, 23, 24, 47, 55; Demons pp 7, 26, 30, 83, 115), and misapplies up to eight others in Receiving the Gifts and twice that number in Demons Defeated (Receiving pp 17-18, 21-22, 32, 47, 69, 71, 82, 101; Demons pp 23, 25 (two), 26, 27, 28, 32, 35-36, 50, 56, 63, 71, 87, 102, 136, 220), and why he repeatedly refers to his 'experience' as the source of his teachings (Receiving 34, 45-46, 46; Demons 30, 39, 42, 46, 148, 166, 171, 183). While the blurb on the back of Demons Defeated claims 'This book is totally based upon Scripture and throughout Bill Subritzky adds his own personal experiences' it would be more accurate, in our opinion, to say that these books are totally based on Bill Subritzky's personal experiences and sometimes he adds Scripture, rarely accurately, to support his interpretations of those experiences.
Are we claiming that Bill Subritzky is in doctrinal error? Yes, we are, and as his errors have been proclaimed publicly we publicly proclaim our opposition to them (though not to him personally or as a Christian brother) and ask him publicly to retract his falsely based statements. (A fuller summary of the specific errors in his writings is given in The Theology and Ministry of Bill Subritzky, a booklet published by our friend and sometime discipler Graham Blaikie in 1986, and available from him, Box 8786, Auckland, New Zealand, at NZ$3.50. Mr Subritzky is well aware of the content of this booklet, but has made no alteration in his teachings as a result of it as far as we know.)
Are we claiming that we are 'better' than Bill Subritzky? No, we are not. We know little of his personal life, but would be prepared to believe that he is a more dedicated Christian than are we, displaying more holiness of life. We do not think he is an evil man, only an incorrect one.
Are we claiming that Bill Subritzky is mad? No, we are not. We would like to set out the possibilities after the model of the well-known 'trilemma' used by apologists to demonstrate the deity of Christ:
Either Bill Subritzky hears audible voices, or he does not.
If he does not, then, since he claims he does, he is a liar (Possibility One).
If he does, the voices are either real or imaginary.
If they are imaginary, then he is psychologically disturbed (Possibility Two).
If they are real, they are either from God or from Satan.
If they are from Satan, he is deceived (Possibility Three).
If they are from God, he is a prophet (Possibility Four).
While not committing ourselves to any of the other three, we register our extreme scepticism concerning Possibility Four in view of the unsoundness and outright error of much of his theology. This is not what one hears from a prophet. Also, we would expect more practical respect for Scripture from a prophet; while claiming, we presume sincerely, to believe the Bible totally, and to hold it in high regard, in practice he treats it as less than sufficient and supplements it with personal revelation. When he does use it, he does not allow it to teach him and to speak for itself but uses its statements to support his own experience and what he has received from other men. Finally, we would expect from a prophet the instantaneous, total, never-fail healing of 'every kind of disease and sickness' which the Scriptures depict (Mt 4:23, 8:16, 9:35, 15:30, Acts 5:16), rather than the patchy results of Bill Subritzky. We will consider these further in the article 'Spell-casting in the Pulpit'.
More articles.
I love |
You are visitor number to this page since
29 November 1997.