The Revival Resources Index - A Reply to Hank Hanegraaff's Attack on the Association of Vineyard Churches in His Book Counterfeit Revival

A Reply To Hank Hanegraaff's Attack on the Association of Vineyard Churches In His Book "Counterfeit Revival"

by Pastor Larry Siekawitch Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Metro Orlando 6/3/97 .

Renewal in the Vineyard . Since 1994 there have been some pretty bizarre claims of outpourings of the Holy Spirit on Vineyard churches as well as the rest of the world. I use the term "bizarre" in the dictionary sense of "strikingly unconventional." Though there is some historical precedence for some of the things occurring, there is certainly a newness to this supposed renewal. I use the word "supposed" because the purpose of my writing is to determine whether this modern renewal is really from God or not. I would like to state up front my personal conviction on this subject and then we will look at the evidence. There have been some severe attacks on the Vineyard movement as a whole and on John Wimber in particular because of this renewal movement. Hank Hanegraaff has been at the forefront of these attacks. Because of this an apologetic (defense) is necessary. I believe there is enough experiential evidence as well as Biblical and historical proof that the current renewal in the Vineyard is from God. I also believe that there is significant "wildfire" that needs to be addressed. We will look at Biblical teaching as well as historical precedence that demands some change in the renewal, but at the same time doesn't put out the Spirit's fire. We will look at Hank Hanegraaff's book Counterfeit Revival⁽¹⁾ and a critique will be given. There are some unscholarly and unwarranted things said in Hanegraaff's book, as well as some misrepresentations that need to be addressed. At the same time I would like to share an experience I had in prayer recently. I was very grieved by Hanegraaff's attacks and I said to the Lord, "My heart grieves [over Hanegraaff's book]; does your heart grieve?" I believe he said to me, "Yes, but not like yours. He is my instrument for this time." I remember reading of one of the Puritans in conversation with someone who said his friend was accused of being a scoundrel and not saved. The Puritan was immediately incensed and in arms ready to defend his friend. The man said another of his friends was also accused by the same man of the same things. The Puritan was furious. Then the man said, "and he accused you as well." Suddenly the Puritan was distressed and said "I must pray and examine myself."⁽²⁾ When accused we must always hold a humble posture and examine ourselves to see if there is any truth in the accusations no matter who they come from and no matter how mean-spirited they are given. I do believe there are some areas we can work on to bring balance in the current renewal. I am writing as a Vineyard pastor and therefore I am defending the Association of Vineyard Churches. I am not defending, endorsing or attacking other groups that might be associated with the renewal movement (i.e. Rodney Howard Brown, Benny Hinn, Rick Joyner, etc.).
.
.

What About the Weird Stuff?

We have heard of the uncontrollable laughter, the wailing cries, the violent shaking, the animal sounds, etc. that are taking place in the current renewal. What are we to make of this weird stuff? Some say there is no Biblical precedent for this stuff. They are right about some of the phenomena, but is an argument from silence really a good argument? We would certainly have to do away with altar calls, Christian radio as well as a host of other things if this is the case. An argument from silence is basically saying, "God, you can't do anything that has not already been done in the Bible." Our practices must not contradict a clear word of Scripture, but this doesn't mean we can put God in a box and say, "You can't do that." There are churches that believe if it is not in the Bible you can't do it. The extremes are seen in the Amish who refuse to drive cars and use electricity because it is not in the Bible, and in the Church of Christ who refuse to worship with instruments because the practice is not mentioned in the New Testament. Other churches hold that if it is not prohibited in the Bible it is allowable. I think this position is the best as long as we are always keeping the teaching and example of the Apostles and Jesus Christ as our law and the guidance of the Holy Spirit as well as the law of love as guides. We would do well to listen to the words of Jonathan Edwards:

The Holy Spirit is sovereign in his operation; and we know that he uses a great variety; and we cannot tell how great a variety he may use, within the compass of the rules he himself has fixed. We ought not to limit God where he has not limited himself.⁽³⁾

In viewing the strange phenomena that accompanies the present renewal we need to embrace a principle of Jonathan Edwards. In the First Great Awakening there were two extremes concerning the revival of that time, as Michael Haykin put it: "Two parties were emerging, the Old Lights and the New Lights, which, Edwards observes, had the tendency to divide the churches in New England into 'two armies, separated, drawn up in battle array, ready to fight with one another."⁽⁴⁾ Charles Chauncey was on the side of the Old Lights and resisted the revival. James Davenport was on the side of the New Lights and entertained all kinds of extravagant excesses without ever testing the spirits. He accused ministers of being unconverted in a very demeaning way. This judgmental spirit was not uncommon among the New Lights. George Whitefield once said, "I am verily persuaded, the Generality of Preachers talk of an unknown, unfelt Christ. And the Reason why Congregations have been so dead, is because dead Men preach to them."⁽⁵⁾ Some in the present renewal have cast accusations of going to hell and committing the unpardonable sin on those who accuse them. This is not the Spirit of God and therefore we must always respond in love rather than retaliation (Romans 12:17-21). Also we must always test the spirits. Though John Wimber has been accused of not testing the spirits, he has always practiced this even from his first encounter with the bizarre phenomena. How did Jonathan Edwards seek to mediate between the two extremes toward the revival? In his book Religious Affections⁽⁶⁾ he addresses the question of phenomena accompanying God's movement upon a person's heart. He basically says phenomena doesn't prove or disprove whether it is from God or not. To the Old Lights he says that just because something is bizarre doesn't mean it isn't from God. To the New Lights he says that just because something is bizarre doesn't mean it is from God. The only true test is the fruit. Is the person more loving to his or her family? Is the person more attentive to the things of God and less attentive to the temptations of the world? Is the person more in love with Jesus and more concerned about the lost? These are sure signs that it was a genuine encounter with God. Edwards says:

A work is not to be judged of by any effects on the bodies of men; such as tears, trembling, groans, loud outcries, agonies of body, or the failing of bodily strength. The influence persons are under is not to be judged of one way or other by such effects on the body; and the reason is because the Scripture nowhere gives us any such rule. We cannot conclude that persons are under the influence of the true Spirit because we see such effects upon their bodies, because this is not given as a mark of the true Spirit; nor on the other hand, have we any reason to conclude, from any such outward appearances, that persons are not under the influence of the Spirit of God, because there is no rule of Scripture given us to judge of spirits by, that does either expressly or indirectly exclude such effects on the body, nor does reason exclude them. It is easily accounted for from the consideration of the nature of divine and eternal things, and the nature of man, and the laws of the union between soul and body, how a right influence, a true and proper sense of things should have such effects on the body, even those that are of the most extraordinary kind, such as taking away the bodily strength, or throwing the body into great agonies, and extorting loud outcries.⁽⁷⁾

This is good advice. It is also clear from this passage that Edwards had no problem with extraordinary phenomena such as falling in the Spirit, shaking and loud outcries as being from God. But why would God do some of these wild things? John Wimber suggests that the phenomena are not necessarily God doing these things to these people, but rather our individual human response to an encounter with God.⁽⁸⁾ Edwards says that "such as persons' crying out aloud, shrieking, being put into great agonies of body, &c."⁽⁹⁾ can happen to both the lost who are being convicted of sin and the saved who get a glimpse of God's true nature. He says:

The subjects of these uncommon appearances have been of two sorts; either those who have been in great distress from an apprehension of their sin and misery; or those who have been overcome with a sweet sense of the greatness, wonderfulness, and excellency of divine things.⁽¹⁰⁾

Hanegraaff uses scare tactics suggesting that the experiences are occultic in nature.⁽¹¹⁾ We certainly are to test the spirits. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 says, "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil." We are to test everything and if it is evil avoid it. Testing the spirits doesn't put out the spirits fire, but rejecting the work of God does. Hold on to everything good. How do you tell? It is certainly not by deciding what is comfortable for you. Jonathan Edwards says we can tell what is good by the fruit and by the Bible. If it goes against the Bible reject it no matter how good the fruit looks. But if it doesn't contradict the Bible and good is coming from it, it is safe to say it is from God. Certainly there will always be a mixture of flesh in anything we do this side of heaven. We should attempt to discern what is flesh and get rid of it, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
RD
I would like to mention a few Biblical passages that show bizarre results of God coming on people. These are not meant to be proof texts for the current phenomena, just proofs that God does some strange things some times. Daniel 8:18 says, "While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet." Daniel did not fall asleep because he was bored or just because he was showing reverence to God. Daniel was genuinely moved by God. John Goldingay in the Word Biblical Commentarysays about this occurrence, "Falling into a trance...denotes a coma-like state of deep sleep brought about by supernatural agency, especially in connection with visionary experiences."⁽¹²⁾ This is not the only time this happened to Daniel and it is not the only time someone went into a trance-like state in the presence of God. Hanegraaff tries to use scare tactics by accusing people that experience this kind of phenomena of dabbling in the occult.⁽¹³⁾ Daniel did not dabble in the occult. When reviewing the passage in Acts 10:9-10, which shows that Peter "fell into a trance," Hanegraaff claims this can't be used as a precedent for people today because Peter was an Apostle and therefore different than us.⁽¹⁴⁾ This is the old cessationist argument. God needed to do extraordinary things to write the Bible and get the early church going, but he doesn't need to do those things anymore. The cessationist arguments have been shown to be unbiblical and held onto due to experience rather than a thorough exegesis of the Bible.⁽¹⁵⁾ Our arguments must be based on the Bible, not experience. After Daniel's experience it says, "I, Daniel, was exhausted and lay ill for several days. Then I got up and went about the king's business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding." In other words, his experience wiped him out. Another time Daniel had a vision it says in Daniel 10:8-10, "So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground. A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees." In verse 17 it says, "How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe." Steven Miller in The New American Commentary Vol 18 says of this passage:

Daniel was left alone with this awesome being whose appearance drained him of all his strength. As the heavenly personage spoke, the prophet evidently was so overwhelmed with shock at hearing the voice of God that he "fell into a deep sleep" with his "face to the ground" (cf. John's experience in Rev 1:17). God spoke, presumably, words of greeting to Daniel after which the prophet seems to have lapsed into a state of unconsciousness. Daniel's severe reaction to the presence of this person confirms that this being was no mere angel.⁽¹⁶⁾

He goes on to say about verse 10:

Now the vision of Christ has passed, and the interpreting angel enters the picture. He touched the prophet and raised him from the ground so that he was resting on his "hands and knees." Daniel was "trembling" with weakness and fear and was barely able to keep himself from falling back down on his face.⁽¹⁷⁾

This is an overwhelming experience from an encounter with the glory of God. The Bible says God "lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16). When Moses asked to see God's glory he was only allowed to see a glimpse of the "backside" of God (Exodus 33:18-23). We cannot see the full glory of God because we are not capable of handling it. When we come into contact with God's presence it is powerful. In Revelation 1:17 it says of John, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead." Hanegraaff ridicules Wimber for claiming John passed out, and accuses him of using "socio-psychological manipulation,"⁽¹⁸⁾ but what does it mean to be in the state "as though dead"? Hanegraaff makes a good point that we should not seek mystical experiences through altered states,⁽¹⁹⁾ but this has always been the teaching of the Vineyard, as can be seen in the refrain "don't seek a particular experience; seek God and receive whatever he gives you." But we must maintain that when we seek God and he chooses to reveal a glimpse of his glory it can be overwhelming. In 1 Kings 8:10-11 it says, "When the priest withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the LORD. And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled his temple." In the Quest Study Bible, with evangelical contributing editors like Gleason Archer, Craig Blomberg, Darell Bock, Stuart Briscoe, Paul Feinberg, Walter Kaiser, Gary Larson, Douglas Moo, Robert Saucy, Ray Stedman, etc., asks this question concerning 1 Kings 8:10-11, "When the priests could minister, did that mean God's glory had departed?" And it answers the question saying:

No. On special occasions, though, the manifestations of God's glory was so intense that it paralyzed human activity. Moses, for example, was held at bay when God's glory descended upon the tabernacle in the desert (Exodus 40:35).⁽²⁰⁾

The quotes given above are all from solid evangelical scholars who recognize that when a person comes into contact with the glory of God normal Christianity becomes extraordinary Christianity and bizarre things are possible. Unless we are willing to embrace the nonbiblical doctrine of cessationism we must admit it could happen today. In fact when we look at church history we see that bizarre experiences stemming from an encounter with the glory of God occurred often.
.
Hanegraaff spends three chapters trying to distance the current renewal movement with church history, especially the First Great Awakening. I agree that there are some important differences of which I will address shortly. But as far as strange phenomena is concerned, the two movements are similar. Hanegraaff asks how Jonathan Edwards, the leading theologian of the First Great Awakening, would react to the strange phenomena of today, claiming "he would have surely resisted such ghastly examples with every 'fiber of his lofty and reverent soul.'"⁽²¹⁾Hanegraaff never mentions the fact that Edwards did see bizarre phenomena throughout the revival (as has already been shown), even in his wife. In his wife's Memoirs she records the grace of God "took away her bodily strength" and "She and some friends had to stay at the church about three hours after the meeting was dismissed, because most of the time, her 'bodily strength was overcome.'"⁽²²⁾ This was not the only occurrence for Edward's wife. Other experiences included falling down, "great agitation of body" and being "lost in God."⁽²³⁾ Edwards writes:

It was very wonderful to see how persons' affections were sometimes moved.... Their joyful surprise has caused their hearts as it were to leap, so that they have been ready to break forth into laughter, tears often at the same time issuing like a flood, and intermingling a loud weeping. Sometimes they have not been able to forbear crying out with a loud voice, expressing their great admiration.⁽²⁴⁾

John Wesley describes an occasion in his journal:

Mon. Jan. 1, 1739. - Mr. Hall, Kinchin, Ingham, Whitefield, Hutchins and my brother Charles, were present at our love-feast in Fetter Lane, with about sixty of our brethren. About three in the morning, as we were continuing instant in prayer, the power of God came mightily upon us, insomuch than many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground. As soon as we were recovered a little from that awe and amazement at the presence of his Majesty, we broke out with one voice, "We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord."⁽²⁵⁾

Quotes could be given to fill a book, but this is enough to see that when God comes in power you don't know what to expect. Edwards is right on target when he says, "There is an endless variety in the particular manner and circumstances in which persons are wrought on. God is further from confining Himself to a particular method in His work on souls, than some imagine."⁽²⁶⁾
.
Now let me share some insights that I think will bring a balance to the renewal concerning the bizarre phenomena. First, the bizarre shouldn't be seen as normal Christianity. When we see shaking, falling, etc. as normal we will either be let down from unfulfilled expectancy or we will fake it. These kinds of things are extraordinary even in the Bible. The more usual experiences are peace, weeping, prophecy, tongues, songs and joy. The unusual should not be seen as superior to the usual. Experiences of peace and joy can bring about just as much transformation as can shaking and falling. We must be careful not to create a "have's" and "have not's" mentality. If a person never falls he or she isn't necessarily less spiritual. John Wimber tells us to focus on the "main and the plain,"⁽²⁷⁾ which is good advice.
.
Second, the bizarre should never disrupt what God is doing. When people laugh uncontrollably during the sermon it distracts what God is doing. It also usurps the leadership of the church. God's sense of order is certainly different than ours many times, but there still is a sense of order. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:40, "everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." Paul is not saying that anything that seems strange to the uninitiated (Paul describes the uninitiated as "some who do not understand") should not be done in the worship service. Tongues certainly seems strange to the uninitiated but Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:39, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues." There needs to be regulations (1 Cor 14:26-40). The unusual can be done in a "fitting and orderly way." An "anything goes" mentality is not helpful in the body of Christ, but neither is a "no way, Jose" mentality concerning bizarre phenomena.⁽²⁸⁾
.

What Can We Improve In The Current Renewal?

I have already mentioned that we do need to test the spirits more than we currently do. I have also mentioned that we need to hold our tongues from judgement on those opposed to us. Two other areas we can improve on are solid Biblical preaching and an emphasis on holiness.
.
There are many good Biblical preachers in the Association of Vineyard Churches. John Wimber, Rich Nathan, Don Williams, Derek Morphew, Steve Sjogren, Bert Waggoner, Johnny Crist, among many others have blessed me richly with their sound, Biblical messages. But sometimes we have embraced sloppy methods of sermon preparation and given watered down, allegorical sermons that don't really feed the sheep; they may hype them up for a time, but they don't feed them. R.C. Sproul, in writing about Mary the mother of Jesus, says:

Spiritual "enthusiasms" is often short-lived. The zeal of some believers is only as strong as the memory of their most recent blessing. By contrast, Mary kept these things. She held on to them. They became a matter of deep and abiding reflection.⁽²⁹⁾

This is what hyped up, ill-prepared topical allegories do - they can create "enthusiasm" but they don't feed the sheep. Only sound, Biblical messages that reflect what the writers have Scripture have given us in the Word can really feed the sheep with abiding results. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." If we want our people to be thoroughly equipped we must feed them the Bible. 2 Timothy 4:2 is a command to modern preachers as well as to Timothy: "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction." I recommend preaching through books in the Bible in expository form. It is alright to give an occasional topical message or series, but the main course should be passage by passage preaching. This keeps us from only emphasizing what we like and not what we don't like. It makes sure the whole counsel of God is being preached. Don't be a legalist; you don't have to preach the genealogies or dissect every verse you come to. But don't think that you will miss the Spirit by preaching chapter by chapter. I have been amazed how God can orchestrate just the right message at just the right time even though I am preaching through a book. As long as you are sensitive to the Holy Spirit and the needs of your people, as well as being faithful to the true meaning of the text, God's people will be richly fed.
.
Hanegraaff accused Wimber of under-emphasizing the Bible by taking him out of context. Wimber clearly states his views about the Bible in his book Power Points. He says, "No modern revelations from God are to be placed on a level equal to Scripture in authority. In other words, any source of 'revelation' that contradicts or exalts itself above Scripture is to be rejected."⁽³⁰⁾ Wimber does see a danger in dead orthodoxy and says:

Over the years I have observed that Christians tend to fall into two camps: subjectivists and rationalists. Subjectivists emphasize experience, sometimes at the expense of knowledge of the Bible. Rationalists, in a never-ending search for "objective truth," are suspicious of spiritual experience. Their fear of experience can leave them spiritually dry.⁽³¹⁾

This is the context of Wimber's statement as quoted in Counterfeit Revival: "Evangelicals all over the country are worshiping the book. They have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Book."⁽³²⁾ He was not downplaying the Bible - he holds the Bible in highest regard as our supreme authority - he was merely saying that a non-experiential faith is idolatry no matter how many Bible quotes we have memorized. Jesus said of the Pharisees, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." We need the Bible as our final authority in everything, and we need the words of Scripture to lead us to an encounter with Jesus.
.
The second emphasis that there seems to be a lack in is the emphasis on holiness. In all the past revivals holiness and the fear of God were heavily emphasized. Weeping was a regular part of the revivals because people were weeping over their sins. Jonathan Edwards preached a famous sermon titled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and people literally gripped their chairs in fear that they would slip into hell right then and there. Nowadays a political correct Edwards would preach "Spiritually impaired in the hands of a distraught supreme higher power." Some have said that we already feel so icky about ourselves that we don't need to emphasize holiness like in the past revivals. Hanegraaff is right in condemning this attitude toward holiness.
.
A good passage that brings out a Biblical balance between our need to experience the comfort of the Holy Spirit as well as living in the fear of the Lord is Acts 9:31: "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and, going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase (NASB)." Living in the fear of the Lord and experiencing the comfort of the Holy Spirit are not antithetical; they go together in bringing true revival. We need to experience the comfort of the Holy Spirit. God loves to love on his people. Psalm 81:10 says, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it." Tragically the people didn't listen to God and so they missed out (see verses 11-12). We also will miss out unless we are willing to receive whatever God wants to give us. We are useless unless full of the Holy Spirit. We need to let God love on us. Jonathan Edwards said:

The love of the saints to God is the fruit of the love of God to them, as it is the gift of that love: God gave to them a spirit of love to him, because he loved them from eternity. And in this respect the love of God to his elect is the foundation of their love to him, as it is the foundation of their regeneration, and the whole of their salvation.⁽³³⁾

The more of God's comfort and glory we experience, the better off we are. But this can't be separated from the need to live in the fear of the Lord. God hates sin and sin is bad for us. Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." This means we are totally stupid if we don't have the fear of the Lord, because it is the beginning of wisdom. The first work of the Holy Spirit is conviction (John 16:8). The Holy Spirit is called the Holy Spirit because he is holy and holiness is important to him. John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus by preaching repentance. The first work of the Holy Spirit is conviction because sin is dangerous. If a person saw a child about to step off a cliff he or she is not going to try to build up the child's self-esteem and buy them presents and throw a party for them; that person is going to grab the child before it falls off the cliff. The Holy Spirit grabs us and rescues us by convicting us of sin so we will get the poison out of our lives. A.W. Tozer is right when he says, "To seek high emotional states while living in sin is to throw our whole life open to self-deception and the judgment of God."⁽³⁴⁾ God loves to give us mountain top experiences of "high emotional states," but not apart from holiness. Our Father is a strict daddy. Hebrews 12:10 says, "Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness." Holiness is that important and God will do whatever it takes to make us holy. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb 10:31) and "Our God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29). This is why Hebrews 12:14 warns us, "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."
.
I believe that if we love our enemies rather than slander them, test the spirits, practice good Biblical preaching, and emphasize the holiness of God as well as the love of God the renewal will increase rather than decrease and possibly turn into a genuine revival like the past great revivals of church history.

Specific Criticisms of Hanegraaff's Book

In this last section I want to show specific errors in Counterfeit Revival. The spirit of the book is mean and slanderous. There are specific instances of slander and misinformation that must be addressed. I will go through the book pointing out several errors (not all the errors; it would take to long) to show that the book is not scholarly and has serious defects. I have already said that there are a few things that we can learn from in the book, and I have pointed them out, but the book as whole is a tragedy. Here are some examples:
.
Hanegraaff uses sensationalism to attack sensationalism. He claims that "many" in the renewal "have become disillusioned and have now slipped through the cracks into the kingdom of the cults."⁽³⁵⁾ He never gives a single instance of anyone joining a cult and gives no documentation of this accusation. This is sensationalism and in the context of this accusation he is using it to attack sensationalism.
.
Hanegraaff spends three chapters attacking James Ryle, pastor of the Boulder Valley Vineyard Fellowship. His first attack is a horrible misrepresentation of Ryle. Hanegraaff claims Ryle says "the prophetic ministry will rank first in authority within the body of Christ."⁽³⁶⁾ His footnote leads to Ryle's book Hippo in the Garden pages 277-278. When we read Ryle's book we find he said the exact opposite of what Hanegraaff claims he said. Ryle said, "Are we to assume by this that prophetic authority in any way denotes separation from, or superiority over, all other works of God? Absolutely not! Such an assumption would be a serious mistake."⁽³⁷⁾ Why does Hanegraaff claim Ryle said the exact opposite of what he really said? We don't know because we can't judge a person's motives (it could have been a hasty misreading of the book), but we can judge their actions and this one is inexcusable. Hanegraaff then attempts to slander Ryle's wife by saying Ryle says she was involved in "gross sexual misconduct" with another pastor.⁽³⁸⁾ This is not what Ryle said. Ryle said the pastor made sexual advances toward his wife, but she did not do anything sinful. Why would Hanegraaff twist the quote in order to slander Ryle's wife? We cannot judge his motives, but we can judge his conduct, and in this case it is inexcusable. Hanegraaff then tells of an instance where Ryle supposedly fabricated a story about a woman named Olive Oil that he had given a prophecy to. In Hanegraaff's book the woman claims that Ryle manipulated her and set her up with a fake prophecy of information he acquired from her pastor.⁽³⁹⁾ I wrote to Ryle and asked him about this. This is his reply:

Dear Larry,

As you have already observed, there are indeed several intentional misrepresentations about me in Hank's book. While I would like to believe that Hank has committed error through innocent oversight, I nevertheless know that he has intentionally written in such a way as to specifically cause others to believe what is not true. One such case is the Olive Oil story. There is no truth whatsoever to the report that she was "set up" before hand by her pastor giving me information about her to use under the guise of prophecy. I knew nothing of her other than that she worked on the church staff in some capacity. Furthermore, prior to Hank's book, I have never had any indication from her that she felt "trapped and manipulated" as Hank says. Consider these facts.

Sal (her actual name) approached me after the meeting and told me, unsolicited, how much she was blessed by what I had said to her. She then gave me details of her life which I found to be so amazing that I decided to include her story in my book. There was nothing at all in her demeanor to indicated that she was feeling trapped and manipulated in any way. To the contrary, she seemed only too eager to talk to me.

Over a year passed between this incident and the writing of my book, Hippo In The Garden. Prior to publishing the story I sent her a copy of the manuscript and asked her to confirm if what I had written was in fact how she remembered it happening. She affirmed to me that I was indeed reporting the story accurately, and then gave me her permission to put the story in my book. I would not have written it otherwise. Thus, with her full support I told the story as she had related it to me. I wanted others to be as amazed as I was over how God has blessed this lady through the ministry of prophecy. I am honestly puzzled over what could have caused her to change her story. I don't know why she told me one thing and now allegedly has told Hank Hanegraaff the exact opposite.

As a final piece to this puzzle, long after Hippo In The Garden was published, Sal and her husband moved from California to Colorado and attended my church for some time before finally settling in with Tom Stipe at his church. During that time my wife and I were invited to her house for a home-cooked Italian meal and a great evening of family fellowship. Again, there was never any hint that she felt anything toward me other than trust and admiration. If she truly felt trapped and manipulated, as Hank says, then why the continued relationship for two years after the event? She had opportunity many times during our extended interactions with one another to set me straight as to her honest feelings. I truly wish she would have done so. This whole affair could have been easily avoided.

I want to say finally that I deeply regret my failure to minister in a more Christlike way to this lady. I have taught all along that the most important aspect of any ministry is that the person being ministered unto walks away from it feeling genuinely loved. While it was my honest intention to bless her, nevertheless I obviously did not touch her life with Good's love in a sustaining way. For that I am truly sorry. I also feel a sadness that she is now caught in this controversy. I hope the Lord will sort things out for her and her friends, and that she can truly become everything God has always wanted her to be.

Sincerely,

James Ryle⁽⁴⁰⁾

.
.
Obviously Hanegraaff didn't check his sources good enough. The problem is he never approached Ryle about the matter before writing about him in his book. The Bible says if you have something against your brother you are suppose to confront them alone before you do anything else (Matthew 18:15-17). Unfortunately Hanegraaff didn't follow the teaching of Jesus - if he would have, his book would have been a lot thinner.
.
Hanegraaff attacks Wimber for having been a Quaker.⁽⁴¹⁾ Quakers have made some mistakes in the past, but they have also contributed much to Christianity. John Woolman was used by God to convince the Quakers to abolish slavery without any bloodshed over a hundred years before the United States did so reluctantly with much bloodshed. Richard Foster wrote Celebration of Discipline⁽⁴²⁾ which is perhaps one of the best books written this century.⁽⁴³⁾ Hanegraaff doesn't stop at attacking the Quakers. He attacks the entire Second Great Awakening because it was outside instead of in a building and because he didn't like the manifestations that were prevalent.⁽⁴⁴⁾ The main growth of the Baptist and Methodist churches took place during the Second Great Awakening. Like today there were some mistakes made, but it was still a great work of God. He slanders the modern Pentecostal movement by rejecting entirely the beginning history of the movement as false. We can disagree with our brothers and even state the disagreements and why we disagree, but if we agree on the fundamentals of the faith we don't need to slander them and accuse them as counterfeits. Hanegraaff is right in that we need to use discernment about who we are quoting. Christians cannot have any unity with the cults. If a group rejects the Fundamentals of the faith, we must warn our people about their false teachings. But guilty by association is not a good accusation. Hanegraaff even quotes and agrees with the occultist, New age guru Casteneda;⁽⁴⁵⁾ does this make him guilty by association? Guilty by association is foolish because we would all be guilty in one way or another.
.
Hanegraaff accuses Wimber of being an "endtime restorationist" because at one time he endorsed Paul Cain.⁽⁴⁶⁾ Wimber is not an endtime restorationist. He does not say we are definitely in the last days. He does not say the gifts of the Spirit will be restored in the last days; he says the gifts never ceased, which is definitely what the Bible teaches. Hanegraaff never mentions that the Association of Vineyard Churches took disciplinary action on the Kansas City Prophets (the Kansas City Fellowship is no longer a part of the Vineyard) when they got out of hand. The AVC also took disciplinary action on the Toronto Vineyard (The Toronto Fellowship is no longer a part of the Vineyard). Why doesn't Hanegraaff mention any of this? I cannot judge his motives but his actions are inexcusable. As a side note, even though Jonathan Edwards didn't believe in a restoration of the gifts, he did believe like the "endtime restorationists" that God's last outpouring of the Spirit in the very end would be the most extraordinary. He says:

And we have reason from Scripture prophecy to suppose, that at the commencement of that last and greatest outpouring of the Spirit of God, that is to be in the latter ages of the world, the manner of the work will be very extraordinary, and such as never has yet been seen.⁽⁴⁷⁾

Hanegraaff says, "Rather than indulging in impulses and impressions, Edwards advises Christians to 'take the Scriptures as our guide.'"⁽⁴⁸⁾ It is true that Edwards was a cessationist. He was probably one of the first to misuse 1 Corinthians 13 for his position. But do we really need to choose between the Bible and impressions? What preacher has received the call to be a pastor apart from an impression by the Holy Spirit? To reject impressions as Hanegraaff does is to silence God completely except in the Bible. He wrote a book and then went mute. The vast majority of Christians in charismatic and evangelical circles believe God still speaks today. The Vineyard position is clear: no impression, prophecy, dream or vision is equal to Scripture. All of these impressions must be tested by the word, but God does still speak today.⁽⁴⁹⁾
.
Hanegraaff brings out cultic people from the past and shows their failures and then tries the guilty by association idea. He mentions Maria Woodworth-Etter who was impacted by Quakerism. Then he shows how Aimee Semple McPherson was impacted by Woodworth-Etter. Then he shows how Kathryn Kuhlman was influenced by McPherson. Then he shows how Benny Hinn was influenced by Kuhlman. Then he shows how the Toronto Fellowship was influenced by Hinn. He condemns Woodworth-Etter's false doctrine and lengthy trances. But then he rebukes her for accepting an invitation to speak in a Mormon church.⁽⁵⁰⁾ I would jump at the chance of preaching to an entire group of Mormons - what is wrong with this? In his zeal to bring out every possible bad thing he can dig up (most of the quotes on Vineyard people are from obscure sermons they preached in churches several years ago). Every preacher has said dumb things in the pulpit. I am not excusing them for not thinking through what they are talking about, but don't condemn them as heretics when their official writings reveal their orthodoxy. If Hanegraaff would have read Wimber and other Vineyard pastors books as well as our Statement of Faith he would find we are on the same side.⁽⁵¹⁾ The Association of Vineyard Churches has solid evangelical scholars and pastors speak at Vineyard conferences and write for Vineyard publications, and endorse Vineyard authors regularly (i.e. Bill Hybels, J.I. Packer, Ray Ortland, Jr., Richard Lovelace, Neil Anderson, Jack Hayford, etc.). If we are guilty by association then these people need to be condemned for associating with us; the foolishness of this idea is evident.
.
Hanegraaff gives no grace for making mistakes. He accuses Wimber of "elaborate deception" when even he admits in his footnote that Strong's Concordance made the same mistake (which is probably where Wimber made the mistake).⁽⁵²⁾ Hanegraaff condemns Wimber for not making his point concerning falling in the Spirit and then he contradicts himself by admitting Wimber's point exactly. He says, "Finally it is revealing that after presenting a plethora of biblical pretexts, he has failed to prove his point. While God can and does overwhelm people by His presence, there is no biblical basis for making this a normative practice in the church."⁽⁵³⁾ This was exactly Wimber's point - God does from time to time overwhelm people by his presence. Wimber never claimed it was suppose to be normative. He has always emphasized stick to "the main and the plain things."⁽⁵⁴⁾ In chapter 20 Hanegraaff gives three different accounts of an incident in Wimber's early years and condemns it as false because they don't all agree. It is always true in oral tradition that a story changes. The story's basic content remains the same in all three stories. He then accuses Wimber of lying because he didn't think he could research the Great Awakenings in an hour and a half. I did it for this paper in less time than that, so what is the problem? Why does he relentlessly attack Wimber on minor points where there is legitimate room for disagreement? I can't judge his motives, but his actions are inexcusable and an attack on the unity of Christianity.
.
Hanegraaff condemns the model of giving testimonies, teaching and then ministry as an abuse of peer pressure.⁽⁵⁵⁾ This is a good model even used by noncharismatic, fundamentalist churches. It is no different than having an altar call which can be done with manipulation or just invitational persuasion. Hanegraaff rejects the expectations of the crowd as tantamount to proving manipulation.⁽⁵⁶⁾ If this is true then even Jesus should be accused of manipulation. Certainly many of his crowds came with expectancy. People can manipulate crowds and that is always wrong, but expectancy in and of itself is good.
.
Finally in his epilogue Hanegraaff gives his rendition of true revival. He condemns the repetition of choruses in favor of the old hymns.⁽⁵⁷⁾ I suppose he would condemn the four living creatures in Revelation 4:8 of whom the passage says, "Day and night they never stop saying: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.'" I suppose he would condemn the seraphim in Isaiah 6:3 who called to one another, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory." There is nothing wrong with the hymns except they were sung to the popular music style of 200 years ago (this is a matter of personal preference). Most hymns sing about God whereas all praises in the Bible sing to God. Many today think of the time of singing in church as preparatory for the message, but this is blasphemous. God deserves to be worshiped, not just sung about to get us in the mood to hear a sermon. Hymns present great doctrine and so do Vineyard songs which are mainly passages from the Bible paraphrased and put to music. If the Bible isn't good doctrine then I think we have a problem. But worship's primary purpose should not be to teach us doctrine - it must only be to bring God glory and express our love to God.
.
In conclusion I must say that Counterfeit Revival is a counterfeit. It is filled with untrue accusations and misrepresentations. It is an attempt to slander the Association of Vineyard Churches without proper cause. I don't know the other groups and some of the accusations seemed justifiable, but if Hanegraaff distorted their writings and tapes like he did those concerning the Vineyard then he needs to be corrected by them as well. There are some things we can learn from in this book, as I have pointed out, but they could have been said in a loving manor rather than the mean spirited attacks which Hanegraaff made. We need balance but we do not need to be afraid of God's love, even when it affects our emotions and our body. A.W. Tozer said:

Here is emotion on as high a plane as it can ever be seen, emotion flowing out of the heart of God himself. Feeling, then, is not the degenerate son of unbelief that it is often painted by some of our Bible teachers. Our ability to feel is one of the marks of our divine origin. We need not be ashamed of either tears or laughter. The Christian stoic who has crushed his feelings is only two-thirds of a man; an important third part has been repudiated.⁽⁵⁸⁾

Finally I would like to end with a hymn of renewal by Joseph Hart found in J.I. Packer's book Keep In Step With The Spirit. Packer's point in quoting the hymn is to show that it is good to pray to the Holy Spirit, and so we do:
.
Come, Holy Spirit, come!
Let thy bright beams arise;
Dispel the sorrow from our minds,
The darkness from our eyes.
.
Convince us of our sin,
Then lead to Jesus' blood,
And to our wondering view reveal
The secret love of God.
.
Revive our drooping faith,
Our doubts and fears remove,
And kindle in our breasts the flame
Of never-dying love.
.
Show us that loving Man
That rules the courts of bliss,
The Lord of Hosts, the Mighty God,
Th' Eternal Prince of Peace.
.
'Tis thine to cleanse the heart,
To sanctify the soul,
To pour fresh life in every part,
And new-create the whole.
.
Dwell, therefore, in our hearts,
Our minds from bondage free;
Then shall we know, and praise, and love,
The Father, Son, and Thee.
AMEN.⁽⁵⁹⁾

Footnotes

1. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1997).
.
2. Not an exact rendition because it is told by my memory which isn't the best.
.
3. Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Edwards On Revival (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), from "The Distinguishing Marks Of A Work Of The Spirit Of God" p. 89.
.
4. Michael Haykin and Gary McHale editors, Jonathan Edwards: The Man. His Experience and his Theology Volume 3 The "Toronto Blessing": A Renewal from God?(Internet Paper), Chapter 4, p. 3.
.
5. Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1975), Vol. 1, p. 351.
.
6. Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise On Religious Affections (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982).
.
7. Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Edwards On Revival, p. 91.
.
8. John Wimber, "Vineyard Reflections" July/August 1994, p. 6.
.
9. Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Edwards On Revival, p. 123.
.
10. Ibid.
.
11. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, Part 5.
.
12. John Goldingay, Word Biblical Commentary Vol 30 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), pp. 214-215.
.
13. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, chapter 22.
.
14. Ibid., pp. 187-188.
.
15. See Jack Deere, Surprised By The Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); Gary Greig and Kevin Springer, editors, The Kingdom and the Power (Ventura California: Regal Books, 1993); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), chapter 17 and 52.
.
16. Stephen Miller, The New American Commentary Vol 18 (Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994), p. 282.
.
17. Ibid., p. 283.
.
18. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 190.
.
19. Ibid., p. 222.
.
20. Marshall Shelley, General Editor, The Quest Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 455.
.
21. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 94.
.
22. As quoted in Guy Chevreau, Catch the Fire (Toronto: HarperCollins, 1994), p. 77.
.
23. Ibid., pp. 78-84.
.
24. From Jonathan Edwards, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in Northhampton, as quoted in Sherwood Eliot Wirt, editor, Spiritual Awakening (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1986), p. 113.
.
25. As quoted in John White, When the Spirit Comes With Power (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1988), p. 181.
.
26. As quoted in Sherwood Eliot Wirt, Spiritual Awakening, p. 115.
.
27. "John Wimber Responds To Phenomena" article.
.
28. It must be admitted that Jonathan Edwards didn't have a problem with bizarre manifestations interrupting the service, even the sermon (see Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Edwards On Revival, p. 127.
.
29. R.C. Sproul, The Soul's Quest For God (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992), p. 128.
.
30. John Wimber, Power Points (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), p. 40.
.
31. Ibid., p. 8.
.
32. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 109.
.
33. Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections, p. 176.
.
34. A.W. Tozer, The Divine Conquest (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1950), p. 114.
.
35. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 14.
.
36. Ibid., p. 68.
.
37. James Ryle, Hippo in the Garden (Lake Mary, Florida: Creation House, 1993), p. 277.
.
38. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 71.
.
39. Ibid., pp. 72-73.
.
40. A personal letter James Ryle wrote me in response to my letter to him.
.
41. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 110.
.
42. Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978).
.
43. My opinion.
.
44. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, Chapter 10.
.
45. Ibid., p. 92.
.
46. Ibid., p. 158.
.
47. Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Edwards On Revival, p. 90.
.
48. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 79.
.
49. See Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New testament and Today (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1988).
.
50. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, p. 167.
.
51. An excellent book on balanced Christianity is Rich Nathan and Ken Wilson, Empowered Evangelicals (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1995).
.
52. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, pp. 184-185, 284.
.
53. Ibid., p. 194.
.
54. "Wimber Responds to Phenomena" article.
.
55. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival, pp. 231-232.
.
56. Ibid., p. 236.
.
57. Ibid., p.245.
.
58. A.W. Tozer, The Divine Conquest, p. 122.
.
59. J.I. Packer, Keep In Step With The Spirit (New Jersey: Fleming Revell, 1984), p. 262.
.

. .

. Back to the Revival Resources Index . .