Date: 19-Nov-1994 11:19am EST
Subject: Mike Courtney's Paper
Patti, thanks for forwarding Michael Courtney's critique of the Toronto Phenomena. I feel badly for him, because, at least when he wrote the critique, he seems to have had an attitude toward the leaders in his church which was not gracious, charitable, or generous. And I feel even more badly for him because of the fact that we really need to be very, very careful, let we be found fighting against God, or quenching His Spirit.
I'm not sure whether it's really necessary to address the specific issues that he discusses, because they are all easily answered, and the revival really does speak for itself. Not only that, but as Jesus said in Matt. 18;7, it's always inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom it comes. My hope is that Michael Courtney will reconsider his critique, so that someone else can be the "fall guy" for the stumbling blocks that will necessarily come. It is a very serious thing to be found opposing God.
I believe that critiques of these things will always be inevitable, for the simple reason that God allows it in order to test us, to determine whether we are willing to be "fools" in the sight of men for His sake. It was either Paul Cain or John Wimber who has said that the Lord sometimes offends the mind in order to test the heart, and I would agree with this. Mike Bickle and Michael Sullivant have echoed this, by saying that "this 'way of God' challenges our improper 'control issues' and breaks down our unsanctified inhibitions and pride."
I don't know whether Michael Courtney was simply attempting to amass whatever he could in order to discredit what is happening, or whether he is genuinely misled, but I do hope and pray that it is the latter. Perhaps as we continue to pray for him he will have a "road to Damascus" experience similar to that which happened to Paul and to what is happening to increasing numbers of people even in our own day in the context of what is happening right now.
You expressed concern with his comments about Kim Anthony Gentes' statements, so I'd like to begin with that, even though it is at the end of his critique. He writes, "Kim Anthony Gentes has also stated that while ministering to a woman in Toronto, 'I felt that God wanted to be a mother to her (in contrast to a father figure).' This false prophecy was passed on by a member of the trained ministry team. God is not a woman. He does not behave as a mother to his children. The picture of God as a mothering figure is a frequent component of false revelation and it has its origin in pagan religions."
Certainly, though, Michael must realize that God doesn't really have gender at all, and that God as father is just a way of illustrating certain principles about our relationship with Him. Because God does not have gender, it is ridiculous to make this sort of criticism. I'd like to know what he does with statements in the Bible like Isaiah 66:13, where it says, "As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem." God nurtures, as does a mother, and this is a also Biblical image. Surely Michael must be aware of this.
He also criticizes Kim Anthony Gentes for saying that the love of Jesus Christ is unconditional. He writes, "the lie that God's love is unconditional frequently characterizes false revelation." My response to this would be to simply to say that, if whether God loved us depended upon our own abilities, then we would be in deep trouble! No, it is God's unconditional love that leads us to repentance.
Mike seems to be particularly troubled by some of the phenomena, and he says that they are not manifestations of the Holy Spirit. He then says that God commands Christians to test teachings, experiences, and spiritual gifts. This is certainly true. We must therefore put HIS assertions to the test, to see whether they, also, will hold up, and if not, we must reject them.
Whether the phenomena we have seen in this revival are manifestations of the Holy Spirit can really only be known by the Spirit. The things of the Spirit are foolishness to the natural man (I Cor. 2:14). God will only reveal the genuineness of this revival to those to whom He wishes to reveal it.
Mike states that, according Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun, and that therefore, whatever God is doing now must have happened before. I don't know how he interprets Isaiah 43:19 ("Behold, I will do something new, Now it will spring forth; Will you not be aware of it? . . ."), but even if we grant him this, it doesn't answer the question as to whether the phenomena are of God. If there is nothing new, then neither is anything new about the way the devil works.
The fact of the matter is that most of the phenomena that we see now are not really new, but in every age, people have had different ways of interpreting them. What we must be very careful to avoid is the trap of attributing the works of God to the devil, because if we persist in doing that, there's no way out of the trap!
One of the things that he asserts is that the long-term effects that these phenomena will have on peoples' character are not yet known. I would disagree with this, because I think that some of the long-term effects are already known, and that they are very positive. In May of 1994, Bill Jackson said in WHAT IN THE WORLD IS HAPPENING TO US: A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON RENEWAL, that "reports are coming from every corner about people falling in love with Jesus in a whole new way, about a new love for the Bible, about being taken up into heaven in the form of visions and dreams. In the arms of Jesus is fullness of Joy." He also says, "Reports too numerous to count tell of physical healings, deliverance from demonic influence and deep emotional wounds being touched." You and I both know enough about this revival to know that Bill Jackson is not making these things up. We are constantly getting reports of this nature, and we have seen these things happening in our own lives and in the lives of our friends and family members.
Mike goes on to say that the correct response, when the Holy Spirit reveals the presence and holiness of God, is fear, distress, and mourning over our sinful nature. Well, he is right about this up to a point. In fact, this is sometimes what causes the shaking and trembling before God that we have seen in this revival. But fear, distress, and mourning over our sinfulness are not the ONLY correct responses to the presence of God. In fact, in many instances throughout the Bible, people are told "fear not" when they are in the presence of God. Is laughter appropriate? I certainly think that it can be, if it is the result of God-given joy. Outward manifestations can always be interpreted in many ways. Laughter can be the result of God- given joy, and it can also be the result of scornfulness. But just because laughter can sometimes be a result of scornfulness does not mean that it always an indication of scorn. Certainly, I see no Biblical warrant for asserting that laughter is an inappropriate response to the presence of God.
Mike writes that "People who are dull to their need for repentance laugh at the thought of renouncing their sin and often feel that the love of God removes the necessity of character change in their lives." But this assumes that EVERYONE who laughs is dull to his or her need for repentance. There is a laughing that comes from joy in the Holy Ghost, which is quite different from the laughing that arises from the scorn of God. It arises from the assurance that one's sins are forgiven through the shed bled of Jesus Christ, and is a natural fruit of repentance and renunciation of sin.
He also cites Luke 6:20-25 (". . . Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep") in order to assert that laughing is not generally indicative of blessing from God. But really, it all depends on the REASON for the laughing. If people laugh because they feel that they are in need of nothing, then they cannot receive God's blessings. On the other hand, laughing may also indicate that God has already bestowed upon a person the blessing of joy in the Holy Ghost.
He cites passages like Jeremiah 51: 37-45 to assert that roaring like a lion and laughing uncontrollably as if you are drunk can indicate a curse and judgment from the Lord, as in the case of God's judgment of Babylon in this passage. Well, it CAN indicate these things, but it can ALSO be an indication of God-given inebriation in the Holy Spirit.
He tries to distinguish the laughter mentioned in Psalm 126 ("He who goes out weeping, carrying seed to sow, will return with songs of joy, carrying sheaves with him") from what is happening at the present time. He says that "the explicitly stated condition for reaping this laughter (going out weeping) has not generally been fulfilled by those receiving the 'gift' of laughing in the spirit." SAYS WHO? It certainly was the case for my wife, Kathryn. She came out of many years of depression when she received the gift of laughter. Not only that, but there is absolutely no reason to conclude from this passage that weeping beforehand is always a necessary prior condition for joy.
Mike then goes on to say that those who have defended this revival have done so with "a superficial and self-serving usage of select passages regarding the work of the Holy Spirit." My question to him would be whether he, himself, has scrupulously avoided the methodology of using select passages from Scripture simply to prove his own point. I think not.
He then considers the Acts 2 passage, particularly Acts 2:15, where Peter says "these men are not drunken as you suppose . . ." Mike says that "the comparison of being filled with the Holy Spirit with drunkenness is being made by wicked people," and that Peter did not have slurred speech and the inability to handle Scripture, but delivered a sermon which led many to repentance and salvation. First of all, it is of no consequence whether or not the people making this observation were wicked. It was a valid observation that Peter thought required an explanation. And Peter says "THESE men'; he wasn't necessarily referring to himself. It is plain that these people appeared to be drunken, and that some sort of explanation was in order.
In examining Ephesians 5:18 ("Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit"), Mike says that "this verse is actually drawing a sharp contrast between being drunk on wine and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Being drunk on wine leads to a lack of self-control and all kinds of sins. Paul summarizes this as debauchery. Being filled with the Holy Spirit leads to worship and love of God. It leads to obedience and the fruit of the Spirit, including self- control. So we see that there is no mention of spiritual drunkenness in the verses which speak of the Holy Spirit's work."
I would say in answer to this that these verses very clearly compare the effects of the Holy Spirit to the effects of alcohol. As it happens, drunkenness in the Spirit does lead to the worship and love of God, obedience and yes, even to self-control. It should be obvious that when self-control is mentioned as a fruit of the Spirit, the reference is to preventing oneself from sinning.
Mike then refers to a number of passages which speak of spiritual drunkenness in the context of God's judgment, such as Isaiah 19:13-15, Isaiah 29:9-10, Isaiah 51:17-21, and Jeremiah 51:7. But certainly these verses do not imply that spiritual drunkenness is always the result only of God's judgment. Nowhere is it stated that spiritual drunkenness can only be an indication that a person is being judged by God, and can never be an indication of anything else.
Mike then talks about fruit. But there has certainly been abundant evidence that good fruit has resulted in the lives of those who have had these manifestations. He should read the many testimonies that we have seen of abundant good fruit in peoples' lives everywhere, throughout the world.
He talks about a situation that took place in his own church, but we certainly have no way of evaluating it without cross examining the people against whom he makes certain accusations. This is a troubling section, because he is saying bad things about people, and in view of the Golden Rule, I would think that one should avoid saying bad things about people to others. If you have a complaint about someone, talk to the people who you think are doing the wrong thing. Don't talk to everyone else about it. Especially if they are the leaders in your own church!
In any case, one church situation, or one pastor's ostensible mistakes, does not discredit an entire movement. And in general, if PEOPLE do wrong things, this does not discredit what God is doing.
Mike then states that "the Holy Spirit does not manifest in a lack of self-control. Order and discipline must be maintained in the church." However, our own understanding of order and of discipline may be quite different from God's understanding of these things. John White has pointed out that although we say that God is a God of order, sometimes the process of bringing order is a disorderly process, and "chaos and darkness flee but they create a ruckus as they leave."
We need to realize that what APPEARS to be disorderly has been imparting grace and power to people, enabling them to overcome inner bondages such as fear, lust, pride, envy, greed, deceit, and bitterness. If this is not repentance, I don't know what is. Those who criticize this revival for lack of repentance obviously don't know too much about what is happening!
Mike provides various Scriptures on self-control. In many translations, the word used in some of these passages is "sober." For example, in I Th. 5:6-8, it says "So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. . . ." The Greek word here, nepho, literally means "not given to wine," and it is talking about getting drunk on alcohol. But these Scriptures should not be used to imply that we should not allow ourselves to get drunken in the Holy Spirit.
In some of these passages, it would seem to me that "self- control" has to do with preventing oneself from falling into sin or restraining oneself from evil, and not with whether or not one can prevent oneself from laughing or being stricken to the floor.
It is natural to fear change and to be afraid of losing control of what is happening, but we must remember that God is always in control. It's also natural to fear emotions and bizarre behavior. But, although phenomena of this type are not necessary to revival, it does seem that they do tend to be present just about whenever there is revival.
Mike complains that participants in these phenomena have freely admitted that they are not in control of themselves. He is right about this. Some people find that they are unable to get up off the floor, even when they want to do so. An evangelist, Scott Thomas, told be about one person who was pinned to the floor, and could not get up until he agreed with God that he would act in obedience to Him in a certain matter. This is just the sort of thing that we have seen quite frequently in this revival.
Mike then says that revivals are always accompanied by repentance on a grand scale. He is absolutely right about this. But then he says, "the calls to repentance have been few and far between from today's pulpit. The notion that God is angry about sin and might actually send someone to hell is largely absent." Mike is wrong about this. Calls to obedience have been a hallmark of this revival. I could cite a myriad of examples. I attended the conference in Toronto that Mike's pastor went to, and at that conference, Mike Bickle called us to repentance from adultery, fornication, AND the extra-marital romances which can lead to these things. And this is only one example. There are many others. We have been called to follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth, and to be willing to lay down our lives, even unto death, if necessary, in doing so. That was the theme of another one of the evening meetings at that conference, where there was a series of prophecies to the effect that we must be willing to face persecution for the sake of Jesus Christ.
Mike says, "in the absence of calls to repentance, we would be foolish to think a revival is coming." This is certainly true, but there has been no absence of calls to repentance and obedience in this revival.
Mike says, "the pastor and others have been deceived into thinking that laughing in the spirit is a work of God." He then goes on to say of laughing in the spirit that "it is demonic in nature and is the result of God's judgment." If this is so, then why is it that the ones being affected are being brought back to their first love of Christ? Do demons cause this to happen? As Martyn Lloyd-Jones has said, why should the devil suddenly do something that calls attention to the things of God and the Lord Jesus Christ?
Extreme caution would be advisable in making statements of this kind, because whenever there is a danger of attributing the works of God to the devil it is a very serious matter, and I believe that if one continues to do that, that comes a point at which there is no longer any hope for a person. We really need to pray for Mike. He makes certain unfortunate remarks about his pastor and the leaders of his church, which should really be directed to them, and not to a third party.
My own questions to him would be, "and how about you? Do you have the humility to identify with a movement that, to human appearances, looks ridiculous? Do you have the humility not to criticize something that you do not understand? Are you willing to bear the reproach that necessarily comes in identifying with what God is doing?" My advice to Mike would be to refrain from criticism. Either what is happening is from God or it is not. If not, it will pass. But if it is, then there is the very real danger of opposing God Himself.