Erling, thanks for the message that you passed on to me and the new wine list from someone named Patty, who wanted your reaction to a critical testimony posted to a Christian list to which her husband subscribes.
This same "testimony" was posted to the religion forum on Compuserve many months ago. At the time that I read it, I didn't see much of a need to respond to it because it was so contrary to all that I had seen and heard first hand with respect to the revival. But I'll be glad to interact with it, since you seem to think that this would be helpful.
One of the things that I don't like about this particular account is that it does not provide specifics. It mentions a small Vineyard church, but the church is not identified. This means that any clarification of misunderstandings or correction of erroneous information becomes nearly impossible. It gives the writer the liberty to say anything, no matter how incorrect, without any possibility for others to evaluate the charges objectively.
In any case, here are some comments on specific statements:
(1) "I felt that our church was straying more and more from God's Word, delving more into the mystical, combined with suspicious interpretation of the Bible." This seems to me to be a false distinction. In my opinion, the Bible is mystical, and most of the authors of the Bible had supernatural (or mystical) experiences. In many cases, the certain parts of the Bible were actually written as a result of these experiences. It would seem to me that the mystical would lead a person to study the Bible more closely.
I would like to know what this person considers to be a "suspicious" interpretation of the Bible. Suspicious in what way? I have not encountered suspicious interpretations of the Bible in the meetings that I've been in since June, when I first found out about the revival.
(2) "The messages were long, unclear, and void of Biblical content." The messages I have heard have been quite the opposite. They have been clear, rich in Biblical content, and as lengthy as would be appropriate in a situation in which people have been hungering and thirsting for more of God.
(3) "We were encouraged not to pray, just to receive." In the meetings I've attended, this was done as a way of helping a person to receive from God. Many people seem to think that they have to work in order to receive from God. Receiving from God is not based upon works, even works of prayer.Martin Luther learned the hard way that this is not the way God operates. Now this does not mean that we are never supposed to pray. It simply means that, when receiving of His Spirit, we need to stop talking to God, and let Him talk to us, and minister to us.
(4) "To be honest, if someone came up to me and said they went to a meeting where the above occurred, I would instantly think it was cultish." The current revival seems to me to be the very antithesis of cultishness. In a cult, there is usually a strong central leader who wants everybody to follow him. In the current revival, we have what has been popularly called a "nameless, faceless revival," and this is an accurate description. No one is attempting to take credit for what God is doing, and nobody is insisting that people must be a part of their particular group. There are people in the current revival from every denomination. Cults are just the opposite. They consist of people who refuse to be a part of any other group.
(5) "It was like junior high girls giggling, but for all the wrong reasons." There is a lack of specificity here, which leaves to the imagination what these "wrong reasons" might be. Is a person laughing for the wrong reasons if God has touched them? That is the reason people are laughing in the current revival.
(6) "The hysterical laughter continued its mocking tones." I have not witnessed any laughter in mockery at any meetings associated with the current outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Here again, with a lack of specificity, any charges can be made, however poorly substantiated.
(7) "Was this in order? You may have different interpretations of order, but this was chaotic." The fact of the matter is that every genuine revival of history has brought about what seemed to most people to be chaos.
(8) "The Bible became closed. Instead, there were new topics that were more important: like getting drunk, blasted, filled, floored, changed. Instead of the Gospel, came the 'microwave theology': 'come up here for 10 min., land on the floor, and years of praying, and work will be taken care of.'" In point of fact, God can and does heal instantaneously (spiritually, emotionally, and physically), and this is particularly the case during times of revival. When God comes in power in this way, the Bilbe does not become closed. Rather, the Bible becomes an open book. People go back to the Bible to see how and why such supernatural phenomena might be occurring. "Getting drunk, blasted, filled, floored, changed" is not something apart from the Bible. The infilling of the Holy Spirit is one of the core messages of the Bible. Becoming totally immersed in God's Spirit, even drunken in the Spirit, enables us to understand and appreciate the Bible all that much more. It is the Spirit of God who brings about this understanding and appreciation of God's word, and it is one of the direct results of the experiences of drunkenness and infilling described here.
(9) "The pastor talked about 'out-of-body experiences' as something to be expecting, and other lewd things I care not to mention." The reference to "out-of-body experiences" is probably a reference to translation from one geographical location to another, such as that which happened to Phillip the evangelist in the books of Acts. Or, it could be a reference to the type of thing that happened to the apostle Paul, when he said that he went to third heaven, "whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know." In any case, it is highly unlikely that it is a reference to astral-body travel (which is associated with the occult), even though the author apparently seems to imply this.
The reference to "other lewd things I care not to mention," may well be a complete falsehood. There is certainly no way of substantiating this claim, which, to my mind, makes it suspect. Certainly I've not heard any reference to lewd things in the meetings that I've attended.
There is much given here by way of innuendo that remains unsubstantiated. But of course, the other side of the coin is that not every single last thing that takes place in a revival is necessarily of God. But when there are imperfections, people all too easily seem to have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and reject what God is doing.
I hope this helps!
With every good wish to you in the Lord,
Richard M. Riss
RRISS@DREW.EDU