"Pilgrimettes"
From
THE PILGRIM
"Pilgrimettes"
From
THE PILGRIM
by
MARK
A. MCNEIL
We live in a culture that is increasingly open to "new things." Some of these are surely good or harmless while others should give us cause for concern. With respect to Christian faith, for example, there is a growing number of people who claim to be receiving new ideas and practices by various avenues of revelation. Those who refuse to accept their "new" ideas and practices are considered unspiritual or — as one author I read after — "hardened" like the Pharisees. In other words, there are unique happenings going on today that, since they have no precedent in Scripture, must be evaluated based on the level of a person's spirituality.
Perhaps the reader recognizes that this is quite a slippery position. Various people view "spirituality" in differing ways. Some see the "monk" mentality a sign of spirituality. Asceticism in its various forms and types is often considered a sure sign that one is close to God. Most often people think someone is spiritual if they have unique ideas to share that are attributed to God. The ability to lead and inspire is always appealing and convincing to the masses that search for a shepherd to follow.
Many of those caught in the midst of "new" things experience quite a dilemma. First, there are few leaders who do not want "success." By success I mean numerical growth, financial stability, excitement in the pew, etc. Since so many people are attracted to "exciting" things, especially what are frequently called "signs and wonders," it is quite difficult for the leader to maintain a healthy skepticism. On the other hand, it is obvious that many contemporary practices and experiences have no real biblical parallel. For example, "holy laughter," "animal noises," and the condition of being "drunk in the Spirit," are not only nonbiblical expressions, but, more importantly, they are simply not found in the Bible.
Almost unanimously proponents of these practices appeal to Acts 2 and somehow extrapolate these practices from the supposed "implications" of the mocking charge that the disciples were "drunk." This is all done in spite of the fact that the Scriptures clearly state that this charge was made because the Christians were speaking in languages they did not know. On first sight, surely ignorant Galilean fishermen speaking in faraway tongues would invite the scoffing and mocking of a disbelieving crowd. To treat their charges as objective, newspaper types of reporting is to miss the sarcasm and hate in their voices. It is unnecessary and even dangerous to suppose that we must go beyond what is written in order to account for the events described in Acts 2.
It seems clear, then, that practices appearing today have a weak biblical foundation. This means that preachers and Christians who are supposed to be faithful to the Scriptures are now called to take a stand with regard to practices that are taking "center stage" in the Church today. The challenge is awesome and the stakes are quite high. Nothing less is at stake than the all-important issue of authority in the life of the Church.
EVALUATING FRUIT
In order to escape this problem, an increasing number are avoiding the issue by saying that the way to evaluate the various phenomenon that are taking place is to look at the "fruit" that are being produced. This sounds reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, Jesus did say that we could judge false prophets by the fruit that they produced [Matthew 7].
Even though one may not find practices like "barking" in the Spirit, laughing uncontrollably, staggering around in ecstasy, etc., in the New Testament Church, or, for that matter, in the record of God's dealings with people in Scripture.., we should be more concerned with the fruit of these things rather than the experience itself. In other words, a pragmatic test is applied. This is understandable since the most important philosophical school produced in America is that of Pragmatism. This test considers the results of something to be the justification for an action. This school of thought also gives rise to the moral theory of utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the gauge of the rightness or wrongness of an action.
The careful reader will notice that pragmatism and utilitarianism are teachings of theories that become the basis of decision-making. When Jesus spoke of evaluating false prophets based on their "fruit," he was not saying their doctrines were justified or shown to be right by their fruit. If this were the case, the Muslims would only have to show a panel of people who claim good results from becoming converts to Islam. The "fruit" of the false prophets includes their teachings and the errors they introduce to the faithful.
To say that we no longer judge a practice by its conformity to the Word of God is to bear a fruit of opening ourselves to "new" influences that are not subject to the Scriptures. This compromises the sufficiency and final authority of God's Word. Furthermore, laughing in the Spirit is not merely a by-product of a movement rooted in some sound biblical message, but many today freely speak of the "laughing revival" as if the single most identifying characteristic of this "move of God" is hysterical laughter and other outward expressions!
Some time ago two Mormon young men came to my door and sought to share their faith with me. After a lengthy discussion in which I was able to catch them in their inconsistent words, the leader became quite emotional with me. He spoke of how they have been so persecuted as they sought to share the "gospel" with residents in my area. He also spoke of the "burning in his bosom" he had received that convinced him of the truth of Mormonism. After some time of elaborating on his "experiences" and the fruit they produced in his life, I again called him back to the final authority of God's Word. I could tell endless stories of people who have sought to convince me of the truth of their claims, even though they were wildly different from one another let alone from my own. If I accepted everyone's testimony as to the positive "fruit" in their lives, I would be a "basket-case." The truth is, evaluating the present "fruit" of a movement can never be a substitute for standing firm on the final authority of God's Word.
Shortly before writing this article, I saw a segment of the world news on television that highlighted an icon of the Virgin Mary that is purportedly "weeping" from time to time. Many are making pilgrimages to the monasteries at which this is happening and report new hope and meaning added to their lives. This reminded me of a few students that I met while doing graduate study at a Roman Catholic university. They testified to the tremendous meaning and spiritual renewal they experienced when they traveled to one of the most well-known sights in the world where appearances of Mary are producing miraculous healings and transformations of people's lives. Very few who are associated with the "laughing revival" would want to claim that these Marian visitations are in fact of God. Why not? Why is it not possible for an icon to weep? If we naively say that the "fruit" as we perceive it is the final test we would be in serious trouble for there is a vast number who report positive results from these experiences.
What about those who have been seduced by con-men who pose as preachers of the Gospel? What about Peter Popoff, who obviously was tricking people into believing that God was miraculously revealing the names and conditions of people in his audiences only to be exposed as a fraud using an electronic device behind his ear to receive information gathered by his wife and employees before the services. What about Marjoe Gortner, who actually filmed a biographical documentary movie (early 1970's) to show that he was preaching to large crowds, giving them "hope" in healing, salvation, etc. He called them to repentance and faith yet he himself believed NOTHING he was saying (as he openly reveals in the film — from a naively driven, mother-induced "child evangelist" ...to charismatic, self-serving adult tent-revivalist). He told outright lies and even mocked the Gospel of Jesus Christ behind the scenes! Are we going to have to say that his ministry was "of God" because people were moved to tears, "slain in the Spirit," spoke in tongues, etc., as his hands were laid upon them? Are we to really believe that the Spirit of God was using this man as an instrument of the spiritual gifts when in fact he was making a movie to mock and expose his hypocrisy and how gullible Christians could be?
Our answer must be that we judge movements, actions, practices, etc., all on the basis of the objective standard given by God — Sacred Scripture. To accept something as true because of testimonies or what seems to be immediate positive results, is dangerous and ultimately destructive. It may be that some good happens in the midst of these movements just as it may be true that people were genuinely saved under the preaching of Marjoe or Peter Popoff. Their salvation would be in spite of these preachers and their teachings and practices, however, rather than because of them.
PRAGMATISM OR FRUIT ?
If we carefully examine how we understand Jesus' words regarding the testing of fruit, we can also test how "Americanized" we have become in our philosophy. Do we understand Jesus to be saying that we judge a false prophet by his fruit, meaning that we judge a false prophet by the fruit that comes from his preaching? In other words, does the prophet plus his message and accompanying manifestations equal good fruit and thereby demonstrate the validity of the manifestations? If this is true, then the "fruit" is proving the validity of the message or manifestations (in this case we are speaking of "holy laughter" and other such activities.) and not the prophet himself. I hope you can see my point. If this logic is valid, we would be led to withhold judgment on every doctrine, practice, or manifestation until we judge the "fruit" of these things.
In response, Jesus is simply not teaching this form of pragmatism. He was not saying that we must withhold judgment on a prophet until we see the fruit of the prophet's preaching and accompanying manifestations but he was rather saying that we judge the prophet by the immediate fruit of his own life and ministry. In other words, if he is preaching a false doctrine or promoting a false form of worship, we immediately know that he is false and not after we see what his false or "new" doctrines or practices bring forth. This is not pragmatism. We know truth and error by conformity to the revealed word of God. We don't have to sit in doubt until we evaluate all the subjective claims of those claiming to have positively been affected by certain teachings.
Specifically, Jesus had just delivered the Sermon on the Mount ,and was warning of those who will teach otherwise and live otherwise than what HE has instructed. Those who teach a lower level of spirituality were known by their failure to bear the fruit of conformity to the words of Jesus. Further, Jesus goes on to give the illustration of the two men who built houses, one on the sand and one on a rock [Matthew 7:24-27]. The foundation of the rock was equal to building the foundation of one's life on the teachings of Jesus.
Elsewhere Paul also counters the pragmatic test. He wrote, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather... Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just" [Romans 3:7-8]. Paul's doctrine was misunderstood by certain ones to allow for sin. Their reasoning was simple, if we are sinners and God justifies us purely by grace through faith and not by works, we are free to live as we please. In fact, since where sin abounds "grace much more abounds," they reasoned, perhaps we should go on and sin all the more since God's grace is able to shine with greater brightness. Paul was horrified by this ancient pragmatic spirit. Just because God may receive glory ultimately by displaying His grace towards sinners does not mean we are then free to sin. If a good comes out of it, doesn't that mean the action itself is right? NO! Paul says such thinking brings damnation [Romans 3:8].
The results of our actions do not prove the validity or rightness of them. For one, our subjective evaluation of such fruit is always limited. We are then left to evaluate the immediate teachings, claims, and practices of teachings by the established rule of faith — Sacred Scripture. To choose another route is to become open to deception since it takes one into uncharted waters where the standard, Scripture, no longer is the guide to safe land.
| written by Mark A. McNeil B.A. & M.A. (Biblical Studies / Luther Rice Sem.), MA (Theological Studies / St. Thomas School of Theology), PhD. Student (University of St. Thomas), Assistant Editor/Writer for THE PILGRIM Magazine, and author of "An Evaluation of the 'Oneness Pentecostal' Movement "— $ 3 / Pilgrim Pub. |
E-Mail:
Pilgrimpub@aol.com (1st),
E-Mail:
Pilgrimp@swbell.net
(2nd)
| Join our company: "The Lord gave the WORD: great was the COMPANY of those that PUBLISHED it." [Psalm 68:11] — Please, Copy this article, pass it on, and mail to others. Permission granted by Bob L. Ross — No Copyright |
GOD TOLD
ME He
Didn't Speak to
You !
A
Parable of the Church at
the End of the
20TH
CENTURY
BIOGRAPHY
PAGE
The
Pilgrim
MAGAZINE
PILGRIM PUBLICATIONS
MAIN
PAGE
CHS
WORKS! ON
BOARD
PILGRIM PUBLICATIONS
CATALOG
page address
— http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/mmmoveme.htm
Suggested Book Dealers & BANNER LINKS for Consideration
PAGE UPDATED June 8 - 1998
