Don LewisA searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. Don Lewis is Assistant Professor of Church History at Regent College in Vancouver.
Vancouver recently experienced the “Wimber Phenomenon.” In May of 1985, John Wimber and a team of over one hundred people from his Vineyard Fellowship in California led a four-day conference entitled “Signs and Wonders and Church Growth.” It attracted over 2300 delegates, most of whom paid $150 for the opportunity to hear Wimber teach a popularized version of a course which he used to teach at Fuller Seminary’s School of World Mission. His enthusiastic local promoters have invited him back for a second conference in May of 1986 and are planning to rent an auditorium which seats 10,000! Wimber is clearly becoming one of the “hottest items” on the charismatic circuit these days. He attempts to appeal to a much broader cross-section of evangelicals than one might expect. What is this man saying and doing that attracts such attention? How is one to assess this phenomenon?
Background on Wimber
John Wimber is in his early 50s and was converted at the age of 29. A former rock promoter and successful businessman, he turned his back on his past and received his only formal theological training at a Bible College associated with the Evangelical Friends (a conservative Quaker group). After a rather discouraging time in a pastorate he gave up on local church ministry and worked with the Fuller Evangelistic Association as a lecturer on church growth, becoming a self-taught expert on religious movements. After three years of work with the Association, he returned to pastoral work in 1978. By this time he was heavily involved in the charismatic movement. In 1981, at the request of Peter Wagner of the School of World Mission, he began to lecture on the impact that miraculous works have had in promoting rapid evangelization of groups on the mission field. The idea of a “power encounter” between the forces of darkness and the Gospel is highlighted in missions thinking today (and especially by those who apply “Church Growth” principles to missionary work). This sort of emphasis is one that can be found in the Old Testament (where Elijah confronts the prophets of Baal) and has long been important in the conversion of groups which have a strong belief in a spirit world (notably amongst animist tribes).
Wimber’s classes at Fuller soon began attracting large numbers of curious students. The classes included what Wimber terms “clinics” in which students were called upon to pray for one another for healing and other forms of ministry. The rather sensational aspects of the class made it ever more popular but it also caused problems for Fuller. In the summer of 1985 the Seminary decided that it would no longer give graduate credit for the course: later that year it went further and determined that John Wimber would no longer teach the course for them. Wimber, however, has taken the course on the road, offering it under his own auspices.
Positive Aspects of Wimber’s Conference
Having attended one of his conferences, there are a number of positive things which this writer can gladly affirm. Certainly evangelicals should rejoice that the work of the Holy Spirit is being given prominence. Speaking as a church historian, it is lamentable that the Church has often tended to over-react to the excesses of those who have made much of the work of the Holy Spirit (such as the second century Montanists, the “left wing” groups among the seventeenth century English Puritans, and twentieth century Pentecostalism). What Wimber is doing in emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit, is a good and helpful thing.
Secondly, his concern to equip believers for ministry is excellent. He wants to see individuals moving out in faith and trusting God to work in new and exciting ways. He is clearly picking up some of the emphases of the “body-life” movement (often associated in people’s minds with Ray Stedman) which has done much in evangelical circles to emphasize the need for the “equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry.” In this regard, Wimber has a strong emphasis upon the organic nature of the Church and urges all of its members to develop their own gifts in ministry.
What Wimber is doing in emphasizing the work of the Holy Spirit, is a good and helpful thing.
Thirdly, Wimber offers a good critique of traditional Pentecostal theology, and does not formulate his interpretation of personal spiritual renewal in terms of a “second blessing” which is characterized by speaking in tongues. Here he seems to be relying on George Ladd from Fuller Seminary, and upon the English theologian, James Dunn.
Fourthly, his vision is for the use of spiritual gifts (such as healing) in terms of evangelism and church growth. He regales his audience with story after story of how the manifestations of miraculous gifts have led to conversions and to the growth of the church.
Fifthly, Wimber has a strong appreciation of “spiritual warfare” and underlines the power of God to combat the forces of darkness.
Sixthly, when it comes to healing, he is careful to reject the teaching of some charismatics and holiness groups which maintain that physical healing is in the atonement – that God has provided for the physical healing of Christians in the sacrifice of his Son. Furthermore, he admits candidly that many of those for whom he has prayed have not been healed, and he strongly encourages those who feel that they may have been cured to have a doctor confirm the fact before they go off any medication or suspend treatment. Would that others like him gave the same advice.
Finally, it was delightful to see how encouraged and enthused the vast majority of those who heard Wimber were. Many pastors and lay people were strengthened in their faith and challenged to trust God for greater things in the future.
Difficulties
While rejoicing in the positive aspects of the conference and of Wimber’s ministry, it is important to mention the difficulties which this ministry creates for evangelicals. In the first place, the advertising for the conference was rather sensational and left me with questions about its integrity. The focus was clearly on “Signs and Wonders,” which virtually becomes an advertising slogan in Wimber’s literature. There was a great deal of “hype,” not only in the advertising brochure, but also on the first day of the conference. Initially Wimber gave the impression that it is commonplace for non-Christians who attend his church in Yorba Linda, California, to be converted one day, and on the next to be out on the street casting out demons and healing the sick without even knowing John 3:16 (Wimber’s illustration, not mine). Yet on the second day of the conference there was almost a complete reversal of emphasis. Things now seemed not to be as simple as first suggested. Wimber began to acknowledge that they see many who are not healed and that some people, for whom they pray, die rather than recover.
Secondly, one might ask whether the strong focus upon “Signs and Wonders” is entirely Biblical? Hebrews 2:3-4 is cited as a proof-text: “God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” But the text indicates that the primary focus is to be upon the Gospel: Christians are to be concerned with its proclamation first and foremost. The signs, wonders and so on were given to confirm the Gospel – the horse needs to come before the cart here. The New Testament emphasis is on the proclamation of the Gospel, which is subsequently confirmed. We are not encouraged to speculate about how God might choose to confirm it. To become sidetracked on signs and wonders is to be entranced by sensationalism and is not something which Jesus encouraged: in fact it was something which he discouraged probably because he was only too aware that people would seek him for the wrong reasons. Such an undue concern with miraculous signs reminds one of Augustine’s comment: “Jesus is usually sought after for something else, not for his own sake.”
A third disturbing aspect of the conference was the strong anti-intellectualism which Wimber exhibited from time to time. His insistence that “At some point critical thinking must be laid aside” is nothing less than dangerous. Wimber several times equated critical thinking with unbelief, and his apparent inability to distinguish the two is most disturbing. At one point he asked: “When are we going to see a generation who doesn’t try to understand this book [the Bible), but just believes it?” In effect, this is saying, “When are we going to see a generation that believes my interpretation of this book without question?” This strongly anti-intellectual strain which shows through in Wimber is typical of nineteenth century American revivalism and is just the sort of thing that evangelicalism has been trying to live down in the twentieth century. It disparages God’s gracious gift of our mind and reflects ill on a Creator who chose to endow us with the ability to think critically.
Such an undue concern with miraculous signs reminds one of Augustine’s comment: “Jesus is usually sought after for something else, not for his own sake.’’
At the same time as he disparaged the intellect, Wimber attempted to use intellectual argument to convince his listeners of his case. In a lecture on “worldviews,” Wimber attempted to argue that the Western “worldview” is the product of Platonic dualistic thinking, first introduced into Western theology by Augustine. Its growing acceptance “during the 17th and 18th centuries” caused a “new science based on materialistic naturalism” to emerge which resulted in a “secularization of science and a mystification of religion.”1 Wimber seems to have little appreciation that throughout the centuries Christians have struggled with these questions; for most in his audience this grossly-simplified explanation is enough. There was no acknowledgement of the extent to which Western thinking is rooted in a Biblical understanding. At this point it would be worthwhile asking if Wimber has given serious thought as to how other “worldviews” have affected his own. particularly when it comes to the methodology presented as regards healing. In the seminar on healing, one of the phenomena one was instructed to look for was “hot-spots,” a buzz-word in the New Age thinking emerging in California, which has a hearty blend of Oriental mysticism and Eastern religion.
Aside from these questions about Wimber’s grasp of intellectual issues, there are some serious difficulties in his theology from a Biblical perspective. In the first place, his use of Scripture is highly problematic. His starting place seems to be his own experience and Scripture is drawn in to proof-text his own position. This was particularly seen in his teaching methodology regarding healing. People were taught a theology of healing based on the observation of phenomenological responses (shaking, stiffening, respiration, laughter, fluttering of eyelids, etc.) and were encouraged to use such subjective criteria as the basis on which to evaluate spiritual responses.
A second theological difficulty is Wimber’s radical Arminianism (some might well argue it is Pelagianism). He seems to have little or no appreciation of the doctrine of the Fall and speaks of being involved in “restoring the Edenic state” in and through his ministry. He thus leaves no real place for an on-going struggle with the old nature in the life of a Christian, which the New Testament teaches the believer to expect. In the long-run this can only lead to disillusionment – because the promised state is not attained – or to a refusal to face reality by denying one’s own experience of temptation and sin.
Related to this strong emphasis on man’s ability is Wimber’s view of God’s inability, Wimber insists that God often does not get his way in this world, that God’s will is regularly thwarted. Here one needs to question his doctrine of God. On this point the recent observations by my colleague. Dr. J.I. Packer, are significant. Countering Wimber’s views, Dr. Packer has argued that “my God is not frustrated by any failure on man’s part [as Wimber suggests], I think that is the Bible’s view of God: He is a sovereign God: He does whatever He pleases . . . when the question has to do with what God wants, in the sense of what His will is – what He plans and purposes – [we are faced with] the mystery of God. When I say mystery, I mean the truth about God that is bigger than we can grasp. The mystery is: God works out all things according to His own will (Ephesians 1:11). God does whatever He pleases (Psalm 135). And if you are going to lose sight of that aspect of the matter, well then, your doctrine of God is out of shape.2
Wimber insists that God often does not get his way in this world, that God’s will is regularly thwarted.
A third area of theological difficulty is Wimber’s demonology: certainly most evangelicals would disagree with his assertion that a Christian can be “demonized.” His view on this seems to contradict the assurance of Scripture that “if any man be in Christ he is a new creation, behold, old things are passed away, and all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). His concern with demonic activity does not seem to take seriously the Scriptural injunction that when Christians are afflicted by powers of darkness, they are to “resist the Devil,” with the assurance that “he will flee from you” (James 4:7).
Another serious objection to Wimber’s approach has been raised by Dr. Packer. In his view, there is a danger that Wimber’s ministry encourages anyone suffering from illness, always to expect, and only to be satisfied with physical healing. He feels that Wimber does not make allowance for God to use physical suffering as a means of spiritual maturing. In his view, Wimber’s approach leaves no room for sanctification through suffering. People need to be reminded, says Dr. Packer, that “there is a special sanctifying value in suffering that is patiently borne with the Lord’s help. . . If you are not careful at this point, prayer for signs and wonders becomes very similar to magic; you are trying to manipulate God. You think you have a way of doing it. You have a magical technique for making Him do what you want. But real prayer is built around the thought of ‘Thy will be done’ and what the person praying ought to be trying to do is to get into the will of God rather than to persuade God to do [what the person wants done].3
Two other aspects of his theology seem to be closely linked together: his eschatology (doctrine of last things): and his ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church). It soon becomes clear listening to him that Wimber has a love-hate relationship with the Church. He professes to love it in all of its expressions and is strong in his denunciations of divisions within it. Almost in the same breath, however, he is devastating in his criticisms: “The Church has become wicked in its pride and separation:” “The Church is an unbelieving and perverse generation today.” He is also frequently cynical and disparaging in his references to other churches (including churches which major on Bible study and even on the charismatic gifts) and went so far as to compare the present state of the Church to the relationship between David and Bathsheba.
None of these devastating criticisms were applied to Wimber’s own Vineyard Fellowship, however. In his view Christ is now purifying the church and his “Fellowship” is in the vanguard of this work. Here his understanding of the last days begins to shine through. Wimber states categorically that he did not believe in the imminent return of Christ for the Church: the Church is now being restored to her pristine purity, being made fit for her bridegroom. Christ will only come back for a Church which is pure and spotless and needs to make herself ready. Such an understanding is not new, of course. Usually it is referred to as “restorationism”: the church has lost a key aspect of the New Testament’s pattern for it and that key is now being restored to the church. Often such restorationism is linked to the return of Christ: when the Church recovers the missing key, then Christ will return. It should be of no surprise that restorationism was a common theme in 19th century American revivalism and produced a host of new denominations which were convinced that God was busy restoring the New Testament church in their midst. If the rest of the church only got on board, then all would be sweetness and light. Sometimes the key was felt to be the recovery of apostolic ministry (as with the Irvingites in Britain), sometimes there was an insistence on believer’s baptism (as with Alexander Campbell’s “Disciples of Christ”) while at other times it was tied to a scheme of prophetic interpretation (as with the Seventh Day Adventists and the Mormons).
Such restorationism is inevitably divisive and Wimber’s version of it will eventually prove to be so as well. It was seen at the conference in a strong us-them mentality: those who are for “Signs and Wonders,” and those who are just ordinary evangelicals (or even just run-of-the-mill charismatics). Wimber seeks to extend his influence by reaching pastors and church leaders: he clearly gears his message to them. Testimonies were offered at the conference by pastors who had turned their backs on their own denominations or local fellowships and witnessed that God had greatly blessed their ministry through their willingness to embrace Wimber’s teachings. (So much for the talk about the “heinousness of division”.) The fruit of such an emphasis is being felt in church after church (both in the United States and in England where Wimber is gaining a following) – churches are needlessly split in two by his zealous followers.
Conclusion
As Wimber would be the first to point out, no great work of God in history has been neat and tidy, nor has it fitted in easily with traditional forms and structures. It is true that God often comforts the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. But surely such a realization should not be used to justify needless division and excess. And whatever one thinks about the wisdom of Wimber forming a new denomination, one can legitimately object to his doing so under the guise of a conference on “Signs and Wonders.”
There is great potential for blessing from the positive features of Wimber’s conferences. No doubt many Christians have benefitted, and will continue to, from his ministry. Balance must be brought into certain areas. (Wimber. however, makes it all too plain how much he hates the word “balance”.) Wimber will be justly criticized if he continues to use his conferences to foster a new charismatic denomination. With its present direction and emphases, the movement is likely to produce negative reactions which in the long run will be detrimental to the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. The fault, unfortunately, is not, as Wimber would suggest, with his listeners alone.
Endnotes
- John Wimber. Signs. Wonders and Church Growth (Vineyard Ministries International. Placentia. California, n.d.). Section 3, p. 7.
- J.I. Packer. “Signs and Wimbers: Interview,” in Touchstone (January 1986), p. 7. [A local Vancouver Christian newspaper.]
- Ibid.