A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original Annual Meeting Report and the letters appears below. The PDF also has pictures from the Annual Meeting. Note that the cover photo is of James I. Packer speaking at the Annual Meeting at Knox Church, Toronto, in March, 1986.
“The Holy Spirit and Ourselves”. The theme of the 1986 Annual Meetings lent itself to intense personal self-examination as each one of the three hundred and more who attended one session or other was forced to ask: “Is the Holy Spirit the One Who is controlling, prompting and motivating me? Am I responsive to His sanctifying work? Am I a clean vessel, fit for my Master’s use, given to His control?”
Teaching of the Word was there. Powerfully, Dr. J.I. Packer, of Vancouver’s Regent College, spoke of the Lordship of the Spirit of Truth bearing witness to Christ through the Bible. He gave us a fresh vision of who God the Holy Spirit wants each of us to be. He led us on, in a great concluding message at the closing Saturday night rally, to consider what it would mean for us – as Presbyterian congregations, as a Presbyterian Church in Canada – to be all that God’s Spirit intended for His people at Pentecost.
Application of this truth was also present. We heard (in a new feature) what the Holy Spirit is doing – doing among college students preparing for ministry (John Vissers of Knox and Dal Schindell of Regent); among congregations facing a vacancy (Dr. Gordon Ross of Woodstock); and among the churches of the Synod of British Columbia as Rev. Calvin Brown of Nelson shared their vision for a lay training school (see back cover).
But application as the ministries of the Fellowship received a sharper focus through fourteen different seminars that concentrated on various specific ministries that could thrust us into the forefront of new life and vitality for our church. Significantly, one of the largest of these was the session on prayer ministries led by Dr. Ross. But there were others as well – Rev. Bill Campbell of Moncton brought together a group of both clergy and laypeople, men and women, committed to expository preaching. They agreed with the earlier statement of Dr. Packer (as contained in his article in this issue) that true and lasting renewal will only come when there is a return to biblical and applicatory preaching of the word, addressed to the diversity of those worshipping God in their several needs and situations.
One could continue with others: recovery of a social concern through the discovery of the diaconate, the revitalization of the eldership, the mobilization of all the laity through small groups. Many of their reports will be featured in subsequent issues of Channels. The list goes on . . . and gave those present at the 1986 Annual Meetings a vision of what territory God may be leading us as a Renewal Fellowship to claim for His sovereign Spirit within our church.
Leaving Knox Church after Dr. Packer’s final message about “The Spirit Renewing The Churches” having had one’s sights set on a new level of personal commitment and congregational life – in which the renewing grace of God does His new work in midst.
The new programme year, 1986-7 will set many fresh innovations into motion. There will be a November 1 Renewal Day in Hamilton focussing on small groups with Hans Kouwenberg of St. Giles’ Church, Prince George, B.C. as the guest. On January 10 there will be Eric Alexander of Glasgow on prayer at Toronto’s Bridlewood Church. And finally – and perhaps the greatest step in faith for us at this time – this coming year will see the setting into place of a new Director, providing full-time coordination of all the various ministries of the Fellowship, and allowing us to advance on a variety of fronts.
This is God’s hour for renewal of His people. Never was the threefold emphasis of the Fellowship more important to the life of our church: renewal in worship, renewal in ministry, and renewal in community. Each of the various aspects of such renewal is suggested by an article in this issue of Channels. Share the vision. Share the commitment to make it happen.
A. Donald MacLeod
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Your [Don Lewis’] setting out of data on last May’s conference and the Signs and Wonders course at Fuller were helpful. Acknowledging the positive aspects of the Wimber Conference was both gracious and accurate. I appreciated your paragraphs on “restorationism”, because one tends to encounter it in various forms. Even knowing what to call it somehow helps. Like you, I found some of the preConference hype a bit much. In describing this cultural struggle, a mutual friend used the delicious phrase “the Los Angelization of the Church”!
You raised the question as to whether the strong focus on “Signs and Wonders” is entirely biblical. It is, of course, an abbreviation of the course’s longer title which includes the phrase “and Church Growth”. The course, the man (John Wimber) and the offshoots all agree in placing a strong emphasis upon evangelism and church growth. Indeed locally, those closest to this renewal stream have seen a new effectiveness in their evangelistic efforts. You also mentioned this focus (“Fourthly …” on page 9) upon evangelism, so I feel that your question has been largely answered.
There may well be a wrong “wonder seeking” on the part of people drawn to meetings (our Lord had that problem too). You rightly mentioned that Jesus discouraged people from seeking Him for the wrong reasons. However, He seems not to have turned away those who sought Him desperately for healing. Both in society at large, and in our churches, there are enormous needs for healing. We need to be careful, lest we imply (to paraphrase Spurgeon) “we prefer our way of not meeting those needs, to Wimber’s way of trying to meet them”.
You say that Wimber “leaves no real place for an ongoing struggle with the old nature”. He certainly bore witness to his struggle with his own old nature. Indeed I believe that the most captivating thing about John Wimber is his honesty about his failures and fallibility. He quite openly admitted his bewilderment over the absence of healing, about the unanticipated pastoral problem of caring for a growing number of people in his congregation who have not been healed, about the pain of the death of those dear to him. He does raise expectations, but also acknowledges the unpleasant realities that quite stubbornly adhere to our lives.
Regarding the questions of the choices of man versus the Sovereignty of God, I appeal for a both/and approach. As you may know, I spent most of my life within a denominational stream that emphasizes the Grace and Election of God. I am grateful for that priority. A few years ago, I observed that there is a parallel strain in Scripture, namely, God’s honouring of a bold and aggressive response in man. Indeed God frequently calls for that response. As far as I could tell, that was what Wimber was emphasizing. Unlike Dr. Packer and yourself, I don’t see that as an infringing on God’s sovereignty. Also relevant to this item, Wimber spoke of time when there was an anointing for healing, presumably from a Sovereign God, whereas at other times there was not.
You quote Dr. Packer’s warning, “If you are not careful at this point, prayer . . . becomes very similar to magic.” That may well be true. My personal and pastoral experience convinces me that there is an opposite and equal danger – namely that prayer becomes passive resignation and the acceptance of lies – the lies of being fated, the lies of hopelessness, of deterministic inevitability. Dr. Packer’s concern that we “get into the will of God rather than to persuade God to do (what we want)” again begs the question: what is God’s will with regard to healing? The person of Christ in the gospels is surely of critical importance in discerning that will. With regard to the woman with the twelve year long haemorrhage described in Luke 8 – was she wrong to be preoccupied with physical healing? Was she wrong to invade our Lord’s private space in order, in effect, to wrest her healing from Him? Do we have any assurance that she was not infected with Dr. Packer’s magical view of approaching Christ? Would it have been better for her not to be healed physically in order to give spiritual healing a better chance?
I share with you and Dr. Packer a concern for unity within the Christian community. How rare it is for renewal streams to be gripped with a passion for “the unity of the Spirit” which Paul exhorts us to preserve. I agree with you that this is an area where the Signs and Wonders movement is open to criticism. It is a sign of Kingdom grace when those within such a stream feel deeply their need of the rest of the Body of Christ. It is equally so, when those on the outside of that tributary feel deeply their need of John Wimber and friends. May those signs increase.
Howard Mcllveen Richmond, B.C.
I am writing you to praise you for Channels. It is such an excellent publication. It contains so many interesting and challenging articles.
I have been a member of The Renewal Fellowship for over one-half of a year and am glad I have joined . . .
Murray MacTavish, Chairman, Leadership Training Committee, Hamilton-London Synod P.Y.P.S., Dresden, Ontario
I read the recent article in Channels regarding John Wimber written by Don Lewis and would like to make the following comment. First of all, it is not correct to say that in the summer of 1985 the Seminary decided it would no longer give graduate credit for the course. In the spring of 1985 the theology faculty voted that it would not give credit for the course. It was not the intention of the School of World Mission faculty to suspend credit, however. It is also incorrect to say that the Seminary determined that John Wimber would no longer teach the course for them. In the process of studying the issue and restructuring the course, hopefully to make it acceptable to the total Seminary community, it has been suspended while the study process continues. No final decision has been made as to whether or not John Wimber will be involved in teaching the course at Fuller in the future. Thirdly, it is incorrect to say that John Wimber took the Fuller course on the road, offering it under his own auspices. John has been lecturing on these issues for some time, I believe, prior to his involvement with Fuller. His lectures “on the road” are not necessarily identical to the Fuller course.
Thus, I think it is only fair to say that the School of World Mission faculty has not repudiated the course on Signs and Wonders nor has it repudiated John Wimber. In the interest of institutional unity and theological and pastoral responsibility, we are making a serious study both of the issues involved and the specific course. We hope to continue to offer training in this area in the future, focusing especially on the nonwestern world. It is our goal to be both missiologically and theologically responsible.
Paul E. Pierson, School of World Mission, Fuller Theological Seminary