Chapter 4.11

Modern Half-hearted Spirituality

The Emotionalism of Charismaticism

Overall Objective

To biblically illustrate and evaluate the mindless nature of worship practices in the “charismatic” movement.

Table of Topics

A) Half-hearted Spirituality in Modern Paganism

B) Half-hearted Spirituality in Modern Emotionalism

B.1) Altered States of Consciousness

B.2) Being “Drunk in the Spirit”

B.3) Being “Slain in the Spirit”

B.4) Other Suspicious Manifestations

C) The Apostle’s Condemnation of Emotionalism: 1 Cor 14:33, 40

D) The Harmful Heritage of Emotionalism: Lying, escapism, manipulation, arrogance, apathy, embarrassment, & idolatry

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Emotionalism is “half-hearted” spirituality that intentionally suppresses our God-given reasoning functions and abuses the power of emotions.
• Modern charismaticism is synonymous with modern emotionalism.
• There is no biblical support for being “slain in the Spirit,” altered states of consciousness, “holy laughter” etc., but they can exist in demonic contexts.
• “Altered states of consciousness” are unusual conditions of perception achieved by the deliberate cultivation of abnormal mental states experienced with specific religious techniques and/or occult programs.”
• The Apostle condemned emotionalist worship practices when he wrote: “God is not a God of confusion [akatastasia: “disorder, disturbance, tumult”] but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints . . . everything should be done in a fitting [euschemonos: “decent, attractive”] and orderly [taxis] way. (1 Cor 14:33, 40)
• All the pictures of the NT Church (human body, army, family) reflect a high degree of order, contrary to the disorder in some worship services.
• If emotionalism does not result in more selfless love and moral holiness, then it has no claim to a special experience of the Holy Spirit.
• Mindless emotionalism promotes lying about spiritual experiences, escaping reality, manipulating worshippers, embarrassing the Christian faith, and worshipping God in ways that displease Him.
• To love God is not so much to feel Him, but to serve Him. If you want to experience God, seek sacrificial obedience, not an emotional experience.

A) Half-hearted Spirituality in Modern Paganism

In the previous chapter we covered a history of “half-hearted” Christian spirituality up through the nineteenth century. There we illustrated the mindless, irrational, and unbiblical practices of emotionalism. Emotionalism is “half-hearted” spirituality because it intentionally suppresses our God-given reasoning functions and abuses the power of the emotional part of us to experience something. Even though movements promoting and practicing such things were condemned by the Church in the past we can point to modern versions of this as well.

First, we can look at forms of “half-hearted” irrational forms of spirituality in modern paganism. Along these lines, we have already quoted Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis concerning the commitment of Eastern religions to mindless worship:

Many approaches to meditation today under the influence of Hindu and Buddhist mysticism ask that a person’s mind be rid of all conceptual thought from any source whatever, including propositional revelation. That may be an appropriate way to identify with the impersonal, nonintelligent energy of the cosmos, but it is not an acceptable way to commune with the heavenly Father to whom Jesus asked us to pray without vain repetition. ^[1]

Likewise, many elements of the New Age Movement reflect such mindless spirituality, as described in the following excerpt from the Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs concerning “altered states of consciousness”:

Altered states of consciousness (ASCs) . . . comprise unusual conditions of perception achieved by the deliberate cultivation of often abnormal mental states, states not normally experienced without specific religious techniques and/or occult programs . . . As America has turned to pagan spirituality, it has logically adopted pagan methods. . . . Also, for many people, altered states of consciousness are perceived as the key to personal and spiritual development . . . It is sobering to realize that, in many quarters, what was once termed “[demonic] spirit possession” is now often simply termed “altered consciousness.” . . .

[T]here are no indications in Scripture that people should enter altered states or trances in order to draw closer to God, a common theme in New Age circles. . . . According to 1 Peter 4:7 (and other Scriptures), Christians are to be “clear minded and self controlled” so that they may pray or study Scripture. Thus, the biblical means of spiritual growth and sanctification, e.g. meditation on Scripture, prayer, fasting, are surely not meant to put us into altered states of consciousness. Further, as we have argued all along, these states are clearly open doors to the intrusion of demonic spirits. . .

In conclusion, to develop ASCs is not to participate in a form of higher consciousness or true spirituality, as New Age proponents would have us believe. Rather, it often involves abnormal, regressive states of consciousness-ones particularly conducive to demonic contact and manipulation. The radical change in worldview is characteristically toward the occult, encouraging both occult practices and occult philosophy. The growing acceptance of altered states by millions of people, their use in psychotherapy, medicine, education, and many other fields is a reflection of the growing influence of paganism in our society. ^[2]

Along the same lines, Dr. Elizabeth Hillstrom, a Christian psychologist, writes in her book, Testing the Spirits:

Altered states also have important commonalities. They can all impair one’s ability to test reality, to think critically and logically or to remember. They create a passive state in which mental events seem to develop on their own and are simply experienced rather than being controlled. Many also weaken emotional restraints, allowing moods to swing from wild jubilation to deep fear and depression.

In addition, they can all create perceptual distortions and hallucinations and precipitate unusual bodily sensations like numbness, dizziness, tingling or rushes of energy . . . They can make people hypersuggestible, so they are open to many strange beliefs and are easily influenced by the suggestions of other people. Altered states have the singular ability to make all kinds of improbable events seem exceptionally real and significant. . . . One final effect of altered states is their apparent ability to facilitate or enhance mystical experience. . . .

It is obvious that such states could certainly magnify any influence that these [demonic] spirits might exert on the human mind. In fact, Satan and his forces could hardly find a more opportune situation in which to deceive or mislead people. If this seems like too strong a statement, stop and review the various characteristics of altered states.

In altered states, people are subject to vivid imagery, unconstrained imaginative processes that resist conscious control, and intense emotions. Having largely set aside their ability to think rationally and critically or to exercise their will, they have become hypersuggestible, which means that they are likely to accept any “spiritual truth” that enters their minds. Even more remarkably, they seem to be primed for mystical experiences and may attach great spiritual significance to virtually any event or thought, no matter how mundane or outlandish. Seeking mystical experiences through altered states, as defined here, looks like an open invitation for deception. ^[3]

One example of similar phenomena, which would seem to be derived not so much from a demonic source, but simply the flesh itself, is what Hindus call Kundalini. An entry in the Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experiences states:

[Kundalini is a] psycho-spiritual energy . . . which is aroused either through spiritual discipline or spontaneously to bring new states of consciousness, including mystical illumination . . . The power of kundalini is enormous, and individuals who have experienced it say it is beyond description.

The phenomena associated with it vary, and include bizarre physical sensations . . . involuntary, jerky, or spasmodic body movements and postures, clairaudience [hearing of sounds, music, voices not audible to normal hearing], visions, brilliant lights . . . psychical powers, ecstasy, bliss, intensified sex drive. . . .

Knowledge and cultivation of kundalini has been most developed in Indian yoga. . . . Since the 1970’s kundalini awakenings have been reported with increasing frequency in the West. . . . Not all kundalini awakenings follow the classic model set forth in yoga, but seem to vary in intensity and duration. The yogi meditates to arouse the kundalini and raise it up through his or her body. . . .

Scientific research of kundalini remains embryonic, hampered by the nonphysical nature of the energy and its unpredictability. Another difficulty in identifying cases is the similarity of many symptoms to those caused by mental disturbance and stress. ^[4]

Hindu Kundalini has its counterpart in Zen Buddhism called satori. Norm Anderson explains:

Zen Buddhists believe that by rigorous self-discipline and a strictly prescribed method of meditation they may attain satori, the Japanese term for “enlightenment”–whether suddenly, as some teach, or gradually, as others hold–by means of a perception which is empirical rather than intellectual. ^[5]

Likewise, the Zen master Suzuki defines satori as completely different than rational knowledge:

Satori may be defined as an intuitive looking into the nature of things in contradistinction to the analytical or logical understanding of it. ^[6] . . . The satori, after all, is not a thing to be gained through the understanding. ^[7] . . . In Zen there is an intellectual quest for ultimate truth which the intellect fails to satisfy; the subject is urged to dive deeper under the waves of the empirical consciousness. ^[8]

All of the examples above illustrate what can happen with “half-hearted” spirituality which bypasses the mind, and focuses on feelings and the self.

B) Half-hearted Spirituality in Modern Emotionalism

As noted in the previous chapter, there is a striking similarity between the worship practices of the pagan mystery religions, Corinthians, and fakes in the Great Awakening and the modern “charismatic” movement. Likewise, the mystical, irrational emotionalism of Buddhism and New Age are prevalent in the movement as well. Along these lines, NT scholar Thomas Edgar writes:

The modern-day Charismatic movement is disturbingly similar to practices common in paganism. . . . Trancelike states and communications on a level apart from the mind are common in paganism. . . . The experience of a power or force “overcoming” the participants is similar to pagan practice. The bizarre and often wild practices of early Pentecostalism seem similar to pagan religion. ^[9]

Accordingly, emotionalism is synonymous with the movement we refer to as charismaticism. As we discuss further elsewhere, we believe the pagan emotionalism of charismaticism is caused by an infiltration of modern pagan culture in their churches. ^[10] Along these lines, the eminent theologian J. I. Packer speaks of the authority given to mere experiences in pagan culture in general when he writes:

We are very self-absorbed: the human-centeredness of our Western culture has made us so. We are interested in experiences, meaning our “feelings” or our “reactions to something,” for their own sake, as if experiences are all that matters. We are inclined to jump to the conclusion that the more intense an experience is, the more of God there must be in it. But by biblical standards that is not so at all. ^[11]

Nonetheless, this “self-absorbed . . . human-centeredness” has resulted in the emotionalism that exists in certain parts of the church today. Accordingly, Dr. MacArthur writes:

The entire charismatic movement has absorbed the erroneous notion that whatever is truly spiritual must transcend or bypass people’s rational senses. Spiritual gifts supposedly operate by suspending the faculties of human reason. One might think that the strongest evidence of the Holy Spirit’s power is when someone lapses into a stupor.

And so the lore of the charismatic movement is filled with outrageous accounts of behavior that resembles trances, seizures, subliminal messaging, hypnosis, suspended animation, frenzy, hysteria, even dementia. These are often cited as proof that God is at work in the movement. ^[12]

For example, Doug Banister, an Evangelical Free Pastor and promoter of charismaticism, writes a whole chapter in a recent book, The Word and Power Church, insisting that the traditional teaching of Christianity regarding the fact that our feelings should follow our reason is all wrong. Rather, Pastor Banister encourages us to embrace the emphasis of emotionalism on being led by our feelings when he writes:

The charismatic world I intersected was anything but afraid of the feeling caboose. In fact, in some cases, the feeling caboose drove the train . . . This was a world where emotions were not the enemy of faith but the source of it. People laughed. People cried. People shook. People were slain [into unconsciousness] in the Spirit. People danced. People lay on the floor praying. ^[13]

In the process of bragging about emotionalism, the author unwittingly maligns himself with words that seem more descriptive of pagan spiritualism than biblical Christianity.

A fundamental error of the emotionalism that Pastor Banister is promoting is the confusion of the work of the Holy Spirit with human emotion. For example, it is popular to think that because a worship service was more emotional, that it was more influenced by the Holy Spirit. This need not be the case, and probably isn’t more times than emotionalists think.

B.1) Altered States of Consciousness

Along these lines, the charismatic “Bible answer man” Hank Hanegraaff describes the deliberate suppression of the thinking faculties that is common in modern emotionalism:

There are a wide variety of techniques used by leaders of the Counterfeit Revival [all of whom, according to Hanegraaff, are in charismaticism] to work followers into altered states of consciousness. One of the most disarming methods is to sing one song over and over until participants finally lose touch with reality [and reason]. [A leader of modern emotionalism] Rick Joyner confessed that at one of his conferences participants sang one song “for over three hours.” As a result, he said, “the gulf between heaven and earth had somehow been bridged”

Joyner reports that:

When that one song finally ended, some of the musicians were lying on the floor. I looked at Christine Potter and Susy Wills, who were dancing near the center of the stage and I have never seen such a look of terror on the faces of anyone. An intense burning, like a nuclear fire that burns from the inside out, seemed to be on the stage. Christine started pulling at her clothes as if she were on fire, and Susy dove behind the drums. Then a cloud appeared in the center of the stage, visible to everyone, and a sweet smell like flowers filled the area.

Leaders like Joyner see the mind as a lower form of consciousness. Thus, like Eastern gurus, they work their devotees into altered states of consciousness. ^[14]

Hanegraaff continues:

Whether in the ashrams of the cults or at the altars of churches, the objective of achieving altered states of consciousness is always the same: to dull the critical thinking processes because the mind is seen as the obstacle to enlightenment. As John Wimber and John Arnott [emotionalist leaders] put it, “God offends the mind to reveal the heart.” Counterfeit Revival guru Rodney Howard-Browne explains that, “You can’t understand what God is doing in these meetings with an analytical [discerning] mind. The only way you’re going to understand what God is doing is with your heart [as if God didn’t put reason there too].”

Thus, while Howard-Browne allows his subjects to make nonsensical sounds, he prohibits them from praying. On one occasion, as a woman was about to lapse into an altered state of consciousness, she became apprehensive and called out to God in prayer. Immediately Howard-Browne commanded her to cease. “Would you listen to me?” he shouted indignantly, “If your praying had helped, it would’ve helped you; now get laughing.” . . .

What Hindu gurus like Baghwan Shree Rajneesh characterize as a trance state, Holy Ghost bartenders like Rodney Howard-Browne characterize as being “drunk in the Spirit” . . .

Today what was once relegated to the “back room” is centerstage in the Counterfeit Revival. Thousands testify to “getting drunk” and personally experiencing powerful psychological and physical manifestations. These experiences are so “real” that many key evangelical Christian leaders are convinced they cannot be explained apart from the power of the Holy Spirit.

Tragically, many of them are dangerously ignorant of the striking parallels between their experiences and those of Eastern meditators who achieve altered states of consciousness through occult practices. As has been well documented from studies of the world of the occult, the dangerous effects may involve depression, detachment, depersonalization, disillusionment, and many equally serious disorders. ^[15]

Contrast the modern insistence among emotionalists that real spirituality bypasses the mind, with the expert opinion of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) whom we’ve quoted previously:

Now there are many affections which do not arise from any light in the understanding. And when it is thus, it is a sure evidence that these affections are not spiritual, let them be ever so high. ^[16]

This promotion of emotional, mindless, half-hearted worship in charismaticism has resulted in some very bizarre, unspiritual, and unbiblical manifestations. Accordingly, Hanegraaff describes his first visit to the church of John Wimber (1934-1997), the founder of the Vineyard Association of Churches:

When I first visited the Anaheim Vineyard, the drunken behavior of devotees instantly took me back to [the effects of an Indian guru named Baghwan Shree Rajneesh]. A member of John Wimber’s family stood at the altar, testifying that the power of God was upon her as she jerked spasmodically in what Wimber refers to as a chicken walk. It wasn’t long before others had joined her in jerking while rythmic clapping and repetitive choruses filled the auditorium with sound.

Before the evening had ended, the crowd was engaged in the very practices Rajneesh devotees use to achieve their altered states of consciousness. Some were jumping up and down furiously, chopping their hands frantically through the air. Others were violently throwing their heads backward and forward and bending wildly at the waist.

One woman looked as though an invisible hand had grabbed her and was shaking her like she was little more than a rag doll. All the while, sardonic laughter punctuated by animal noises rose eerily from the bodies writhing on the ground. Later, when I visited the Airport Vineyard in Toronto [home of the so-called “Toronto Blessing”], the sights and sounds I experienced were even more shocking. ^[17]

There is absolutely nothing supernatural or Holy Spirit-empowered about these mindless, emotional antics. Accordingly, the twentieth century humanist scholar Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), wrote in the context of his own research on pagan worship practices:

All we can safely predict is that, if exposed long enough to the tom-toms and the singing, every one of our philosophers would end by capering and howling with the savages. ^[18]

B.2) Being “Drunk in the Spirit”

Hanegraaff mentions several mindless, emotional phenomena above that have been familiar in “charismatic” worship meetings. “Drunken behavior” is a common experience in charismaticism and is presumptuously referred to as “being drunk in the Spirit.” Victims suffer from blurred speech, numbness, light-headedness, and lack of self-control. This obvious lack of control experienced by those “drunk in the spirit” would seem to expose it immediately as something not of the Holy Spirit whose effect on people is always “self control” (Gal 5:23).

Likewise, the Apostle Peter writes, “Be of sober [nēphate: lit. “free from drunkenness”] spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8 NASB). To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be sober, the opposite of drunken behavior. And if the devil is constantly “seeking someone to devour” then there is no place in the Christian life to ever be anything but “sober” and “on the alert,” including a worship service.

There is, of course, no biblical support for the drunken phenomenon. Some point to the experience of Saul “prophesying” in 1 Samuel 19 where we read:

So Saul went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even upon him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth. He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel’s presence. He lay that way all that day and night. (vs. 23-24)

Some claim that here is a picture of God-pleasing worship. On the contrary, it is a picture of God’s judgment. Remember the context here? Wicked Saul is chasing righteous David to murder him. The Spirit of God came upon Saul in this way to stop him and humble him, not to give Him a wonderful worship experience. Saul experienced this event while completely outside of God’s will and under His condemnation.

This can be compared to an earlier experience of Saul’s in 1 Samuel 10 where, “a procession of Prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying” (v. 10). There are three major differences in this occurrence of “prophesying” from the one above. First, there is no record of Saul losing control in some drunken state. Secondly, Saul was under God’s blessing, having just been anointed as God’s choice as king (cf. 10:1) and being told by Samuel, “do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you” (v. 7). Thirdly, the account says this experience was to change Saul “into a different person” (v. 6, cf. v. 9). The later experience described above served only to harden Saul, not help him (cf. 1 Sam 20:28-32). There simply is no support in 1 Samuel 19 for a God-pleasing worship experience of drunken behavior.

Nonetheless, emotionalist are so eager to find biblical support for the kind of worship they want, that John Wimber attempts to find such support in the Apostle’s admonition in Ephesians 5:18: “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Hanegraaff relates:

Wimber ends his series of sermons titled “Spiritual Phenomena: Slain in the Spirit” by recounting the story of how in one of his meetings a man by the name of “Lonnie, was praying [or preying?] on some gals”:

They became so intoxicated . . . they began falling. . . . They began dancing around the room and people were just sort of enjoying them, you know, ’cause they were in a very ethereal state. . . . And one young lady walked up to me and she said, “What’s that?” Now I said, “I perceive you disapprove of that?” (I’ve got discerning of spirits.) And she said, “What rational basis can there be for that kind of behavior?” And I said “Be not drunk with wine, which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.”

Hanegraaff goes on to correctly point out that:

What Wimber did not say is that once again he’s taken a text out of context. Paul, in the passage Wimber quoted (Eph. 5:18), is not saying that drunkenness is desirable and has a spiritual counterpart. Rather, in context he is presenting a consistent series of contrasts between cultic and Christian behavior. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he makes it clear that as Christians we must be “alert and sober” rather than being in an altered state of consciousness or slain in the spirit. ^[19]

Along the same lines, Dr. Edgar writes:

Paul provides an instructive perspective on the continuing activity of the Spirit in the church in the one passage in the New Testament where believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). The verses that immediately follow (vs. 19–21) are dependent syntactically on this command and so indicate what is characteristic of the Spirit’s filling work.

Paul then goes on to elaborate at some length on the element of mutual subjection, in particular, by spelling out its implications for marriage, the family, and work (5:22–6:9). From this it is plain that the filling or fullness of the Spirit is not, at least primarily, a matter of unusual or enrapturing experiences, but is the reality of the Spirit’s working in the basic relationships and responsibilities of everyday living. ^[20]

Another fact that puts the “drunk in the spirit” phenomenon under great suspicion is the false teaching espoused by the foremost promoters of it. Rodney Howard-Browne, known as the “Holy Ghost Bartender” because of his ability to facilitate a drunken effect on people is applauded in modern emotionalism as a man gifted from God. Yet, he denies the deity of Christ, commonly forbids prayer at his meetings because it interferes with “the spirit,” and is obviously given to gross exaggeration and delusionary “prophecies.” ^[21] Would you want a man like that to touch you and give you the sensation of drunkenness?

B.3) Being “Slain in the Spirit”

Benny Hinn, a celebrity of modern emotionalism, has a nationally-aired television broadcast on which people are “slain in the spirit” nearly every week. Hinn will occasionally “release the anointing” on an entire auditorium, prompting most of the crowd to fall backward. In his bestselling book, Good Morning, Holy Spirit, Hinn claims that his gift is empowered by the Holy Spirit. There are several reasons to doubt this.

First of all, we can be suspicious of his motives in using the “gift.” Hinn relates that when he witnessed the popular, although woefully ineffective, faith healer Kathryn Kuhlman (1907-1976) ^[22] having this affect on people, he exclaimed, “I’ve got to have this . . . I want what Kathryn Kuhlman’s got. I wanted it with every atom and fiber within me.” ^[23]

All should be reminded here of the wicked Simon the Sorcerer who envied the unique ability of the Apostles John and Peter to give the Holy Spirit to people. In Acts 8 we read:

Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the Apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps He will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.” (Acts 8:17-23)

What was actually a miraculous authenticating sign of the unique authority of these Apostles of Jesus Christ to introduce the Gospel to a new people group like the Samaritans, was seen by Simon the Sorcerer as an opportunity for personal advancement. Likewise, Hinn’s “gift” has earned him world-wide fame and untold millions of dollars (some of which he has spent on a huge mansion for himself).

Secondly, the whole thing is a little spooky when Hinn admits that he frequently visits Kuhlman’s gravesite to replenish “the anointing” from her bones. ^[24] Finally, a woman attending a Hinn crusade in Oklahoma City was killed because of the man’s antics. Ella Peppard died from complications she suffered after someone was “slain” right on top of her. ^[25] Is that something the Holy Spirit would do?

What kind of biblical evidence is there for being “slain in the spirit”? The leading theologian of charismaticism, Wayne Grudem says:

Some people today say a purifying (or healing) work of the Holy Spirit occurs when they are “slain in the Spirit,” an experience in which they suddenly fall to the ground in a semi-conscious state and remain there for minutes or hours. Although the phrase “slaying in the Spirit” is nowhere in Scripture, there are instances when people fell to the ground, or fell into a trance, in the presence of God. ^[26]

In a footnote Dr. Grudem offers 14 passages of Scripture that supposedly depict the modern emotionalist phenomenon. First of all, there are no instances in the Bible that even remotely resemble people being “slain” by another person through touch, gesture, command, or throwing objects at them, as occurs in “charismatic” meetings. Two of Dr. Grudem’s verses speak only of the “glory of the Lord” entering the OT temple and are totally irrelevant to the issue (cf. Exod 40:35; 1 Kgs 8:11). The remaining twelve passages that Dr. Grudem cites all involve people who are receiving direct and divine revelation from God, such as Prophets or Apostles, and never people who were merely worshipping God (cf. Gen. 15:12; 1 Sam. 19:24; Ez. 1:28; 3:23; Dan. 8:17-18, 27; 10:7-17; Acts 9:4; 10:10; Rev. 1:17; 4:10). This is the Christian revelatory ecstasy that we discussed in chapter 4.8. In addition, many of Dr. Grudem’s examples involve men clearly falling down on their own power, not being “slain by the Spirit.”

Dr. Grudem’s last reference (John 18:6) reveals how desperate emotionalists are to find biblical support for their pagan practices. Here, soldiers had come to arrest the King and upon announcing who they wanted we read, “When Jesus said, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.” Inexplicably, Wimber uses this verse to support the emotionalist phenomenon of being “slain in the Spirit.” ^[27] Such an interpretation hardly deserves a refutation, but because it is the most cited biblical evidence for the “slain in the spirit” phenomena, we will note the following.

Notice the text says of the soldiers that, they drew back” not that Jesus or the Holy Spirit pushed them back. The Greek word here apēlthan literally means simply “to go away.” Therefore, it is inexcusable that, as Hanegraaff relates, Wimber “tells his audience, ‘the Greek says they were propelled back and were flung, in effect to the ground.’” ^[28] That is both inaccurate and irresponsible exegesis.

Wimber adds that the Lord causing Adam to sleep is another biblical affirmation of the “slain in the spirit” phenomenon. ^[29] Unfortunately, it is just this kind of proof-texting that has given the emotionalist movement a questionable reputation for accurately interpreting and applying Scripture.

Despite Wimber’s efforts to find biblical support for the “slain in the spirit” phenomenon, even the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements admits:

An entire battalion of Scripture proof texts is enlisted to support the legitimacy of the phenomenon [of being “slain in the Spirit”], although Scripture plainly offers no support for the phenomenon as something to be expected in the normal Christian life. ^[30]

Accordingly, Dr. Edgar writes:

Acts chapter 2, which describes the great initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, doesn’t have the slightest hint of anyone being “slain in the spirit.” The baptism of fire (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16) was a visible tongue of fire above the head (Acts 2:3) and not an incapacitating “electrocution.” Slaying in the Spirit is simply unbiblical, and should be considered a counterfeit. ^[31]

One of the foremost promoters of the “slain in the spirit” phenomenon is the emotionalist Catholic priest Francis MacNutt. His book, Overcome by the Spirit, is a rather detailed study of it and he documents its occurrence around the globe. Like Benny Hinn, he traces his initiation to being “slain in the spirit” to the supposed faith healer Kathryn Kuhlman. It is surprising that he is such a strong advocate of the practice considering some of his own experiences and the result of some of his research. He relates his first experience with the phenomenon:

As Kathryn [Kuhlman] approached me I stood determined not to fight it, whatever it was. A “catcher” stood behind me while several thousand people watched. I felt the gentle pressure of Kathryn’s hand on my forehead. I had to make a decision; if I didn’t take a step backward, her hand’s pressure would push me off-balance and I would fall. But, I thought to myself, I don’t want to resist in any way if this is from God. So I didn’t step back and sure enough I fell [amazing!]. . . .

Then I scrambled to my feet, not sure that I hadn’t been pushed. Again Kathryn prayed; again I felt pressure on my forehead that I did not resist. Once more I fell. It was confusing. Others, I knew, had experienced something remarkable [really? How did he know?]. But if I had only my own experience to go on, I would have judged that nothing in particular had happened—that I might simply have been pushed off-balance. I didn’t know what to make of it. ^[32]

If he didn’t “know what to make of it” then how could he be so sure it was an experience of the Holy Spirit? It seems obvious that MacNutt wanted something to happen and this no doubt had something to do with what did happen. Both an ardent desire to “feel” some supernatural experience, and a heightened expectation that it will happen would seem to make one fairly susceptible to such an experience and it may not be supernatural at all, but simply psychological. ^[33]

MacNutt freely admits in his book that in his research he has “seen people pushed over,” slain by the “power of suggestion,” and “knocked down by evil spirits.” He points out that the phenomenon is similar to “manifestations of voodoo and other magic rites” and is “found today among different sects in the Orient as well as among primitive tribes of Africa and Latin America.” ^[34] Accordingly, there are several legitimate explanations for the phenomenon that have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

When we witness a phenomenon that has no biblical justification or purpose and it is duplicated in obviously demonic environments, demonic influences are a reasonable candidate for explaining the phenomenon. Remember it Christian and remember it well: not everything supernatural is holy. And certainly not everything that occurs in a supposedly “Christian” meeting (cf. Matt 7:21-23)

Accordingly, demonic influence may be the best explanation for the “slain in the spirit” phenomenon in the ministry of Joseph Smith (1805-1844) in the early days of Mormonism. A Mormon biographer of Smith describes a meeting very early in Mormonism where Smith:

called upon one of the brethren to speak, who arose, and made the attempt, but was immediately seized with a kind of spasm, which drew his face, arms, and fingers in a most astonishing manner. Hyrum [Joseph Smith’s brother] by Joseph’s request laid hands of the man, whereupon he sunk back in a state of complete exhaustion. ^[35]

The similarities between what was performed by the founder of one of the biggest demonic cults in history, and what can be observed in an emotionalist service are remarkable.

Forms of hypnotism have also been demonstrated to produce the same phenomena. Hanegraaff reports:

Back in the eighteenth century Franz Anton Mesmer, from whose name the word mesmerize is derived, caused people to laugh, fall into trance, and jerk spasmodically by simply gesturing in their direction. . . . Even those who questioned his motives [and the source of his powers] admitted that the impact he had on patients was dramatic. Their convulsions were reported as “extraordinary for their number, their duration, and their force.” By simply pointing a finger dramatically in the direction of one patient, “she moved convulsively as if in great pain and arched her body from shoulders to feet into a rigid position until he released her. ^[36]

Two British royal commissions investigating “Mesmerism” in 1784 reported that the convulsions of Mesmer’s patients were “marked by violent, involuntary movements of the limbs and the whole body . . . by rapid blinking . . . by piercing cries, tears, . . . and uncontrollable laughter.” ^[37] Sound familiar? Mesmer is also accredited with several remarkable healings, all in the name of what he called “animal magnetism.”

Likewise, the “father of hypnotism” James Braid (1795-1860) demonstrated that by:

inducing his subjects to fall into a[n] . . . altered state of consciousness, they became extraordinarily responsive to suggestion. . . . The phenomenon can be traced to virtually every culture, every civilization, and every century. As one writer observed, “it is as common in Polynesia today as it was at the fortune-telling shrines of ancient Greece and Rome” [and in emotionalist churches today?]. ^[38]

In addition, Hanegraaff’s personal description of a performance given by “Tony Angelo—The World’s Greatest Stage Hypnotist” reveals that Benny Hinn can do nothing supposedly in the name of Jesus, that Angelo cannot do in the name of entertainment. ^[39]

Finally, many are just plain faking being “slain in the Spirit” out of a desire not to be embarrassed or to embarrass the “slayer.” Hanegraaff relates:

A classic case in point involves a well-known Charismatic leader who participated in a Benny Hinn television extravaganza. Hinn was “slaying” his subjects “in the Spirit” when suddenly he moved in this man’s direction. He stretched forth his hand and shouted, “In the mighty name of Jesus!” Immediately the man fell backward into the hands of a designated “catcher.”

Later he confessed that his experience had nothing to do with the power of God. Peer pressure had caused him to fake his fall. Ironically, when he asked a cameraman to edit out the faked fall, the cameraman merely chuckled and told him it was common for people to fake it.

Like Hinn, leaders of the Counterfeit Revival use peer pressure to conform their prospects to predictable patterns. . . . Leaders of the Counterfeit Revival have carefully crafted their services to enhance the likelihood that Christians will cave in to the power of peer pressure. They kick off their meetings with the testimonies of those who allegedly once feared deception but now embrace the exotic experiences of the Counterfeit Revival as a genuine move of God. The “time of testimony” is followed by a “time of teaching” designed to further pressure people. . . . The peer pressure to participate during “the ministry time” is so potent that even otherwise discerning Christians often end up casting caution to the wind. . . .

Leaders of the Counterfeit Revival seem well aware that people in crowds are prone to believe that the behavior of their peers is a standard that should not be questioned. They further reinforce this proclivity by intimating that to resist these manifestations is tantamount to resisting the Holy Spirit. ^[40]

Some Christians have moved a long way from worshipping the Father “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

B.4) Other Suspicious Manifestations

We would mention here as well the popular mystical practice of “tarrying.” The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology describes the Pentecostal view of this practice as follows:

Since glossolalia [tongues] is the one initial evidence of Spirit baptism, everyone must seek the gift in that sense. It is the key to greater spiritual power in one’s life and so must be sought. For this reason “tarrying” meetings developed within Pentecostalism, as groups of people would “tarry” and be taught how to expand their consciousness in order to bypass the intellect and to open themselves to the baptism of the Spirit [and speaking in “tongues”]. ^[41]

Again, there is no biblical support whatsoever for such a practice and while emotionalists habitually insist that it is spiritual and God-pleasing to repress our thinking faculties in our relationship with God, Christ and the Apostles never did.

“Jerking” and uncontrollable “shaking” are other common phenomena in emotionalism. Again, being reminded that the fruit of the Holy Spirit is self-control, we should be immediately suspicious of such behavior, and there is no biblical support for them.

Emotionalist author Jack Deere attempts to alleviate legitimate concerns by saying, “It was not at all unusual for the people of the Lord to tremble in his presence.” ^[42] Mr. Deere omits the fact that the trembling he alludes to in the Bible was quaking in fear at the holiness of God. ^[43] One could wish that our emotionalist friends might gain a little fear of our Lord, for the source and affect of their convulsions and jerks is a far cry from the “trembling in the presence of the Lord” experienced by the men in the Bible. As we have noted elsewhere:

Of course, we have instances in Scripture where an encounter with God had physical effects on their body. But it was in the context of a miraculous communication from God, and because they had come to a rational understanding of something, like their guilt or God’s glory. It was never simply because they wanted to feel something and call it experiencing God. ^[44]

Likewise, Mr. Deere is again attempting to validate what is commonly recognized in emotionalism as “trance states.” No doubt, the Bible describes people as entering God-induced trances, but it was always and only to rationally receive direct and divine revelation from God, not to worship God. ^[45] And trance states, spasmodic jerking, and uncontrollable convulsions have all been well documented manifestations in blatantly demonic or flesh enhanced environments.

“Holy laughter” has at times been a fad in emotionalism. Again, it is always described as “uncontrollable” which argues against it being the work of the Holy Spirit, and there is no biblical justification for it. In fact, none is even offered by emotionalist leaders. The most common reason given as evidence that the phenomenon is from God, is to point out how good it makes people feel. Indeed, satan would never make us feel good in order to deceive us and enslave us to our sinful nature, would he?!

“Animal noises” is another bizarre occurrence where emotionalists claim the Holy Spirit is working. John Arnott, leader of the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church admits that the phenomenon is scary to many, but attempts to refute those whom he believes are “shutting down the Holy Spirit” by questioning the practice of “acting like lions and oxen and eagles and even warriors.” His basic argument was that since “God Himself has no hesitation of comparing Himself to an animal,” we shouldn’t either. ^[46] Again, not only is such behavior not found in the Bible, it is found in abundance among heretical sects throughout Church history, such as the Shakers, ^[47] and among demon possessed witch doctors today.

C) The Apostle’s Condemnation of Emotionalism:

1 Cor 14:33, 40

On the issue of distinguishing mindless, merely emotional worship from biblical worship, we should again turn to Jonathan Edwards. Along these lines he wrote:

[Merely emotional] affections really arise from ignorance, rather than instruction, in these instances which have been mentioned; as likewise in some others that might be mentioned. . . . And there are some instances of persons, in whom it seems manifest, that the first ground of their affection is some bodily sensation.

The animal spirits, by some cause, and probably sometimes by the devil, are suddenly and unaccountably put into a very agreeable motion, causing persons to feel pleasantly in their bodies; the animal spirits are put into such a motion as is wont to be connected with the exhilaration of the mind; and the soul, by the laws of the union of soul and body, hence feels pleasure.

The motion of the animal spirits does not first arise from any affection or apprehension of the mind whatsoever; but the very first thing that is felt, is an exhilaration of the animal spirits, and a pleasant external sensation it may be in their breasts. Hence through ignorance the person being surprised, begins to think, surely this is the Holy Ghost coming into him. ^[48]

But it is not. Edwards demonstrates throughout his Treatise Concerning Religious Affections that it requires a great deal of discernment to distinguish fleshly and demonic manifestations in a worship service from those empowered by the Holy Spirit. The very kind of discernment that too many leaders in the Church today lack.

Mr. Deere admits that many of the weird and even grotesque manifestations occurring in emotionalist meetings understandably makes the normal (and reasonable, discerning, and truly “Spirit-filled”) person very uneasy. However, he attempts to allay our apprehension by predictably exhorting us:

We are not to evaluate something by how bizarre or strange it may seem to us [i.e.- don’t use or trust your God-given reasoning!]. Strangeness is not a scriptural rule to determine whether an action or ministry is from God. ^[49]

Admittedly “strangeness” is not the only scriptural rule for detecting false instead of true worship, but Mr. Deere is dead wrong to claim that it is not a scriptural rule. The Apostle told the Corinthians, in the very context of discerning the nature of spiritual manifestations in a worship service:

God is not a God of confusion (akatastasia: “disorder, disturbance, tumult”) but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints . . . everything should be done in a fitting (euschemonos: “decent, attractive”) and orderly (taxis) way. (1 Cor 14:33, 40)

The Apostle’s words could not be clearer, and there is not a more obvious condemnation of some of the popular worship practices today in emotionalism. The Greek akatastasia (“confusion”) means, “a state of disorder, disturbance, tumult.” ^[50] It is included in a list of gross sins when the Apostle Paul later writes the Corinthians:

For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be. . . . I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder [akatastasiai]. (2 Cor 12:20)

It is undeniable that although God does not promote akatastasia in the Christian assembly, some worship leaders do, and even interpret it as a sign of true spirituality. And this is precisely what the Apostle was commanding the Corinthians not to do.

Like the Apostle Paul, we read in James of the impossibility of “disorder” (akatastasia) being present in a Holy Spirit controlled environment: “For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder [akatastasia] and every evil practice” (Jas 3:16). Obviously demonic influences are a prime candidate for such disorderly and unbiblical behavior, but the fleshly “envy and selfish ambition” that James warns us of are no doubt a factor too.

An accurate translation of the Apostle’s use of euschemonos (“fitting”) is “decently” or even “attractively,” and it is therefore wrong for emotionalists to question our apprehension towards their practices when they do not seem “decent” or “attractive” to the rest of us. Whereas Mr. Deere suggests that our sense of decency is not a good guide of what is from the Holy Spirit, the Apostle says it most definitely is.

Additionally, the Apostle commands that real Christian meetings be taxis (“orderly”), and it is obvious that many modern worship meetings, particularly in modern emotionalism, are not. W. E. Vine noted on this word: “taxis: “an arranging, order.” Is used . . . of due “order” in contrast to confusion in the gatherings of a local church, 1 Cor. 14:40.” ^[51]

Accordingly, NT scholar Peter O’Brien comments on the use of this word in Colossians 2:5: “taxis denotes the well-ordered Christian behavior of the community.” ^[52] Likewise, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology comments here that, “Paul insisted that the freedom of the Spirit is not anarchy.” ^[53] Accordingly, all of the pictures in the NT of the Church (human body, army, family) reflect a high degree of order. A fact that certainly brings into question what is the source of disorder and anarchy in some of today’s worship services.

Along these lines, Erwin Lutzer at Moody Bible Church comments:

The proliferation of talk shows, with their banality and trash, has helped our culture normalize the bizarre. Fringe behavior is extolled as if it is on the same continuum as that which is moral, acceptable, and decent. . . .

[J]ust as talk shows normalize fringe behavior, so many prophets and so-called faith healers have normalized bizarre experiences and doctrines. All kinds of ideas are expressed without rebuke or the slightest hint that they might be false. If God wants to heal a woman by having her head shaken for twenty minutes, who are we to judge? Any spoken revelation is believed to be from God, no matter whether it is contrary to Scripture or just plain silly. ^[54]

Robert L. Saucy, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot points out: “the most Spirit-filled of all human beings, Jesus, showed no evidence of physical manifestations as a result of his being controlled by the Spirit.” ^[55] Certainly not the kind of manifestations being witnessed in many worship services today. Accordingly, the emotionalist Evangelical Free pastor Doug Bannister is wrong to equate Christ’s “deeply passionate spirituality” and sorrowful praying as biblical support for emotionalists worship practices. ^[56] Spiritual passion does not equal emotionalism, but as Mr. Bannister admits himself, “Scripture teaches that love . . . is the great passion” ^[57] and emotionalists obviously hold no superiority in that.

The influential Baptist NT scholar James D. G. Dunn tries to put a positive spin on all of this when he writes:

The Charismatic renewal has challenged us to recognize the importance (not exclusive importance, but importance) of the emotional and non-rational in a fully integrated faith and life, to give place to these less structured and less predictable elements in our worship, and to take seriously the third article of the creed- “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giver. ^[58]

This of course sounds nice, and our emotionalist brothers and sisters would heartily agree with it. The problem, however, is that there is not one verse in all of Scripture that would support Dunn’s praise. Dr. Dunn implies that non-emotionalists do not take the Holy Spirit seriously enough because they are not emotional enough. Where does God say that being more “emotional and non-rational” is more spiritual, or even a valuable part of Christian spirituality?

Along these lines, as we discuss further elsewhere, it is important to note that while 1 Corinthians 14 is a primary biblical passage used by emotionalists to support their worship practices, the Holy Spirit is never mentioned in the entire chapter. On the contrary, there are several references to the human spirit, the seat of emotions, which, again, is not synonymous with the fruits of the Holy Spirit. ^[59]

While emotions certainly have many God-given and important purposes, being a criterion for spirituality is not one of them. Would we describe the King or the Apostles as being highly emotional? How about the godliest people throughout Church history? Being Spirit-filled is not synonymous with being emotional. Any spiritual superiority that emotionalists might claim in the area of worship merely because of greater emotion is simply self-delusion.

Accordingly, the eminent theologian J. I. Packer would seem to touch on something that is important to remember when comparisons are made regarding Christian spirituality:

An important question to ask at this point is: How far are the distinctives of Charismatic experience confined to professed Charismatics? I suspect that something of an optical illusion takes place here, from the strangeness to them of Charismatics’ outward gestures, other Christians infer that Charismatics’ inward experiences must be very different from their own. But I doubt whether this is so. ^[60]

For example, Dr. Packer points out that the common Christian experience of being visited in a special way by the Holy Spirit is labeled (erroneously) by Pentecostals as “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Dr. Packer concludes:

I suggest that, in reality, Charismatic and nonCharismatic spiritualities differ more in vocabulary, self-image, groups associated with, and books and journals read, than in the actual ingredients of their communion with the Father and the Son through the Spirit. Charismatic experience is less distinctive than is sometimes made out. ^[61]

The Holy Spirit’s signature is a transformed life of love and holiness, not lifeless bodies on the floor, or mindless, emotional worship. Feelings are not the mark of true Christian spirituality, but a biblical faith that results in obedience to God’s written commands. This is particularly why the Apostle Paul wrote his detailed description of love in 1 Corinthians 13. He wanted to teach the Corinthians what real manifestations of the Holy Spirit look and feel like. ^[62] Along these lines, Dr. Bruner writes:

Paul’s first positive definition of Christian love [and an authentic manifestation of the Holy Spirit] is makrothumei (v. 4), i.e., Christian love is not so much emotional, passionate, or fiery (thumos) as it is the “making broad,” the stretching out, the extension of “fire” (makro-thumos). [“patience” is actually the restraint of emotion”] This “long-suffering” should be compared with the superscripture to the twelfth chapter where the emotionalism of heathendom is contrasted with the sober confession of the church (12:2-3).

Paul would not wish for it to appear that superior Christian devotion were necessarily identical with ardent Christian expression -either vertically, toward God (12:2-3), or horizontally, toward men (13:4) . . . he sees Christian love not so much in the expression as in the extension of emotion, the drawing out, taming, literally the “lengthening” (makro-) of emotion. . . .

It is interesting to observe, for example, that the spiritual pride or inflated sense of one’s own spiritual experience (“puffed up,” phusioun) which Paul saw as the peculiar affliction of the Corinthian higher-life Christians (cf. 4:6, 18, 19; 8:1) appears in its negative in this passage: “love is . . . not phusioutai” (v. 4). Paul’s description of love in chapter thirteen, then, is not simply poetry; it is a concrete apostolic application of truth to elements of a church in need of learning what being Christian really and not spectacularly meant.

The final description in chapter thirteen to which we shall refer is in verse 5, which reads, literally, that love “does not seek its own.” This definition becomes important for the understanding of the fourteenth chapter, especially the fourth verse. It is sufficient now to observe that Christian love has as the goal of its seeking something other than its own advancement. ^[63]

So do the experiences of emotionalists make them more obedient to God’s commands? Are they more loving and holy? Not at all, and therefore, we can know for certain that Christian emotionalism is not experiencing more of the Holy Spirit, in spite of their claims. The virtue apologetics that we have spoken of at length elsewhere, is not only the best test of salvation, but any claim to an experience of the Holy Spirit. ^[64] If emotionalism does not result in more selfless love and moral holiness, then it has no claim to a special experience of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, while emotionalism is not known for its superior love and holiness, what is it typically characterized with by the world? Frenzy, feelings, factions, fakes, and moral failures. ^[65] Even the unbelieving world could tell us if emotionalists were experiencing more of the Holy Spirit by a noticeable difference in their holiness and love, and yet, neither the world nor the Church thinks these people are any more righteous or patient.

Quite frankly, for all the jumping, rolling, and hollering in some worship services, there is no sign whatsoever that the participants are more like the King than other Christians. More emotional, yes, but not more godly, and therefore neither is their worship to be considered more spiritual. Emotionalism is singing just for the sake of emotion itself, and is no different than what pagans do at a rock concert. And such mindless merely emotional worship never produces sacrificial lovers because it is inherently selfish lust.

D) The Harmful Heritage of Emotionalism: Lying, escapism, manipulation, arrogance, apathy, embarrassment, & idolatry

As with any false teaching in the Church, it always hurts God’s people, and the doctrinal errors within emotionalism are no exception. We have already noted the inherent lying and faking that occurs in such environments, particularly surrounding the “slain in the spirit” phenomenon. Indeed, mindless half-hearted worship makes people liars not lovers. Whether they’re faking it, or just feeling it, they are often lying to themselves, God, and others that they are experiencing the Holy Spirit. It is sad and ironic that emotionalists habitually claim to be more spiritual when in fact they are not more holy or loving. Therefore, while emotionalism is not producing any more lovers, it is producing a multitude of liars.

Along these lines, former member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Vineyard Churches, Tom Stipe, admits that in Vineyard meetings:

Some began to fake the shaking and eye fluttering symptoms they had been told were signs of the Holy Spirit coming upon them. They hoped the ministry team would recognize the sign of God and rush to their sides, lifting their hands and praying, “More, Lord!” Shaking, laughing, weeping, and eye twitching always ensured that the parishioner would attract the immediate attention of the leaders and their peers. ^[66]

If this is true of some of our emotionalist friends, then there would appear to be some great spiritual and emotional needs in their lives. And it should remind all of us to be careful of the ways we perform in order to gain the approval of men. Let us affirm one another with all our heart as infinitely valuable children of the King. And let us also discard an empty, performance-based religion that makes our faith no better than the cults. If we are raising our children in such a fake spiritual environment, will they not be tempted to wonder if much more of our Christianity is fake as well? If they have been lied to about this, will they not wonder what else they have been lied to about?

In addition to promoting lying, we believe Christian emotionalism has perverted the meaning of loving God. For them, it would seem to be primarily experiencing an emotion, rather than emphasizing its more important attribute of sacrificial obedience. ^[67] To love God is not so much to feel Him, but to serve Him and God demonstrates His love to us not by making us feel good but by saving us. Biblically speaking, if you want to experience God, seek sacrificial obedience, not an emotional experience.

Unfortunately, as a result of emotionalism’s redefinition of spirituality as emotional rather than devotional, it lures particularly people who may be going through difficult times. If offers an escape from the hard reality of living by faith and obedience. Accordingly, Doug Bannister suggests that emotionalism saved him from an emotionless Christianity when he writes:

My foray into the charismatic world was driven, in part, by a quest for spiritual feelings. My encounter in the cabin when I received the new spiritual language [i.e. tongues] from God was the first time ever I had felt anything in my spiritual life. And I liked it. ^[68]

Quite honestly, one is moved to pity for a man who claims to have been a born-again Christian for many years, and was even in the ministry, and yet would say he had never, “felt anything in my spiritual life,” until he began speaking in gibberish. Either Mr. Bannister is unfortunately exaggerating just to persuade the reader, or he seriously brings into question his own salvation previous to his “encounter,” because one thing is for sure: If someone really has the Holy Spirit come and live in them, they will feel something! The King says in John, for example: “Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this He meant the Spirit, Whom those who believed in Him were later to receive” (John 7:38-9). The King is certainly describing some feeling! And feelings that all Christians will experience, not just emotional ones.

Thirdly, there is a manipulative characteristic of emotionalism that is not biblical. Along these lines, Dr. Packer, who is actually fairly sympathetic to charismaticism writes:

There is an [emotional] element in the makeup of each human individual, to be expressed in any genuine appreciation and of another’s love, whether it be the love of a spouse or the love of God in Christ . . . [But] only a fine line divides healthy emotion from unhealthy Emotionalism [his word] and any appealing to or playing on emotion crosses that line every time.

Though the white-collar Charismatic movement of today is (for cultural rather than theological reasons, it seems) generally calmer than original blue-collar Pentecostalism ever was, its preoccupation with expressing feelings of joy and love makes it vulnerable here. Its warmth and liveliness attract highly emotional and disturbed people to its ranks, and many others find in its ritual Emotionalism some relief from strains and pressures in other areas of their lives (marriage, work, finance, and so forth).

But such sharing in group emotion is a self-indulgent escapist “trip” that must debilitate in the long run. Generally the movement seems to teeter on the edge of emotional self-indulgence in a decidedly dangerous way. . . .

“Charismania” . . . is Edward D. O’Connor’s word for the habit of mind that measures spiritual health, growth, and maturity by the number and impressiveness of people’s gifts and spiritual power by public emotional manifestations. The habit is bad, for the principle of judgment is false; and where it operates, real growth and maturity are likely to be retarded. ^[69]

Likewise, D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981), a British preacher who emotionalists are increasingly quoting in support of their doctrines and practices, would no doubt also condemn the kind of emotional manipulation that is all too common in their movement. The “altered states of consciousness” that Hanegraaff warns about, can lead to the “power of suggestion” which Lloyd-Jones warned about when he wrote:

The power of suggestion is a very real and definite thing. It is always one of the dangers with a crowd, or a mob-we speak of mob or mass psychology. Hitler would never have come to power but for this. He may not consciously have realized what was happening but he was certainly illustrating this very point- He had a kind of hypnotic power; clearly he could make suggestions, and by repetition he could get people to accept them.

The people addressed were not conscious of what was happening [i.e. they weren’t thinking], but it was the power of suggestion. Now this phenomenon can come into the realm of things spiritual and we are but victims in these matters unless we realize this.

Everything that appears to be conversion is not conversion. You will often find people responding to a call forward in a time of excitement or in a highly organized campaign with large numbers. If you ask them afterwards, ‘Why did you go forward?’, they will often say, ‘I don’t know.’ And that is the truth-they do not know. It was the power of suggestion; seeing others going forward, they felt an impulse to go and to do the same thing [without thinking].

Now this can be illustrated, as I say, in many realms. In the political realm it can often be seen in meetings, addressed by someone who is anxious to propagate a doctrine. It is one of the things of which we have to be most wary . . . it is because one realizes these dangers that one should avoid them. Far from using psychological techniques and so on, you should avoid them.

We all know and have read about these things. You dim the lights and perhaps put a cross, one red cross only, above the pulpit light, and tremendous things can be done. We are all gullible, all liable to these things. And, again, the history of the church tells us a great deal about this-how men, unscrupulous men sometimes, for very mercenary reasons, have used and employed all these things in order to serve their own unworthy purposes . . .

We are right to be suspicious of anything that tries either by its methods or by suggestion to stop us thinking. I mean by that the employment of certain well-known psychological techniques such as putting out the lights and having a rhythmic repetition of music or of phrases.

You must have seen and read about the kind of thing that happens amongst the more primitive races, how they slowly work themselves up by these means into a condition in which they are no longer thinking and have lost the power of reasoning and understanding. Anything that does that should be suspect. There is nothing approaching it in the New Testament, indeed you find the exact opposite. . . .

The devil, of course, will tempt us, as he has always tempted people throughout the centuries, to be interested merely in phenomena and experiences. We are all in the flesh, and we are all anxious to have certainty and assurance. The danger is that that may be turned inwards in such a way that we are only interested in sensation and experiences, and so forget the profiting; there are undoubtedly people, who go to meetings not that their minds may be enlightened or that they may be profited in their understanding, but because they want a thrill, they want to feel something. . . .

You will know full well of great rallies where some people just go from meeting to meeting waiting for some feeling, some thrill or excitement. They do not grow, they do not profit, nor do they increase in understanding. For they are not interested in those things. All they want is the excitement of the experience. ^[70]

As usual, there is a very human side to this debate. In an environment where emotional experiences are promoted as a sign of spirituality, all kinds of illegitimate and eventually harmful motivations can drive some Christians in their pursuit of such experiences. Along these lines, K. Stendahl wrote in his study of early Christian worship: “few human beings can live healthily with high-voltage religious experience over a long period of time.” ^[71]

Accordingly, John MacArthur writes:

I suspect a[n] . . . anxiety reaches right into the ranks of the Charismatics themselves. Could it be that some who attend these fellowships are tempted to exaggerate, dramatize, or even fabricate some miracle of special experience because of their need to keep up with the brethren who appear to be more spiritual?” . . . Most Charismatics believe progress in the Christian life is having something more, something better, some electrifying experience.

An ex-Charismatic in my congregation told me why he had grown frustrated in the Charismatic movement: “You spend the rest of your life trying to find another experience.” The Christian life becomes a pilgrimage from experience to experience, and if each one is not more spectacular than its predecessor, many people begin to wonder if something is wrong. ^[72]

We share the concern of our emotionalist brethren concerning the lack of passion that has characterized much of particularly American Christianity. And it is joyfully conceded that the emotionalist movement has encouraged some to grow in authentic “religious affections.” But the movement could have influenced many more if it were more biblical and humble in this area. And emotionalist leaders are certainly not generally humble.

For example, one of the movement’s foremost theologians, J. Rodman Williams, writes unabashedly in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology that the Apostle praises singing without the mind in an incoherent babble in 1 Corinthians 14:15 and that such a practice is to be considered the “apex of worship,” as compared with the “more usual [kind of] singing.” Dr. Williams goes on to claim that when the Apostle says elsewhere that we are to, “sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,” (Col 3:16; cf. Eph 5:19) that the first two kinds of worship (“psalms, hymns”) refer to the “more usual singing,” but that the “spiritual songs” refer “climactically” in a Christian worship service to singing in an incoherent, mindless babble of tongues. ^[73]

There is no other response to such self-exalting claims other than it is arrogant and offensive, not to mention a misguided interpretation of Scripture. And what would emotionalist say about all of the most influential Christians in Church history, none of whom shared their belief or practices?

Even here, Dr. Williams fails to point out that in Ephesians 5:19 the Apostle says, “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” Would Dr. Williams claim then that we are to be speaking to one another in a congregation’s worship service in unintelligible tongues? The Apostle taught that if something cannot be understood it is meaningless and worthless, which would include singing (see 1 Cor 14:9ff). Again, the emotionalist view falls short of clear biblical support and is merely another instance of finding proof texts to defend their experiences rather than biblical texts to test and evaluate those experiences.

The arrogance in emotionalism is demonstrated by the popular Christian apologist J. P. Moreland who writes to those who follow a more biblical and historical view of worship:

There is too little power in your churches, too little extravagant worship in which your people pour out their hearts to God on Sunday. ^[74]

How dare Dr. Moreland claim a superiority in spiritual power among emotionalist churches when there is no superiority in love or holiness. How dare he redefine “extravagant worship” in terms of emotionalism instead of sacrificial service to God (cf. Rom 12:1-2).

It is both disappointing and ironic that many of those who claim some spiritual superiority in their method of worship, are actually the most vivid examples today of the mindless half-hearted worship that Christ and the Apostle condemned. Rather than helping the Church gain a more spiritual understanding of worship, many Christians today have even more disdain for emotional worship than is warranted, and the abuses allowed in emotionalism movement are largely to blame.

Along these lines, Edwards wrote:

But now, when the ill consequences of these false affections appear, and it is become very apparent, that some of those emotions which made a glaring show, and were by many greatly admired, were in reality nothing; the devil sees it to be for his interest to go another way to work, and to endeavor to his utmost to propagate and establish a persuasion, that all affections and sensible emotions of the mind, in things of religion, are nothing at all to be regarded, but are rather to be avoided, and carefully guarded against, as things of a pernicious tendency. This he knows is the way to bring all religion to a mere lifeless formality, and effectually shut out the power of godliness, and everything which is spiritual. ^[75]

Edwards points to a legitimate fear that actually occurred in his day. The revival he led was swept up in emotionalism and within a few years people were simply burned out on the fake spiritualism that resulted and the revival died, leaving a great deal of apathy.

Likewise, Dr. Needham writes:

Edwards had to fight on two fronts. On the one hand, he had to argue against those who dismissed the entire revival as mindless hysteria. On the other hand, he had to argue against those who seemed to think everything that happened in the revival was ‘of God’, no matter how strange, wild or unbalanced it was. Do these two opposite reactions sound familiar? . . .

We may not be living in the midst of a revival, but these questions, and the answers Edwards gives to them, are profoundly relevant to us today. Feelings and experiences have perhaps never been emphasized so strongly and sought so eagerly as they are among Christians in our generation. The results have too often been unbalanced, undiscerning and spiritually harmful. Reacting against this, others have retreated into a hard, cold, dry orthodoxy, looking with deep suspicion on anything ’emotional’. ^[76]

Because modern emotionalism has lacked the will, courage, and biblical discernment to keep emotions in their place, their abuses have tarnished, rather than promoted, expressive worship. In fact, mindless worship in emotionalism has simply embarrassed the Church. There is a reason that the mainstream media loves to catch emotionalists on camera at their weirdest. We are reminded again of the description above of an emotionalist meeting:

A member of John Wimber’s family [founder of the Vineyard Movement] stood at the altar, testifying that the power of God was upon her as she jerked spasmodically in what Wimber refers to as a chicken walk. It wasn’t long before others had joined her in jerking. . . . Some were jumping up and down furiously, chopping their hands frantically through the air. Others were violently throwing their heads backward and forward and bending wildly at the waist.

One woman looked as though an invisible hand had grabbed her and was shaking her like she was little more than a rag doll. All the while, sardonic laughter punctuated by animal noises rose eerily from the bodies writhing on the ground. Later, when I visited the Airport Vineyard in Toronto, the sights and sounds I experienced were even more shocking. ^[77]

Imagine watching a news clip of that on TV with an unbelieving friend and trying to explain that this is a special way in which the Holy Spirit may affect you when He comes into your life. It would be rather humiliating.

Accordingly, the Apostle Paul warned the emotionalists in Corinth if an unbeliever walked into a “Christian” assembly while “everyone speaks in tongues . . . will they not say that you are out of your mind?” (1 Cor 14:23). No doubt a number of modern examples of this very thing have occurred. Along these lines, Frederick Dale Bruner shares the following experience:

I once attended a large breakfast sponsored by the Pentecostal group, Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International. A local high school had been invited to participate in the program. After the choir’s number the festivities became increasingly Pentecostal. Soon, to our embarrassment the high school students, who were seated conspicuously near the head table, began gradually to leave the large hall until almost all of them had gone.

Discourteous as this departure unquestionably was, I felt that it provided, nevertheless, a symbol of a disturbing fact. Many are turned away from the Christian faith by the irrational Pentecostal manifestation of it. I affirm this in the face of Pentecostalism’s advertisement of its missionary successes. Unfortunately, those who are driven out cannot always, like those who come in, be counted . . . The evangelistic-missionary concern of the Apostle should be taken into consideration in any final decision by a church on the public use of spiritual gifts. ^[78]

Accordingly, Hanegraaff points out that in emotionalist worship:

Sardonic laughter, spasmodic jerks, signs and wonders, super Apostles and prophets, and people being “slain in the spirit” are pointed to as empirical evidence of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. The form and function of the church is being so radically rearranged that even the secular world has taken note.

Time magazine, in an article titled “Laughing for the Lord,” pointed out that Anglican parishes across England today bear a greater resemblance to “rock concerts” and “rugby matches” than to Christian worship. The article says that sanctuaries throughout the world are littered with bodies as “supplicants sob, shake, roar like lions and strangest of all, laugh uncontrollably.”

Newsweek, in an article titled “The Giggles Are for God,” reported that people in churches worldwide were jerking spasmodically, dancing ecstatically, and acting like animals. . . .

ABC News aired a prime-time television special titled “In the Name of God.” Host Peter Jennings asked his audience . . . if the changes [and phenomena] he had documented may be “compromising the essence of Christianity.” ^[79]

Unfortunately it would seem so, and we have to agree with even an unbeliever’s rebuke of the obvious lack of real spirituality in modern day mindless worship.

Finally, based on the evidence above, we fear that Christian emotionalism has violated the command of the Lord many years ago when He told His people: “Do not worship the LORD your God in the way these pagan peoples worship their gods” (Deut 12:4 NLT). If so, this offense is the most serious of all those we have suggested here.

What Church leaders have allowed in American Christianity in general, and emotionalism especially, reminds us of the failed courage, conviction, and integrity of another spiritual leader many years ago. When the Israelites lost patience in waiting for Moses to bring them the word of God, they enticed Aaron to introduce another religion which involved worshipping something they could make and see (a golden calf), and would accordingly appeal to their physical senses (cf. Exod 32:1).

Did this new religion that Aaron allowed promote spiritual virtue? No. Rather these ancient emotionalists, “indulged themselves in pagan revelry ^[80] [tsachaq]” (Exod 32:6 NLT), and exhibited loud “shouting” and “singing,” “dancing,” “running wild,” and being “out of control” and a “laughingstock” all as a “festival to the Lord” (cf. 32:5-6, 18-20, 25. NLT) as Aaron erroneously called it, because “Aaron saw how excited the people were about” (v. 5 NLT) this new religion.

OT scholars point out that the kind of worship being described here reflects the idolatrous worship practices of the Egyptians whom the Israelites had lived with for centuries. ^[81] The true nature of this worship is revealed when God said He was angry, wanted to destroy the people (v. 10), commanded Moses and the Levites to slaughter 3000 of them (v. 28), and “struck the people with a plague because of what they did” (v. 35). These people were certainly worshipping “in spirit” just not “in truth,” (John 4:23) as God demands.

When Moses arrives, he asks Aaron an important question: “What did these people do to you, that you led them into such great sin?” (v. 21). Answer: appealed to his ego and need to be popular. And in the process, this high priest with the God-given responsibility to shepherd and protect the people, and set an example of the sacrificial obedience, and spiritual self-control required in any claim to real spirituality, led them on the destructive path of pagan emotionalism. We fear that the same cowardice and egotism has infected far too many churches today that have been swayed by feelings-oriented crowds rather than faith-oriented Christianity.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father in Heaven, please rid Your Church of the spiritual plague of emotionalism. We pray that you would humble and discipline those who promote it, and rescue those who practice it, restoring them all to whole-hearted spirituality and authentic Christianity.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. How do we define emotionalism?
2. Why do we suggest that emotionalism is synonymous with charismaticism?
3. What are some worship practices in emotionalism? Why do we claim they are unbiblical? Do you agree or disagree?
4. What are altered states of consciousness? How are they achieved in religious contexts? Why are they harmful?
5. What verse of Scripture do we claim clearly condemns emotionalist worship practices? Do you agree or disagree?
6. What practical evidence do we suggest proves that those in emotionalism are not experiencing the Holy Spirit any more than other Christians?
7. What are the harmful results of emotionalism? Why does this perspective encourage these results?

1. We claim that if you want to experience God, seek sacrificial obedience, not an emotional experience. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Publications & Particulars

1. Bruce Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. (Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994), I:124. ↑

2. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs (Harvest House, 1996), 18-25. ↑

3. Elizabeth Hillstrom, Testing the Spirits (Intervarsity Press, 1995), 69-70, 79. ↑

4. Rosemary E. Guiley, Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (Harper Collins, 1991), 319-321, 552. ↑

5. Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions (Intervarsity, 1984), 88. ↑

6. D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism: First Series (Grove Press, 1961), 230. ↑

7. Ibid., 243. ↑

8. D. T. Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism: Second Series (Weiser, 1970), 60. ↑

9. Thomas Edgar, “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts” Bsac 145 (1988), 384. ↑

10. For further discussion of the explanation of the popularity of charismaticism being tied to cultural trends see section 10.15.B. ↑

11. J. I. Packer, Knowing Christianity (Harold Shaw, 1995), 5-6. ↑

12. John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, (Zondervan, 1992), 185. ↑

13. Doug Bannister, The Word and Power Church (Zondervan, 1999), 126. ↑

14. Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival (Word, 1997), 221-2. ↑

15. Ibid., 223, 225, 227. ↑

16. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (online at http://www.ccel.org), III.4.1. ↑

17. Hanegraaff, 225-6 (Underlining added for emphasis). ↑

18. Quoted by D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), 69. ↑

19. Hanegraaff, 195. ↑

20. Edgar, “Cessation,” 371-2. ↑

21. Hanegraaff, 87, 103-104, 107-108, 155-157, 223. ↑

22. For further description of the fraudulent nature of Kathryn Kuhlman’s ministry see section 11.8.E.2. ↑

23. Benny Hinn, Good Morning, Holy Spirit (Nelson, 1990), 9, 11-12. ↑

24. Benny Hinn, “Double Portion Anointing,” Part #3, Orlando Christian Center, Orlando, FL, audiotape, aired on Trinity Broadcasting Network, 4-7-91. ↑

25. Hanegraaff, 173. ↑

26. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 640. ↑

27. Hanegraaff, 191-93. ↑

28. Ibid. 191. ↑

29. John Wimber, “Spiritual Phenomena: Slain in the Spirit—Part 2 audiotape.” Quoted from Hanegraaff, 191. ↑

30. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Burgess, Stanley M., Gary B. McGee, and Patrick H. Alexander eds. (Zondervan, 1988), 790. ↑

31. Thomas R. Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit (Kregel, 1996), Page number unavailable ↑

32. Francis MacNutt, Overcome by the Spirit (Chosen, 1990), 19-20. (underlining added for emphasis, italics in original). ↑

33. For further discussion of the power of “suggestion” see chapter 11.9 ↑

34. Ibid., 25-26. ↑

35. Alexander Mackie, The Gift of Tongues: A Study in the Pathological Aspects of Christianity (Doran, 1921), 219. ↑

36. Hanegraaff, 216-17. ↑

37. Ibid. ↑

38. Ibid. 219 ↑

39. Ibid., 5-8. ↑

40. Ibid., 230-32. ↑

41. Grant R. Osborne, “Tongues,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Walter Elwell, ed., (Baker, 1984), 1102-3. ↑

42. Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 91. ↑

43. See Exod 20:18; Ps 96:9; Isa 21:2-4; Jer 5:22; 23:9; Acts 7:32-33. ↑

44. Excerpt from section 4.8.B.2. For further descriptions and comments of the reactions of people encountering miraculous communication from God see section 10.2.C.2. ↑

45. For further discussion of the biblical view of “trance states” see discussion of Christian ecstasy in section 4.8.B. Dr. Hillstrom adds concerning the relationship between trance states and divine revelation:

    In a few biblical cases, contact with spiritual beings [i.e. godly angels] had such a profound impact that it apparently induced an altered state. In one of Daniel’s visions (Dan. 10:9) he saw an angel, and the experience was so powerful that he fell into a “deep sleep, [his] face to the ground.” Interestingly, the angel did not try to communicate with Daniel when he was in that state. He awakened him and told him to stand up and listen carefully to the message [and think!] so he could record it accurately. (78). ↑

46. Hanegraaff, 82. ↑

47. The Concise Dictionary Christianity in America says of the Shakers:

    A millenarian communal society . . . The Shakers [named after their convulsive style of worship] originated in England as a loose union of enthusiasts. . . . The group did not fare well until visionary member Ann Lee lead a band of eight Shakers from Manchester to New York in 1774. . . . At its height, there may have been five thousand members. (Daniel Reid, et al. [InterVarsity Press, 1995], 312).

    Apart from the practice of dancing naked, the Shakers were known for speaking in tongues, having visions, and prophecies, laughing hysterically in worship services, and animal noises. (see Mackie, 82-128). ↑

48. Edwards, Affections, III.4.1. Nonetheless, we do not wish to deny the fact that experiencing God can have an effect on our bodies. Accordingly, Jonathan Edwards wrote:

    That such ideas of God’s glory as are sometimes given in this world, have a tendency to overbear the body, is evident, because the Scripture gives us an account, that this has sometimes actually been the effect (Hab. 3:16; Ps. 119:120; Dan. 10:8; Rev 1:17) . . .

    I would farther observe, that it is plain the Scripture often makes use of bodily effects, to express the strength of holy and spiritual affections; such as trembling, Psal. 119:120. Ezra 9:4. Isa. 66:2, 5. Hab. 3:16. groaning, being sick, Cant. 2:5, and 5:8. crying out, Psal. 84:2 panting, Psal. 38: 10, and 42:1, and 119:131.and fainting, Psal. 84:2, and 119:81. These took place under the preaching of the gospel and because of conviction of sin. (Affections, II.1)

    Of course, we have instances in Scripture where an encounter with God had physical effects on their body. But it was in the context of a miraculous communication from God, and because they had come to a rational understanding of something, like their guilt or God’s glory. It was never simply because they wanted to feel something and call it experiencing God. For further discussion of the effects of miraculous communication on humans see section 10.2.C.2. ↑

49. Deere, 96. ↑

50. W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Thomas Nelson, 1996), 122. Similarly, BAGD and other lexicons offer disturbance, commotion, and unruliness alongside disorder. ↑

51. W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Thomas Nelson, 1996), 450. ↑

52. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (Word, 1982), 99. ↑

53. K. H. Bartels, “First,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown, ed., 4 vols., (Zondervan, 1986), I:667. ↑

54. Erwin Lutzer, Who Are You to Judge? (Moody, 2002), 59-60. ↑

55. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, Wayne Grudem ed., (Zondervan, 1996), 142. ↑

56. Doug Bannister, The Word and Power Church (Zondervan, 1999), 130 ↑

57. Ibid., 129. ↑

58. James Dunn, “Ministry and the Ministry: The Charismatic Renewal’s Challenge to Traditional Ecclesiology” in Charismatic Experiences in History, Cecil M. Robeck Jr. ed. (Hendrickson, 1985), 81. ↑

59. For further discussion of the proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 see chapters 12.6.6-11. ↑

60. J. I. Packer, Keep in Step With The Spirit, (Revell, 1984), 64. ↑

61. Ibid., 65. ↑

62. For further discussion of the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 see chapters 12.6-11. ↑

63. Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Eerdmans, 1970, 296. ↑

64. For further discussion of the test of virtue to discern the nature of movements within Christianity see chapter 5.6. ↑

65. Regarding the gross moral failures of charismaticism see section 5.6.B; 10.15.A.7; 11.7.B.9; 11.8.E-F. ↑

66. Hanegraaff, xiii ↑

67. Douglas McLeod writes concerning what we consider another aspect of perverting love in our relationship with God:

    [Jack] Deere’s discussion of “passion” for Jesus sounds a lot like the “eros piety” confronted by Anders Nygren. Eros piety, found in Greek religion, Gnosticism, and the mystery religions expresses “an appetite, a yearning desire for God which seeks Him in order to satisfy the believer’s spiritual hunger by the possession and enjoyment of the divine perfections.” It is seen in many choruses, which are almost romantic in quality.

    The agape love of the NT is not “a longing and striving after something that man lacks and needs but a response of gratitude for something freely and bountifully given.” It is a wholehearted surrender to God, whereby the believer becomes God’s willing slave, content to be at His disposal, having full trust and confidence in Him. Sensitivity and humility are needed in evaluating spiritual life teaching.

    I would point out, however, that the NT does not use the kind of quasi-romantic expressions that Deere uses (i.e., falling in love with Jesus). Nor does it promise the kind of immediacy of contact that he hungers for. I would suggest that we all need to remember that heaven and the kingdom come later (Acts 14:22). Today we live by faith and not by sight (Emmaus Journal 10, 146). ↑

68. Bannister, 14. ↑

69. Packer, 186, 192, 193. ↑

70. Lloyd-Jones, Spirit, 98-9. 75, 131. ↑

71. K. Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (SCM, 1977), 123. ↑

72. John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Zondervan, 1992), 22, 206. ↑

73. J. Rodman Williams, “Charismatic Movement,” in EDT, 207. ↑

74. J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), 180. ↑

75. Edwards, Affections, I.3.1. ↑

76. N. R. Needham, The Experience That Counts! (Grace Publications Trust, 1997), 9-10. ↑

77. Hanegraaff, 225-6. ↑

78. Bruner, 299-300 ↑

79. Hanegraaff, 10. ↑

80. In the context of the Apostle Paul’s own reference to this incident in 1 Corinthians, NT scholar Anthony Thiselton writes:

    Paul cites the LXX wording, the LXX [paizein] was presumably chosen as the nearest equivalent to the Hebrew which it translated [tsachaq]. BDB renders the Qal form to laugh, but the form used in the context of Exod 32:6 is to make sport, allowing for a probably triple meaning: (i) “letting their hair down” in the absence of Moses with nuances of (ii) idolatrous dancing before the golden calf, and (iii) sexual license approaching orgy – all in contrast to the theological and ethical restraint and sober self-control (cf. 9:24-27) demanded of God’s covenant people.

    This demands a more forceful translation than to play (NRSV) and a more sinister nuance than to revel (REB). [Pentecostal commentator Gordon] Fee criticizes NIV’s to indulge in pagan revelry as reading pagan into the text, but his criticism overlooks Bertram’s exegesis of Exodus 32 in “cultic dancing” or overly harsh in the light of the Hebrew and the context of Exod 32:1-6, where “pagan-like” is implicit. The combination “lifting the lid” of control or restraint, fired by drink, a party mood, and the absence of the patriarchal figure of Moses led to more than mere play. (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGNT [Eerdmans, 2000], 734-5) ↑

81. See for example, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, who specifically relate it to the manner “in which the Egyptians celebrated their feast of Apis (Herod. 2, 60, and 3, 27).” (Commentary on the Old Testament Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM [Findex.com, 2000]). ↑