Letter to James Beverley

The following is a response by Richard Riss to some of James Beverley's comments in Holy Laughter and the Toronto Blessing (Zondervan, 1995), and his article in the September 11, 1995 issue of Christianity Today, entitled "Toronto's Mixed Blessing."

21 September, 1995

Dear Dr. Beverley:

Recently, I have been reading with interest your book, HOLY LAUGHTER AND THE TORONTO BLESSING, and your article, "Toronto's Mixed Blessing," in the September 11 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

I appreciate your desire to try to present a balanced viewpoint, and to correct problems on both sides of the controversy concerning the "Toronto Blessing."

In your book you mention that Ian Rennie, who was at that time academic dean, offered you "the triple resource of his learning in church history, his longing for God's renewal work in the Church today, and his open spirit to Christians from all backgrounds."With you, I appreciate Dr. Rennie's characteristics along these lines.When I studied church history with him from 1975 through 1979, during which time he was my thesis advisor at Regent College in Vancouver, he was a tremendous mentor because of his generous and well-informed approach in these matters.

In what you've written, you also demonstrate an awareness (which Jonathan Edwards also had) that there will always be a mixture of good and evil coming out of any revival.

Unfortunately, as a general rule, people tend either to accept something of this nature in its entirety, or else discard the both the good and the bad. As a result of this, when one points out problems, there will always be those who will stay away from everything that is happening for fear of those problems. Yet, if they do stay away, they will miss opportunities for emotional and physical healing and tremendous spiritual growth.

In the event that any of the problems that have been pointed out turn out not to be problems at all, then, in effect, one has unnecessarily prevented people from receiving from God (albeit unintentionally).I'm sure that this is not the sort of position that you would want to get into, if you could possibly avoid it.

This is a serious matter, since at least some, and possibly all, of the problems and/or pitfalls that you have pointed out with respect to the Toronto Blessing seem to me to be based upon certain misunderstandings.To my way of thinking, most of what has been happening in Toronto has been amazingly free of the many problems that usually plague movements of this kind.

For example, in your CHRISTIANITY TODAY article, you wrote: "Picture men and women doing 'carpet time' together, under great strains of moaning and holy laughing, touching one another with fresh jolts of power.Picture a man who, after a round of carpet time and bouncing up and down like a pogo stick, is anointed by two women, apparently releasing charges of the Spirit with every touch of their hands."My wife and I have visited the Toronto Airport Vineyard a number of times over the past year and have attended other meetings at which the Arnotts have ministered. We have also been to many Rodney Howard-Browne meetings.In none of these cases have we ever witnessed inappropriate or sexual contact of the kind suggested by your article.As a matter of fact, the Toronto Airport Vineyard in particular is careful to insure that this sort of thing will not happen.At each service, those who desire prayer are instructed to receive it only from ministry teams who wear identifying badges.These team members are trained and supervised by and accountable to the TAV pastoral staff.Except for a few mature and experienced members who are released to pray for people of either sex, team members pray only for those of their own sex. It would be inappropriate to suggest to readers that they might be exposed to immoral or inappropriate touching if they went to renewal meetings. Any insinuation of this kind would be unfair to the church and its leadership, which have been scrupulous in this regard.

There are other cases in which, from my perspective, you have misunderstood the current awakening, and those who have supported it. For example, when you attempted in your book to interact with Hank Hanegraaff and with my own observations on his position, you wrote, "Riss argues that the popular idea of a great apostasy is only a recent teaching in the church and states that Jonathan Edwards believed in a coming revival.Who is right: Riss or Hanegraaff? Hanegraaff's point is about biblical eschatology, not about history, and Riss has neglected to reply with Scripture. Furthermore, Riss is on slippery ground historically. Apocalyptic warnings of apostasy were popular in the early church, among key leaders in the Middle Ages, during Reformation times, and even among some in Edwards' day."

It was originally from Ian Rennie in 1975 that I learned that the idea that the faithful will become fewer and fewer is only a recent development in the history of eschatology. In his lectures, he talked about the pessimism that began to set in, particularly after World War I, with respect to eschatology.In the years that followed, I found that most church historians are in agreement on this issue.In 1984, when I took a reading course on the history of eschatology with Rodney Petersen while studying at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I read a large number of primary sources, and I found that the secondary sources were, indeed, correct on this question. Ian Rennie's statements to me to the effect that, until recently, the optimistic postmillennialism of Daniel Whitby and other seventeenth commentators was the prevailing view among Christians turned out to be well founded.

This does not mean that there were no warnings of apostasy by those who held to optimistic postmillennialism.My own view has been that, as the age draws to a close, we will see an increase in both revival and apostasy, and it would seem to me that Edwards and his contemporaries also held a view of this kind.

As far as the quotation of relevant Scriptures is concerned, I didn't really think it was necessary for me to go into it at great length, especially since people like Daniel Whitby and Jonathan Edwards have already treated the subject very thoroughly in their own Biblical exegesis of these questions.

You later write that "Riss critiques Hanegraaff by saying that the wolves that pastors are to guard against 'are people, not manifestations.'This is far too simplistic and shallow. Pastors are to protect the sheep from false teachers AND false practices."

I would suggest that you delve into this question a little more deeply with a view to what the Scriptures actually say with respect to the metaphor of wolves in sheep's clothing. I think you'll find that the wolves about which the Scriptures are warning are always false prophets, and never false manifestations. Moreover, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, it is impossible to determine whether any given manifestation is inspired by God or by demonic powers. The issue, therefore, is not the manifestations and whether they should be allowed.The issue is whether people are turning from evil, demonstrating holy Christian character, and manifesting the fruit of the Spirit.

In your discussion of Acts 2:15 ("These men are not drunken, as ye suppose"), you say, "Riss accuses Hanegraaff of 'stretching things' and asks, 'Where is the world would these witnesses get the idea that the apostles were drunk if they were only speaking in other tongues?Why would such a thing occur to them?' There is a simple answer to Riss. The doubters did not understand the 'Babel' of languages being supernaturally spoken by disciples. Such a chorus of 'tongues' would sound to any who did not understand them like drunken revelry.The ones amazed are those who actually heard their own foreign tongue being spoken by the Galileans, a group not known for their linguistic skills." Then, regarding Ephesians 5:18, you say, "Again, Riss has an opposing view.He quotes Ephesians 5:18: 'Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.'He then states: 'This verse very clearly compares the effects of the Holy Spirit to the effects of alcohol.'My exegetical sympathies are in favor of Hanegraaff's concern. Surely the dominant tradition in the church is that Paul is contrasting the effects of the Spirit with that of alcohol, not comparing them."

The type of exegesis that would make a lot more sense to me would be that which is supplied, for example, in the NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT (Eerdmans, 1957). In the volume on Ephesians and Colossians by E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, it says of Ephesians 5:18, in part (p. 125), "The apostle paints the picture of a Pentecostal infilling of the Holy Spirit not less mirthful than any carnal indulgence, but infinitely purer and as salutary as the other was noxious," and, of Ephesians 5:19, "At first sight this juxtaposition seems a trifle incongruous; but on maturer reflection we remember how the disciples on the day of Pentecost were charged with drunkenness, albeit groundlessly. Signal manifestations of the Spirit in seasons of revival have not seldom been accompanied by phenomena easily confounded with physical intoxication; and scenes of this description Paul had doubtless witnessed. The 'gift of tongues' itself had features that might be stigmatized as delirium (I Cor. 14:23). Are they in quest of a sober enlivenment? Let them seek a baptism from on high, an ecstasy charged with divine exhilaration, a heaven-born rapture to which the lookers-on might be utter strangers."

E. K. Simpson, the man who wrote this, was educated at Oxford University from 1892 until 1896, and was a scholar of Puritanism. Because he was familiar with the phenomena of revival which became evident among the Puritans, he knew, as he says here, that "signal manifestations of the Spirit in seasons of revival have not seldom been accompanied by phenomena easily confounded with physical intoxication."But we, at the close of the twentieth century, have increasingly lost touch with what actually happens during times of awakening.We no longer read books such as George Lavington's, THE ENTHUSIASM OF METHODISTS AND PAPISTS COMPARED, 2d ed. (London: Printed for J. and P. Knapton in Ludgate-Street, 1749), which says in vol. 2, pp. 72-73:

I don't remember any of these laughing-fits among Papists. But they were very common among the French Prophets in their agitations. Mr. Aubrey, in his MISCELLANIES (Page 117), relates the same thing of Oliver Cromwell. "Oliver, says he, had certainly this afflatus. One that was at the Battle of Dunbar told me that Oliver was carried on with a divine impulse: he did laugh so excessively as if he had been drunk. The same fit of laughter seized him just before the battle of Naseby."'Tis a question undecided, whether Oliver was more of the enthusiast, or the hypocrite: and I presume the fits are no proof of a good cause either in the protector or the Methodist."

Finally, you observe that in my response to Hank Hanegraaff's expression of incredulity about reports that Smith Wigglesworth raised someone from the dead, I replied that I knew of approximately twelve cases of resurrection from the dead in modern times, and you suggested that I should run these accounts by the reporters, and, failing that, I should do the Christian world a favor and provide evidence to CHRISTIANITY TODAY or to the JOURNAL published by CRI.

Since that time, I have become aware of further resurrections from the dead, especially through Bill Somers (of the New Wine List, which follows the current awakening), and, more recently in China as reported by indigenous workers associated with Dennis Balcombe, a missionary to China.

It is astonishing to me one would see the need to supply evidence for something of this kind to a Christian publication. If the Bible is true, then it would seem to me to be a matter of course that people would be raised from the dead by the power of Christ.

It would be surprising if this sort of thing did not happen from time to time. It also seems to me that if trustworthiness characterizes Christians, then their testimonies of such things should be considered trustworthy.

Reports of resurrections from the dead in the third world necessarily depend upon eyewitness testimony. If people are not willing to accept eyewitness testimony to such things, then why should they accept the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the Bible concerning the raising of Lazarus, or Dorcas, or, for that matter, of Jesus Christ from the dead?

I hope that this letter will provide you with some food for thought as you pursue your study of the Toronto Blessing. May God BLESS you, and PRESERVE you from opposing anything that He might be doing.

Most sincerely,

Richard M. Riss