Some Thoughts on the Toronto Blessing

Some Thoughts on the Toronto Blessing

These thoughts are expressed in the form of a letter written on 19^th March 1995

Dear [names withheld]

Thank you for the articles on the ‘Toronto Blessing’ and issues that are raised by this phenomenon.

I feel distinctly uneasy about the use of the term ‘Toronto Blessing’, and about the idea of a ‘movement’ spreading from the Airport Vineyard Church in Toronto. I cannot say anything sensible about what has gone on or is going on in Toronto or associated churches, having only heard rumours. I am aware, however, that there has been a wave of phenomena sweeping many and various churches in Britain, and that this has been labelled by some ‘the Toronto Blessing’. My own experience is of phenomena that have always arisen spontaneously, without contrivance, in a context of prayer and praise in which Jesus was being uplifted. From my perspective they have been local phenomena, quite separate from, but apparently similar to, other phenomena occurring elsewhere in the Church.

Movements within the Church can develop when groups of people give enthusiastic support for and promotion to certain teachings and practices which differ from those generally accepted. Such movements often arouse counter-movements which seek to oppose and nullify the effect of the original movement. Church history records many movements that have had a good effect, whose opponents have effectively opposed God himself, and many others that have led to heresy and apostasy. Even those that have been beneficial overall have sometimes not been without their bad points. For example while thanking God for the lives of Luther and Calvin, and the spiritual movements He brought about through them, we would not endorse all that these great men did or taught.

With this in mind there are two traps to beware of:

1) forming an opinion quickly from too narrow a perspective and insufficient evidence;

2) developing a general response that gives a blanket endorsement or condemnation without recognising the diversities that exist.

There is also one main principle that has to be followed meticulously: all evaluation has to be carried out by measuring what is taught and practised against the Word of God alone – not against someone else’s teaching, not against a particular heresy, not against popular opinion, not even against Church history (recent or distant) – but against the Scriptures. For example it may be tempting, but would be entirely wrong, to reject a particular practice or teaching merely because it is endorsed by someone whose theology we find suspect; the only grounds for rejection should be that it is in opposition to the Word of God.

With this basic principle as a reference point my approach to new movements (and co-ordinated reactions to such movements) is to assess them using a ten-point evaluation plan. This plan is essentially a sequence of questions, in the answering of which evidence will need to be acquired. In the absence of evidence we will have to keep an open mind about the answer to a question. If a movement is of God we would expect to see positive answers to these questions. If there are negative answers we would need to carefully consider whether these indicate that God’s hand is not at work or whether they are merely evidence of carnal responses on the part of His people.

TEN POINT EVALUATION PLAN

1. Is the Lord Jesus being uplifted, or is some other person or group of people being exalted?

2. Are people placing their faith in God, or are they relying on something or someone else?

3. Are people receiving salvation by grace, or are they trying to gain acceptance with God by self effort or some other means?

4. Is the cross central, or is there little evidence of repentance, self-denial and sacrifice?

5. Are people seeking to obey the Lord, or are they complacent about pleasing Him?

6. Is there a hungering and thirsting after God, or do people merely seek to gratify themselves?

7. Are people turning afresh to the Scriptures, or do they concentrate on the writings and sayings of men?

8. Are people praying alone and together, or does activity crowd out a devotional life?

9. Is there an expression of Christlike love resulting in the building up of God’s people, or is there rejection, exclusion or tearing down?

10. Does the power of the sovereign Holy Spirit bring people face-to-face with the living Lord Jesus, or do others get in His way and hinder true worship and witness?

Clearly many other questions might be asked, but I believe these are crucial. They assess the attitude and relationship people have to the Lord, to His Word and to His people. Most other issues are less important, and even if there are wrong practices or teachings they should eventually get straightened out as people respond in obedience to the Lord and His Word. In other words if the above areas are right then we should not condemn a movement on the basis of faults in less important areas. There may be practices we should challenge, or teaching we should correct; but overall condemnation would oppose the work of God.

I have to say at this point that I am disturbed by the readiness of some Christians to point the finger of condemnation at others in the Church, the manner in which they do this, and the easy way they dismiss what is going on as not being the work of God. Instead of commending what is good, correcting what is bad, and edifying in love there is very often blanket condemnation. They are talking, after all, of the Bride of Christ, the apple of His eye. Do they really have no fear of arousing His wrath?

Now I want to respond to the articles you so kindly sent. First of all I’d like to address Alan Morrison’s article ‘How the Toronto Blessing Came to Town’ from the November 1994 edition of the Evangelical Times.

Alan argues that the origins of a movement are an important factor to take into account when assessing whether it is of God. There is some merit in looking at origins. It can give valuable insights as to how and why a movement developed, but even so only by comparing its state now with the Word of God can we comment on its present spirituality. Alan actually goes well beyond my summary of his position in his final paragraph, when he states that, “the earthly ancestry of the ‘Toronto Blessing’ … provides a certain pointer to its dark spiritual origins.” His argument is that the historical origins of the movement should be used to judge whether what is presently taking place is of God. This is an interesting idea, but quite without any biblical foundation. On the contrary God is revealed in Scripture repeatedly as One who delights to rescue the wretched, sinful failures and transform them for His glory. Alan does appeal to a Bible passage in support of his idea (Matt 7:17-18), but this passage speaks of relationship to Christ, not historical origins – the one who is ‘in Christ’ now will bear Christ’s fruit. And the point Jesus is making is that we should look at the fruit to know what the roots are like, not vice versa! (The Intercessors for Britain article ‘The Root of the Matter’, Jan/Feb 1995, while otherwise helpful, similarly turns round what Jesus said, and bids us look at the roots to tell what the fruit is!) Thank God that our historical origins are not a valid indication of whether God is working in our lives today! I am not trying here to defend the so called ‘Toronto Blessing’, but to point out that the principle that Alan is using to evaluate it is not a biblical principle.

In this article Alan never seriously addresses the essential principle of measuring what is taught and practised against the Word of God. It is true that his stated intention is to consider historical origins, but assessment against the Scriptures is of such primary importance that its omission leaves the whole article without foundations. In one paragraph he does appeal to Acts 2:38 in order to argue that the approach to evangelism used by the Alpha Course “owes far more to the therapy groups of the Human Potential Movement than the biblical pattern,” but he fails to seriously address why he believes the Alpha Course is unbiblical. Even reading his own summary of the Alpha Course one cannot help notice the relationship it has to Acts 2:38, and he gives no reasons why he believes it to be “a none-too-subtle introduction into … the ‘Toronto Blessing’” to be opposed, rather than an introduction to salvation through faith in Jesus to be welcomed. From the article one has to conclude that his main opposition to the Alpha Course is its association (in his view) with the ‘Toronto Blessing’, and not because of a considered analysis from Scripture.

I am surprised that the Evangelical Times published this article: it proposes an unbiblical method of evaluation; it fails to address the need for serious biblical assessment; it is destructive rather than edifying; and finally it leaves the reader no clearer as to whether what is presently going on in churches across this land, loosely associated by some with a so-called ‘Toronto Blessing’, is evidence of a work of God.

I will try to deal with the other article by Alan Morrison, ‘Falling for the Lie’ (Evangelical Times, Oct 1994), more briefly (vain hope!). Some of what he gives is sound advice. On some issues, for example the question of ‘animal noises’, he is critical but without certain biblical foundation. When all is said we would do well to heed Alan’s own advice, that “if the Lord wills to fan the flames of genuine revival in a church, he will do so in His own way and in His own time.” Thankfully the Lord neither takes counsel from Toronto nor from Alan Morrison when deciding how to minister to His own children, and through them to the lost.

However there is one answer Alan gives which can be misinterpreted, with potentially damaging results. He says, “increased devotion, reform of one’s personal life, dedication to the faith and zeal for one’s Lord are not necessarily sure signs that the experience which produced them is of Christian origin.” Taking these words literally (and they appear to have been chosen with particular care) one has to conclude that he is right. But, increased devotion to God, reform of one’s personal life to conform more closely to the Word of God, dedication to the Christian faith, and zeal for the Lord Jesus Christ can only be produced by the work of the Spirit of God. There are many scriptures that make this very clear: Mark 3:22-30 (Satan does not oppose himself); Matt 7:16-20 (a bad tree cannot bear good fruit); 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Jn 4:2,15. Of course it is always possible for some to deceive us about their devotion, but nobody, not even Alan, is arguing in general that those who experience the so called ‘Toronto Blessing’ and as a result hunger for God, love His Word, and submit to Jesus as Lord, are pretending. Alan correctly says that the “sure sign that there has been a true work of the Holy Spirit in a person is if there is a heartfelt desire for uncompromised obedience to the will of God.” The real question which I ask, and which Alan studiously avoids, is how should we understand the unusual experiences that many claim to have had, which include manifestations of shaking, crying, laughing, roaring and collapsing, which do result in a heartfelt desire for uncompromised obedience to the will of God? The testimony you sent us is an example, and I could speak of others. Alan appears to be urging us and them to believe that they are ‘falling for the lie’. I find that shocking.

The article by Charles Price in Evangelism Today (February 1995) is another matter altogether, given his position and the influence he exercises. Much of what he says, including the first two paragraphs, is spot on. But having made the point so strongly that “discernment – a subjective sense of what is right or wrong, true or false, is no substitute for Scripture – an objective revelation of what is right or wrong, true or false” why does he go against this principle in his penultimate paragraph by effectively saying that in these days we will recognise truth and error by discernment? His suggestion is that “the only safe course open to us” is to be so spiritually mature and have such a close walk with the Lord that we will know when something is wrong. Well I have had two spiritually mature people, whose spiritual judgement and integrity I respect very much, tell me that something was from God (from the one) and not from God (from the other). Charles even compounds this error by saying “You will not always know what is wrong with it, but that is not the point”. Respectfully, it is exactly the point. If the only reason we believe something to be wrong is some inner sense, and we have no case to argue from Scripture, then we have no business pointing the finger of judgement. As an example, consider the contention between Peter and Paul over the issue of the integration of Gentiles into the Church (Galations 2:11-16). Some of the Christian Jews and even Barnabas followed Peter’s example in separating himself from the Gentiles. Barnabas, says Paul, was led astray. In this case, even as a mature Christian, his inner sense of what constituted correct behaviour did not help him. Just what had happened to Peter’s inner recognition of right and wrong we do not know! But Paul does not appeal to inner knowledge. He says, “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel I said to Peter …” His yardstick was ‘the truth of the gospel’, not ‘inner recognition’. I have no problem with us having an inner sense to help us distinguish between right and wrong. Thank God for it. But that should never be the method we use to define what is right and wrong, or (worse still) to pronounce judgement on others.

There is another issue in Charles’ article which is suspect. It is his argument that if something is true of Christ then it is legitimate for us, but on the other hand if Christ does not do something then “it has nothing to do with Christ or a manifestation of His Holy Spirit”. In one sense this is a truism – what Christ does is what the Spirit does and vice versa. And at a simple level it can be helpful to ask oneself, “What would Jesus do?” when facing a moral dilemma. But Charles is applying this, not to moral issues, but to “any spiritual phenomena”. The implication of what he is saying is that if there is no record of Christ behaving in a certain way then a believer cannot behave in that way under the power of the Holy Spirit. Even if this were right it would be impossible to apply it as a litmus test of spiritual phenomena as Charles suggests. The problem is we do not know all that Jesus did. But is it right? There are many spiritual phenomena recorded in the Acts of the Apostles that presumably did not happen to Christ nor were performed by him in His earthly ministry. For example, Peter, through the Holy Spirit, pronounced that Sapphira would be carried out dead. Nobody would claim that Jesus did anything like that in His earthly ministry, nor that we should desire to repeat it, but the point is it happened. Similarly, the disciples spoke in tongues, Saul of Tarsus fell to the ground and was struck blind, a building was shaken during a prayer meeting, Philip was transported by the Spirit, Peter fell into a trance and had a vision, Agabus tied his hands and feet with Paul’s belt. These were specific works of the Holy Spirit appropriate to particular people at particular times and places. They are not made authentic to us by any knowledge that Jesus was involved with similar phenomena during His earthly ministry.

I have respect for Charles Price, but this article does him no credit whatsoever and needs a serious re-write. I shouldn’t be surprised if he agreed with me.

My pastoral approach to phenomena of the kind reported as part of the so called ‘Toronto Blessing’ is as follows.

1. Never ask God for phenomena. Instead always seek and pray that Jesus be honoured and glorified. Guard against sensation seeking.

2. Be open to all that God wants to do in you and through you for His glory; open your heart and life and submit to Him - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. Do not be fearful of what God might do. He loves His children abundantly and will not do something harmful to them.

4. Never condemn or express disapproval of a brother or sister who has experienced phenomena; instead pray for them that they will receive all that God intends for them from the riches of His grace. Encourage them to focus on the Lord Jesus, not on the phenomena.

5. Rejoice with those who turn to the Lord, return to Him, or enter into a new appreciation of His love and grace. Pray for fruitfulness. Encourage them to pray, study the Scriptures, meet with God’s people, and share their testimony with others.

Finally there are particular questions that give rise to concern amongst Christians, and are touched on explicitly or implicitly in the articles you sent. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do have thoughts which may help.

1. Is it the case that these phenomena can be transferred from one church to another via visitors, and if so what is going on?

There seem to be fairly well documented cases of people visiting a church experiencing phenomena, and on return to their own church seeing much the same kind of thing happen there. I am quite clear that there is no such thing as a ‘spiritual virus’ that you can catch and thus infect other congregations of God’s people. It seems to me that there are three other possible explanations. (1) It might be a psychological effect, similar to crowd hysteria. This only makes sense if there is manipulation of some kind going on, which in most cases apparently does not happen. (2) It might be demonic. I’ll consider this under the next question. (3) It might be the work of God’s Holy Spirit. There are examples in the Acts of the Apostles of God’s Spirit coming upon folk, with accompanying phenomena, where God uses his people as instruments or channels (Acts 8:14-24; Acts 10:44-46; Acts 19:6). We should not be too surprised if God were to do something similar today (it may upset our favourite interpretation of some of these passages, but who are we to attempt to constrain God to conform to our own limited theological framework?) As I understand it, however, the interesting thing about the present wave of phenomena in the churches in Britain is their oftentimes spontaneity, and the absence of any human agency directing them.

2. If a church is seeking God and is praising and uplifting the name of Jesus, can it experience phenomena which come from the enemy and not from the Holy Spirit?

First it is clear that the enemy can counterfeit the work of God, and so can humans, so we should not be so foolish as to automatically assume phenomena are of God. Secondly it is clear that when God’s Kingdom confronts the kingdom of darkness in the life of an individual there can be demonic manifestations. The Scripture records this happening in the presence of Jesus during His earthly ministry, so we should not be surprised if it happens where the Lord is present with His people today as they worship Him. However the biblical accounts indicate that demonic manifestations of this kind are clearly evil, damaging to the individual, and accompanied by opposition to the Lord Jesus; they do not constrain people to honour Jesus, nor do they bring love, joy and peace (unless and until there is deliverance through the name of the Lord Jesus). Whilst bearing these two points in mind, there is a definite scriptural rule that applies when the people of God are worshipping Him in the name of Jesus and are seeking God’s grace upon their lives. Matt 7:7-11 and Luke 11:9-13 record Jesus’ categorical words that God’s children will not receive something evil when they ask for something good from their heavenly Father. On the basis of this I am confident that phenomena that occur to a believer who is uplifting the name of Jesus and is submitting to Him as Lord are not of the evil one. There is absolutely no biblical justification for the idea that by inviting the Holy Spirit to do His sovereign work in our midst, and being open to whatever God wants to do in and through His people, that we thereby open up a door of entrance to the enemy. I am horrified when people imply such things.

3. Can these phenomena happen to unbelievers?

I don’t have a clear idea of what is going on when these phenomena occur. My best understanding at present is that God is using them to jolt the individual into an awareness of His presence, to step in and disturb the normal, possibly complacent and indifferent, attitude with which he or she is approaching God. It is maybe a similar thing to that which the Lord did when He arrested Saul on the road to Damascus. If so then (1) there would be no obvious reason why it should only happen to believers (Saul was not a believer) and (2) the benefit that God desires to bestow will only be received as the recipient submits to the Lord and receives Him by faith. Saul, after all, was not converted by being struck down and blinded, but by having a revelation of the risen Lord Jesus and receiving Him by faith into his life. Experiencing a phenomenon does not change you in and of itself. God changes you as you receive His grace. The phenomenon may be His way of getting your attention. Now I am aware that this is limited, and does not adequately explain all that is going on, but it should be enough to make us wary of quick judgements based on superficial analysis.

Now, I have not spent alot of time refining all I have said. There may be many things that I would say differently on reflection, and some perhaps that I would omit and others I would add. On the condition then that it is understood that these are initial thoughts and not a definitive doctrinal position I have no objection at all to you sharing this with anyone else for whom you think it would be beneficial.

We appreciate so much your love and fellowship in the Lord Jesus, and want to tell you what a tremendous encouragement you are to us. May the Lord lift you up and support you in all the difficult times, may you rejoice in plenty of good times, and may His grace and peace be poured out on you in abundance!

With love in Jesus,

Steve Townsend