REFLEKS 6-1 2007

I nnhold
Forord 1

The Ecclesiology of Witness Lee 2

Geir Lie

UTGIVER
REFLEKS-Publishing Norsk fellesskapsbevegelse – med 16
fokus på opprinnelse og tidlige år
REDAKTØR Geir Lie
Geir Lie

ADRESSE The Prophetic Movement in Historical 46

Ravnkroken 60G Context
1254 Oslo
Paul L. King
TELEFON
97019629 Agnes Sanford: Apostle of Healing, 69
EPOST and First Theologian of the Charisma-
kontakt@refleks- tic Renewal
publishing.com William L. DeArteaga
HJEMMESIDE
www.refleks- Narrative-Rhetorical Aspects of Liter- 89
publishing.com
ary Hermeneutics
TRYKK Paul Elbert
E-dit

LØSSALGSPRIS
NOK 120,- / SEK 150,- /
DKK 115,- pr. nummer

BANKGIRO
0539 11 57539 (N)
8431-9 53001 932-2 (S)
4563 74 1045 (DK)

ISSN: 1502-9700

MANUS:
Redaktør vil bistå med
ferdig dokumentmal i
Word format. Manus
leveres på diskett. Noter
skrives som fotnoter.

Signerte artikler gir ikke

nødvendigvis uttrykk for
redaksjonens syn.
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Forord
Refleks har i 2007 kun utkommet med ett nummer, og som i 2006 fokuserer flere
av artiklene på ekklesiologi. Første artikkel, om Witness Lees menighetsforståel-
se, er en engelskspråklig versjon, klippet fra en tidligere publisert artikkel om
Watchman Nee og etterkommeren Witness Lees ekklesiologiske forståelse. Den-
ne etterfølges av en historisk presentasjon av norske menighets- og fellesskaps-
grupper som på en særskilt måte har vektlagt gjenreisning av såkalt nytestament-
lig menighetsliv. Tidligere artikler over henholdsvis plymouthbrødrene, Watch-
man Nee/Witness Lee, T. Austin-Sparks, Lance Lambert, Poul Madsen, Charles
P. Schmitt, Gene Edwards og britisk Restorationism har alle hatt det til felles at
de ville (1) dokumentere miljøsegmenter som har stilt seg i spenningsfeltet mel-
lom Keswickbevegelsens antropologi og plymouthbrødrenes ekklesiologi og (2)
danne bakgrunn for en presentasjon av de norske fellesskapsgruppenes tilblivel-
seshistorie og ideologiske forankring.
Tredje artikkel, av Paul L. King, gir et oversiktsbilde over den såkalt profetiske
bevegelse. Heller ikke denne står helt på egne ben, men kan med fordel sees i
forlengelse av Kings artikkel i Refleks 5-1 (2006), om den såkalt apostolske be-
vegelse som i stor grad overlapper førstnevnte bevegelse.
Fjerde artikkel, av William DeArteaga, presenterer Agnes Sanford, en viktig for-
løper for den karismatiske fornyelsen i USA og dessuten sannsynligvis den vik-
tigste premissleverandøren for understrømninger innen den karismatiske bevegel-
se som på en særskilt måte har vektlagt såkalt indre helbredelse.
Siste artikkel, av Paul Elbert, søker, med blant annet dekonstruktuvistiske herme-
neutikere som samtalepartnere, å tilrettelegge en pinseorientert kunnskapsteori.
God lesning!

1
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Witness Lee (1905-97) and his ‘Local Church’ movement have never attained
numerical significance. As a western researcher, what fascinates me most about
this missionary movement is the fact that it is non-western in origin. True
enough, their missionary emphasis is not primarily on the salvation of ‘souls’, but
on the oneness of the Body of Christ expressed locally through churches un-
tainted by doctrinal ‘sectarianism’. The ground of the church, they claim, is
‘based [entirely] on locality’ – not on doctrine or other ‘man-made’ methods: “A
New Testament church is the meeting together for worship, prayer, fellowship,
and mutual edification, of all the people of God in a given locality, on the ground
that they are Christians.”1 According to their logic, a church established on doc-
trinal grounds – e.g. on the immersion of believers in contradistinction to infant
baptism – is not a church at all, but a ‘man-made’ sect which a true believer
needs to abandon completely.
‘Local Church’ adherents are usually quite suspicious of Christians outside of
their own circle. (During a visit to Manila several years ago I contacted some
people I knew were part of this movement, and they were not even willing to tell
me when and where they came together as a church!) Although scattered refer-
ences to their history can be found both in their own written materials and in po-
lemical writings against them, no systematic history of the movement has ever
been written. A detailed history lies beyond my scope here, but I would like to
note some highlights in the movement’s early history in the U.S, and, as a Nor-
wegian living in Norway, provide some insights into the movement’s genesis
here in Scandinavia.

1
Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Church Life (Anaheim, California: Living Stream
Ministry, 1991), 77,

2
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Witness Lee
Lee (Li Chang-shou) grew up in Chefoo in northern China,2 was converted through
female evangelist Peace Wang in 19253 and soon joined a local Plymouth Brethren
assembly (Benjamin Newton group). That very same year4 he was introduced to the
ministry of Watchman Nee, first of all through the latter’s Present Testimony maga-
zine. 5 In 1933 he joined Nee’s work as his co-laborer.6 Just before the communist
take-over in 1950 there were approximately 1000 churches connected with Nee’s
ministry.7 In 1949 Lee was sent to Taiwan, where a church planting initiative had
commenced two years earlier. In fact, only about 200 believers on the entire island
considered themselves a part of Nee’s church planting efforts. A few months after
Lee’s arrival, however, this group had been augmented to some 800 believers.8
When Lee after four months of travelling within South East Asia returned to Taiwan

2
Witness Lee, History of the Church and the Local Churches (Anaheim, California: Liv-
ing Stream Ministry, 1991), 59.
3
Lee, History, 113; Witness Lee, Watchman Nee. A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the
Present Age (Anaheim, California: Living Stream Ministry, 1991), 284.
4
Angus Kinnear errs writing that Lee was introduced to Nee’s magazine two years later –
in 1927. (Angus Kinnear, Against the Tide [Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House, 1978],144.)
5
This was Nee’s first magazine and appeared in 1923. It was replaced by The Christian
appearing monthly from 1925. However, it ceased after two years and The Present Testi-
mony reappeared for seven additional years. Then (1934) both magazines were published,
together with a third magazine entitled The News of the Churches. (Lee, History, 61, 101-
102, 136.)
6
Lee, History, 35.
7
James Chen, The Passing of the Torch (Auburn, Maine: Christian Books Publishing
House, 1988), 4.
8
However, we need to keep in mind that at least 500 of these were mainland refugees who
already identified with Nee’s church building praxis. (Norman Howard Cliff, “The Life
and Theology of Watchman Nee.” M.Phil. thesis, Open University, 1983, 102.)

3
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

in March 1953, the work had grown additionally.9 He himself claims that the
churches grew from 500 to 20,000 between 1949 and 1955.10 A critical article from
Hong Kong, however, suggests that the membership rate in Taiwan included some
50,000 in 1955.11 According to this particular article, in 1952 Lee had started to train
future co-laborers, beginning with two individuals and having some 200 after one
year was completed. The movement experienced tremendous growth all over South-
east Asia, and particularly in Taiwan and in the Philippines where the churches num-
bered some 6,000 members in 1968.12

9
Tung Siu Kwan, “The Waves of the ‘Local Church’,” Bridge (Hong Kong), No. 57, Jan.-
Feb. 1993, 2. We have good reason to suspect that much of the recruiting took place
among people who were already believers: “Following the Chinese Communist occupa-
tion of mainland China, a large number of the Chinese Christians came to Taiwan to live.
Upon their first arrival, they found most of the churches on the island using Taiwanese.
They were unable to understand what the preachers were saying. However there was a
small number of the churches which used Mandarin. The Church Assembly Hall (Nee's
group), the True Jesus Church, and the chapel in the Y.M.C.A. which used Mandarin,
filled the gap. They were able to meet the religious requirements of many mainland Chris-
tians who at one time were literally a lost flock. On the mainland there were many de-
nominational churches which they could attend, but when they came to Taiwan, their mis-
sionary friends were unable to catch up with their movement and supply their spiritual
needs.” (Hallington K. Tong, Christianity in Taiwan. A History. [Taipei, Taiwan: China
Post, 1961], 110.)
10
Lee, History, 59. Jack Sparks writes in The Mind Benders (Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 2nd. ed.., 1979), 221: “Between 1949 and 1955 it appears that the size of the
Little Flock grew from 500 to 23.000 on the island.” The authenticity of this claim is veri-
fied by Hallington K. Tong, writing: “[...] 52 churches of the Church Assembly Hall lo-
cated in various places on the island, with a combined attendance of more than 20,000”
(Christianity in Taiwan, 113.). Also cf. Allan J. Swanson, Taiwan: Mainline versus Inde-
pendent Church Growth. A Study in Contrasts (South Pasadena, California: William Carey
Library, 1970), 190 ff.
11
Kwan, “The Waves of The ‘Local Church’,” 2.
12
Sparks, ibid, 222. Neither should the work in Hong Kong be ignored. It was started by
K.H. Weigh and Faithful Luke in 1937. They immediately initiated “open air meetings and
cottage meetings” as they understood that all Protestant denominations were negative
towards them. Luke later relocated to Singapore in order to pioneer a new work, and was
replaced by James Weigh who came from mainland China. Growth boomed significantly
after a visit by Nee and Lee in 1949, and by Nee again in 1950. According to a 1956 esti-
mate they then counted some 2,500 believers. (Cliff, ibid., 100-101.)

4
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Additional laborers sent out from mainland China

Lee, however, was not the first laborer sent out from mainland China. Simon Meek
(Miao Shou-hsun) had labored in the Philippines since 1931. And Stephen Kaung
(Chiang Sheo-tao), who was introduced to Nee’s meetings in Shanghai during the
latter’s high school years and who “joined the work” in 1935,13 ministered briefly
in Singapore14 before he via India had a narrow escape back to China as the Japa-
nese invaded Singapore. During the Sino-Japanese war he ministered in the city
of Chungking15 until 1949 as he was sent out to the Philippines16 where he re-
mained for three years.

The movement arrives in the U.S.

In 1952 Kaung arrived in the US visiting a small church fellowship in Hollis
(New York City), originally influenced by the the teachings of the British ‘Kes-
wickean’ T. Austin-Sparks.17 A certain Mr. Lind of Scandinavian ancestry, who
had formerly pastored a Swedish church in Minnesota, had established the church
fellowship in Hollis. At some point he was introduced to Austin-Sparks18 and
visited the latter’s Honor Oak assembly in London on several occasions. As the
missionary couple Thornton and Carol Stearns returned from China to the U.S.,
they were encouraged by Austin-Sparks to get in touch with Mr. Lind. And they

13
Stephen Kaung, “Life of Watchman Nee,” tape 2 in a series of 3.
14
Kinnear, ibid., 205. Daniel Tan seems to have been the first coworker being sent to Sin-
gapore, probably already during the 30s. (Kinnear, ibid, 181.).
15
Kinnear, ibid, 217.
16
After having sent his colaborer Simon Meek to the Philippines in 1931, Nee remained a
month in Manila en route to England via Singapore in 1937. The next year he sent Lucas
Wu to assist Meek in the work. After Witness Lee visited Manila in 1950 [1951?], the
recruitment of new members increased significantly. During Angus Kinnear’s visit in
1955, the latter estimated that the Manila church alone counted some 1,200 believers.
(Cliff, ibid., 98-99.)
17
For further information on Austin-Sparks, cf. Geir Lie, “T. Austin-Sparks – a brief in-
troduction.” Refleks 3-1 (2004): 48-52.
18
During a certain period of time Austin-Sparks visited the U.S. annually. Some of the
groups he had contact with included Lind’s group and the Hepzebah House (guesthouse
for missionaries) – both located in New York City.

5
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

soon decided to be a part of the church fellowship in Hollis.19 In fact, Watchman

Nee had become acquainted with the Stearns already back in 1931.20 Thornton,
who was a “Professor of Orthopedics in the Medical School” and ministered out
of the Presbyterian field in Tsinan (in the Shantung province),21 and then in
Shanghai,22 - later even as a church elder23 - contributed to the ‘Austin-Sparks
fellowship’ gradually receiving a more ‘Watchman Nee-perspective’. Bakht
Singh from India visited the church fellowship in 1960 and taught a similar mes-
sage to what they already were accustomed to.24
Stephen Kaung knew the Stearns before he arrived in the U.S. Lind had by now
passed away and the church fellowship only counted some 30-40 believers.
Nonetheless, Kaung decided to make his visit a permanent one and remained
until 1970.
In spite of his arrival to the U.S. in 1952, Witness Lee still claims that the first
expression of genuine ‘church life’ within the U.S. originated in San Francisco in
1958. Here a Chinese-speaking ‘Local Church’ assembly with connections to Lee’s
ministry in Taiwan was established. That very same year Lee visited the U.S. for the
first time and also came to New York, Los Angeles25 and, naturally, the church in
San Francisco. Lee returned to the U.S. in 1960 and was received among groups
who were familiar with English translations of Watchman Nee’s books. One of
these groups was the Navigators headquartered in Glen Erie, Colorado.26

19
Stephen Kaung, informal phone conversation dated April 15 1996.
20
Kinnear, ibid., 145-46.
21
Kinnear, ibid., 145.
22
Kinnear, ibid., 167.
23
Kinnear, ibid., 200-1.
24
For further information on Singh, cf. Daniel Smith, A Prophet of God: Bakht Singh of
India (Washington D.C.: International Students, Inc., 1959) and Bakht Singh, The Skill of
His Loving Hands (Bombay: Gospel Literature Service, n.d.).
25
Kaung used to recommend the church Westmoreland Chapel in Los Angeles to Chinese
people who arrived in the U.S desiring to settle down on the West Coast. In that respect it
is only natural that Witness Lee also sought out the city of Los Angeles.
26
Sparks, ibid., 223.

6
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Westmoreland Chapel
Prior to Lee’s first visit to the U.S. in 1958, a brother-in-law of Watchman Nee had
moved to Los Angeles and started to attend Westmoreland Chapel.27 The church had
befriended T. Austin-Sparks before their first pastor James R. Graham moved to
Taiwan where he established two Christian colleges. During the mid 50s, when Aus-
tin-Sparks visited them, he was asked whether he had somebody in the Honor Oak
fellowship who could lead them on ‘in the Lord’.28 He then sent them Charles John
Bacon Harrison (1901-67),29 a former Anglican vicar. The latter left London in 1957
and found his place among Westmoreland Chapel’s leading ‘brothers’.30 Several
Chinese families attended the assembly from 1957 to 1962 but “they never fully
merged into the identity of Westmorland [sic] Chapel.”31 Lee left Taiwan perma-
nently and moved to the city of Los Angeles in 1962.32 He also introduced himself to
the church, but as he insisted that Harrison should proclaim the assembly to be ‘The
Church in Los Angeles’ thereby signifying that he could not recognize the legiti-
macy of other Christian assemblies within the city, a schism was inevitable. Shortly
thereafter several of the church members – not only the Chinese – left Westmore-

27
In the early 40s about 100 individuals left “a certain large church in Los Angeles” based
on the issue of devorce-remarriage. The newly established group then contacted Dr. James
R. Graham, a ‘come outer’ who had recently severed ties with his own denomination ask-
ing him to be their pastor. (“Westmoreland Chapel,” upublished manuscript.)
28
“Westmoreland Chapel.”
29
Harrison was born and grew up as a missionary kid in India. After graduation from
Cambridge University with an M.A. in 1928, being ordained in the Anglican Church two
years previously, later serving as vicar in Christ Church, Bomley, Kent, he left the Angli-
can Church in 1935 becoming a member of Austin-Sparks’ church fellowship on Honor
Oak Road in London. (Josephine Taylor, “A Brief History,” unpublished manuscript,
dated August 1996.)
30
Taylor, ibid.
31
Sparks, ibid., 223. James Reetzke writes in “The Lord’s Recovery of Experiencing
Christ and Practicing the Church Life in Oneness” that Samuel Chang in 1959 “moved
from the church in Hong Kong to Los Angeles. He began to meet with our group and to
share with us concerning the ground of the church.” (http://www.lordsrecovery.org/ his-
tory/iv.html) This means that the theological basis was quite well prepared when Lee re-
turned permanently to Los Angeles in 1962.
32
Witness Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church (Anaheim, California: The Stream
Publishers, 1974), 184.

7
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

land Chapel and established ‘The Church in Los Angeles’.33 A critic of Lee, Jack
Sparks, writes:
An issue came up over Witness Lee himself. The Chinese faction sided with Lee,
while others from Westmorland [sic] opposed this faction. As a result, the group
split and in 1962 the divisive element from Westmorland [sic] Chapel, under Lee's
not-too-well-disguised leadership, “claimed the ground” in Los Angeles. The
movement was now fully underway in the United States.34

The Church in Los Angeles

Already back in 1963 the newly started church arranged its first yearly training –
i.e., several weeks of intense Bible teaching. Quite a few of the attendants came
from other parts of the nation but decided to relocate in order to be a part of Lee’s
work. During September-October 1969 some 200 newcomers made the church its
own. Lee was also represented in Texas through three small churches in Lub-
bock, Waco and Denton, respectively. That very same year, though, most of the
church decided to move to Houston where they established ‘The Church’ there.
Two years later some of them again relocated, this time to Dallas, while ‘The
Church in Austin’ came into existence in 1973.
The church planting endeavor in Houston probably served as a catalyst for Lee-
adherents within the North East part of the U.S who then decided to move to Ak-
ron, Ohio. Around the same time about 40 individuals left the Los Angeles
church for Atlanta, Georgia, and a similar sized group of people left for Chicago.

Witness Lee versus Stephen Kaung

Lee and Kaung had colaborated in the Far East. Their relationship was severed
around 1970, though. Although Kaung speaks approvingly of Nee’s ecclesiology

33
Taylor, ibid. On May 27 1962 some 20 believers met in Samuel Chang’s home as ‘the
church in Los Angeles.’ Lee was not present during this gathering, but was in Seattle.
However, he had intimate contact with the group and came from time to time down to Los
Angeles in order to provide teaching. On November 30 he moved permanently to Los
Angeles. (Reetzke, ibid.)
34
Sparks, ibid., 223.

8
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

(as it is expressed in the latter’s book The Normal Christian Church Life) he now
considers Lee to having become too extreme and exclusive.35
In contradistinction to Lee, Kaung had maintained good relations with various
church fellowships, and around 1970 he moved from New York City to Washington
D.C where he ministered among his fellow-believers until 1976. The tension be-
tween him and Lee was just about to surface, and in 1973 Lee had sent 16 people

35
One of Lee’s former ‘muskateers’, William T. Freeman, authored a polemical defense
for Lee’s ‘Local Church’ movement in 1981 - In Defense of Truth (A Reply of the Local
Churches to the Book "The God-Men") [Seattle: Northwest Christian Publications, Inc.,
1981]. This polemical work was primarily a response to Neil T. Duddy and The Spiritual
Counterfeits Project’s book The God-Men, An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local
Church (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1981). Freeman has since withdrawn
from Lee’s movement due to disagreement with “some of the present attitudes, emphases,
and practices of the local churches and the Living Stream Ministry.” (Freeman, letter to
the author, dated March 14 1996.) However, he still stands by his former defense of Lee,
who according to him, was “grossly misrepresented by various cult writers.” (In practice
the alleged misrepresentation came through the above mentioned book by Neil Duddy, in
addition to Jack Sparks, The Mind Benders (this book already being cited in previous
footnotes). The latter work was counterresponded to by Gene Ford, Who Is the Real Mind-
bender? (Anaheim, California: Gene Ford, 1977), Ron Kangas, Mind Bending or Mind
Renewing? (Anaheim, California: Gene Ford, 1977) and J. Gordon Melton, An Open Let-
ter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee and the God-Men Controversy (Santa Bar-
bara, California: Institute for the Study of American Religion, 1985). However, Lee still
chose to sue Duddy and Sparks, the result being that the publishers withdrew The Mind
Benders from the market while the author and publisher of The God-Men was sentenced to
pay almost 12 million USD. After Freeman’s leaving the ‘Local Church’ movement, he
departed from Seattle and moved to Scottsdale, Arizona. He has since relocated to Spo-
kane, Washington. (http://www.whitworth.edu/whitworthian/spring2005 /0222/news/ free-
man_index.htm)

9
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

(led by Bill Mallon) to New York City to live there.36 The former ‘Austin-Sparks-
fellowship’ was now formally connected to Witness Lee’s network. Some of Lee’s
followers relocated to Washington D.C., but the attempt to take over the church
there also did not succeed. Therefore, there are now two groups there, one with con-
nections to Kaung and another with connections to Lee. In 1976 Kaung himself
moved to Richmond, Virginia. He leads Christian Fellowship Publishers which
translates and publishes Watchman Nee’s books in English.37

The movement – a fringe group

The ‘Local Church’-movement38 is considered a fringe group, at best, by most
Christians within the U.S. Cal Beisner, Robert and Gretchen Passantino have this
to say:

36
As early as during the 1940s, Witness Lee had made preparation for evangelical work in
new geographical fields in China by relocating a representative amount of the Chefoo
church membership: “Groups of families, selected as to personnel and representing a suit-
able cross section of trades and professions - gardeners, shoemakers, teachers, nurses,
barbers - were chosen and carefully prepared for their venture. [...] All these gave them-
selves to the church, who supplied their travel expenses and three months’ living costs at
their destination. At the end of that period they were expected to support themselves in the
new setting.” (Kinnear, ibid., 230-1.) At a gathering Watchman Nee held for his colabor-
ers in 1948, it was decided to build further on Lee’s experiences from the early 1940s. It
was agreed to “concentrate fellow workers for ministry in regional centers until local
churches [were] fully established” (p. 232.). When the new church was an established fact,
it was time to send out “whole communities” in order to plant new churches in unreached
areas. The fact that this new praxis tended to conflict with their former view that the local
church and its elders were not subjugated under the ‘ministry gifts’ that were represented
within ‘the work’, was hardly ever touched upon.
37
Kaung, informal phone conversation, dated April 15 1996.
38
The term ‘Local Church’ is not recognized as a proper name among the church member-
ship.

10
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007
Problems between the Local Church and other Christians were slight and scattered
until 1974. In 1974, the churches following Lee began to proselytize much more
openly than before, and to make their disdain of “organized Christianity”
[Catholicism and Protestantism] much more plain. Church members in the Southern
California area began to disrupt other church’s services, and to call other Christians
members of “Babylon”. These practices soon spread to the other Local Churches.39
Let us also include a quotation from Witness Lee himself:
Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is without Christ.
They teach Christ’s name, but He is not there. Do you really believe that today the
living Lord Jesus is in the Protestant churches? Whether you believe it or not, the
Lord says that He is outside the door.40
Theological critiques against the movement have concentrated on their erroneous
trinitarian views, among other things. The Lutheran writer Robert Passantino has
identified these views with Sabellianism (“monarchianistic modalism”) and
tritheism. However, Passantino’s critique has been counterresponded to by Gene
Ford, a Lee-adherent:
We believe that God is three and has been eternally so. We also believe that God is
one. How this can be we make no attempt to explain. We simply believe it because
it is the clear teaching of the Word of God.41
Passantino has since responded to Ford’s counterresponse and claims, against the
latter, that the ‘Local Church’ movement at times teaches a logical form of mo-
dalism (“[that] claim[s] that God cannot be both Father and Son and Holy Spirit
at the same time and […] therefore say[s] that God was first the Father, became
the Son, and then became the Holy Spirit”) and at other times a non–logical form
of modalism (“[that] recognize[s] that often the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
spoken of at the same time. These modalists try to say that the Father, Son, and

39
Walter Martin, ed., The New Cults (Santa Ana: Vision House Publisher, 1980), 381.
Tung Siu-kwan writes in the article “The Waves of the ‘Local Church’” p. 4: “Parading in
the streets of Southern California, [Lee’s] group often printed “God hates Christianity” on
their T-shirts; they also burned banners with the word “religion” on them. On the other
side, they raised high “Jesus Christ is Lord!” banners and had their big drums imprinted
with “Jesus is Lord.” It is clear that they considered all other churches had degenerated
into “religion” and only they themselves “walked on the right path.”
40
The Stream Magazine, vol. 14, no. 4 (November 1976):. 12. Quoted from The New
Cults, 384.
41
Gene Ford, A Reply to the Tract Against Witness Lee and the Local Church (Anaheim,
California: Living Stream Ministry, 1976), 16.

11
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Holy Spirit somehow exist at the same time and yet are each other”). The non-
logical variant is identified by Passantino as Patripassianism:
Few Patripassians of the third and fourth centuries said much about the Holy Spirit;
one who did, Marcellus of Ancyra, taught the personal identity of the Spirit with the
Father and Son, just as [Witness] Lee does.42
However, critiques against the movement have not exclusively concentrated on
heterodox theology. In a 1988 pamphlet entitled Reconsideration of the Vision
which circulated within many of the ‘local churches’ Lee (identified as ‘Mr. X’)
was accused of financial irregularities. The anonymous publishers of the pam-
phlet also criticized Lee for having departed from the Bible on essential doctrines
(also having departed from the teachings of Nee), and also for having claimed
that
every age is only allowed to have one spiritual leader – with himself [Lee] being
that leader for today. [They] also question [Lee’s] behavior in several areas,
accusing him of being “puffed up,” of not disciplining his seriously erring “second
son” (identified by former church members as Phillip Lee), of improperly insulting
coworkers and elders, and of seeking to replace older and more spiritually mature
leaders who might call him to accountability with “arrogant” but loyal younger
followers.”43
Many within the movement were unhappy with Lee due to his “longterm failure
to deal with the ‘sinful’ behavior of his son Phillip. It is contended that ‘gross
immorality’ and other sins were committed by Phillip over a ten-year period,
with Witness Lee’s knowledge, and that Lee and his co-workers tolerated and
covered up this behavior.”44 The ever increasing dissatisfaction within the move-
ment resulted in a massive exodus of former participants where quite a few ‘local
churches’ (especially in Europe) severed their connection with Lee and his organ-
izational work. John So,45 who lives in Germany, on one occasion compared Lee
with the Japanese army which occupied the Philippines during the Second World
War (while Lee – according to So - “invaded the ecclesia in Anaheim,46 seized
and occupied it, and turned it into an ‘ecclesia of [Witness Lee]’.”) So also com-

42
Walter Martin, ed., The New Cults, 396.
43
Elliot Miller and William M. Alnor, “Turmoil in the ‘Local Church’.” Christian Re-
search Journal (Fall 1988): 5.
44
Miller and Alnor, ibid., 6.
45
So is Chinese by descent, but was born and grew up in the Philippines.
46
Witness Lee and his Living Stream Ministry moved from Los Angeles to Anaheim in
1974.

12
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

pared Lee with Jezebel, “the prophetess who killed all of God’s prophets to make
herself the only one to speak for God.”47

The ‘Local Church’ in Denmark

Witness Lee visited Denmark in 1957 as a speaker at Poul Madsen’s annual con-
vention at Nyborg Strand (on the island of Fyn). Another connection was through
the two Ghanaians Thomas Quai and Ransford Ackah, who attempted to promote
Lee’s movement after having been introduced to it within the U.S. Also the
American missionary Paul Gullans visited Denmark on a number of occasions
speaking on God’s ‘one and only church’. One additional connection was a
group of believers within Copenhagen who wanted to live out Watchman Nee’s
vision of the church as this vision was expressed in the latter’s book The Normal
Christian Church Life (translated into Danish as Bibelske menigheder).48
During the early 70s So was invited to hold meetings in Denmark by Kjestine
Jepsen, a former missionary to China. So also was introduced to the group in
Copenhagen. In 1977 he also got to know a few young families in Jylland who
had broken with the Lutheran Inner Mission and had been water baptized among
Pentecostal believers. This particular group soon organized as ‘the church’ in
Give. Due to their relationship with So they followed his example in severing
their relationship to Witness Lee and his organizational work during the late
80s.49

47
Tung Siu-kwan, “The Waves of the ‘Local Church’”, 7. It is interesting to note that So’s
wife and Albert Lim (Witness Lee's son-in-law) are brother and sister. No doubt, it made
the situation more complicated because of the personal relationships.
48
Eva Johansen writes in a letter to the author, dated January 27 1998: “[I have] person-
ally been involved – primarily because I from 1959 to 1961 – at Witness Lee’s invitation
participated in a 7 months’ training program for the local churches in Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Japan, the Philippines et.al. in Taipei and then participated in a gigantic evangelization
program in the Far East. Back in Copenhagen I got married to Marius Johansen, whom
had been an elder in [Kristent Fælleskab] for several years, but whom together with many
others, felt that they should publish a second Danish edition of Watchman Nee’s The
Normal Christian Church Life (now entitled Det normale Kristne Menighedsliv) and give
a stronger emphasis on the church needing to be expressed locally. This was the little
group in Copenhagen in 1970.”
49
Eva Johansen and Bjarne Lindberg, letter to the author, dated December 16 1997.

13
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

The ‘Local Church’ in Norw ay

Finn Østergaard from Denmark was introduced to the teachings of Witness Lee
in Give and relocated to Norway in 1983. At first he lived in Sollihøgda where he
gradually gathered people for private house meetings. During the first years he
was also active in the streets of Oslo distributing pamphlets by Witness Lee on
church life. Østergaard’s ‘work’ in Norway never became numerically signifi-
cant, and the house group disbanded several years ago. Østergaard feels this is
partly attributable to the schism between several of the churches in Germany and
Anaheim having had a negative effect on the ongoing work within Scandinavia.50
In the city of Oslo, Pilegrimsfolket, with Jan Egil Hafsahl at the head, has shown
a certain interest for Lee’s church-oriented literature. However, this has not led to
any formal connection with the ‘Local Church’ movement.51 Neither has the in-
fluence of a Norwegian couple, who was introduced to the movement in the U.S.,
succeeded in promoting the movement after moving back to their home country.

The ‘Local Church’ in Sw eden

In Sweden the movement took hold among certain believers connected to Hans
Erik Svensk, a former Baptist from Karlskrona and later active among the Open
Brethren. After having relocated to Klippan in Skåne, he was introduced to the
movement via Paul Gullans in 1971. Gullans himself had met the movement via
his two sons Mark and Steve.
Through Steve Gullans contact was initiated with John So, who had quit his
medical studies in Germany and moved to the U.S. in 1967-68 in order to partici-
pate in the Witness Lee kind of church life. Friends from Germany visited him in
1970 and then went back to their home country and established ‘the church in

50
“The Standing of the Church in Anaheim.” Taped transcript of a Christian meeting,
Aug. 28 1988. One of the participaters, Albert Knoch, said: “But, I must say that as I lis-
tened to the fellowship in the localities in Europe, I heard just about the same things. They
are asking: ‘Are we really the local church, with a general standing, open to every Chris-
tian in Oslo, Norway? Or are we a sect?’ They, like us, are concerned, because through
their practices over the past few years—and they were trying to follow what they consid-
ered the up-to-date, present moving of the Lord’—they found out that more and more they
were becoming a very special kind of ‘church’, not a local church (ie., in their meetings
they read only certain materials, etc.).”
51
Finn Østergaard, phone conversation, dated November 21 1997.

14
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Freiburg’. So returned to Germany in 1971. In 1973 the church relocated to

Frankfurt52 and three years later to Stuttgart.53
Hans Erik Svensk held open house meetings once a week. Together with several
of the people who regularly attended these meetings he participated in a confer-
ence in Stuttgart and was fascinated further. Most of the young people from his
house group, however, lost interest when they learned that women had to cover
their heads during the meetings.
Svensk’s family moved to Stockholm in 1980 where they today meet with some
30 believers. Svensk’s son-in-law, Sonny Young, is the most pronounced leader
among them. For many years the group had regular contact with ‘the saints’ in
Germany and Denmark, respectively. Contrary to them, the Swedish group has
chosen to maintain their connection to Lee’s organization in the U.S.54

52
“Die ‘Gemeinde’ in Frankfurt besteht noch nicht lang. Ein Teil der jetzigen Mitglieder
kommt aus Freiburg, wo sich seit durch 1970 durch den Einfluß eines Chinesen eine klei-
ne Gruppe zusammengefunden hatte. Um an einem zentralen Ort ein weiteres Betäti-
gungsfeld zu haben, zogen die etwa 40 Mitglieder seit Herbst 1973 alle nach Frankfurt.”
Ingrid Reimer, “Die ‘Ortsgemeinde’ nach Watchman Nee.” Materialdienst Aus der Evan-
gelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen der EKD 1975, 153.
53
Ingrid Reimer, “Die Gemeinde (Kirche) in Stuttgart.” Materialdienst Aus der Evange-
lischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen der EKD 1976, 243.
54
Sonny Youngs, phone conversation, dated June 11 1998.

15
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Mens den opprinnelige karismatiske bevegelse var en fornyelsesbevegelse innen

de historiske trossamfunn, har vi siden midt på 1980-tallet sett fremveksten av en
rekke karismatiske menighetsdannelser uten formell tilknytning til etablerte pin-
sesamfunn. I mange år ble ‘pentekostal’ kristendom i Norge først og fremst iden-
tifisert med pinsebevegelsen og De frie evangeliske forsamlinger. I dag inklude-
rer dette kirkelandskapet også Foursquare, Nardus, United Pentecostal Church og
Vineyard, samt en rekke frittstående lokalmenigheter. De fleste av de sistnevnte
har en historisk forankring i trosbevegelsen.
De færreste bevegelser oppstår i et historisk og læremessig vakuum, og den tidli-
ge trosbevegelse i Norge har delvis overlappende historikk med en annen ‘pente-
kostal-karismatisk’ tradisjon, nemlig en strømning som i større grad enn de øvri-
ge har betont såkalt nytestamentlig menighetsliv. Det er dennes historikk som i
det følgende vil bli gjenstand for mine betraktninger. Hans Hodne har i sin ho-
vedfagsavhandling fra 1999 fokusert på Kristent Fellesskaps-bevegelsen,1 mens
Anne Siri Kvia har foretatt et nærstudium av menigheten Kristen Tjeneste i Sta-
vanger.2
Som imidlertid denne artikkelen søker å dokumentere, dreier det seg i utgangs-
punktet om én bevegelse eller strømning som etter hvert har delt seg i minst to
ulike hovedvarianter. Til tross for – til tider – ulike aksentueringer innen de ulike
fløyene, har jeg valgt “fellesskapsbevegelsen” som overordnet betegnelse. Dette
er ikke en betegnelse som noen gang har vært i internt bruk. “Bevegelse” er her
forstått synonymt med “strømning” og forutsetter ingen fasttømret organisasjons-
struktur. Før “fellesskapsbevegelsens” tidlige historikk utfoldes, vil jeg imidlertid
presentere den britiske Restorationist-bevegelsen, som den norske strømningen
har sitt umiddelbare utspring i.

1
Hans Hodne, “Restaurasjonsteologi. En undersøkelse av restaurasjonsteologiens hoved-
innhold, historiske røtter og fremvekst, med særlig vekt på England og Norge.” Oslo: Det
teologiske Menighetsfakultet, 1999.
2
Anne Siri Kvia, “Tjeneste og fortjeneste: En religionshistorisk studie av menigheten
Kristen Tjeneste.” Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, 2005.

16
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Britisk Restorationism
I USA oppstod den karismatiske bevegelsen rundt 1959,3 og ryktene om denne
nådde Storbritannia rundt 1961. Tre år senere ble man vitne til en egen britisk
karismatisk fornyelsesbevegelse, i stor grad sentrert rundt daværende anglikansk
(senere ortodoks) prest Michael Harper og hans Fountain Trust stiftelse.4
Den britiske Restorationist-bevegelsen5 har imidlertid eldre røtter og er primært
en frukt av Arthur Wallis og David Lillies virksomhet på 1950- og 60-tallet. Wal-
lis hadde opprinnelig bakgrunn blant plymouthbrødrene, men var desillusjonert i
forhold til menighetens ekklesiologi. “I felt that all the Brethren talk about ‘as-
sembly life’ was much-ado-about nothing,” skrev han ved en senere anledning.6
Møtet med G.H. Lang i 1947, som til tross for sin plymouthbrødrebakgrunn ikke
bar preg av noe partisinn, ble en vekker. En av Langs pamfletter, Church Federa-
tion, overbeviste Wallis om at ekklesiologi faktisk var relevant og måtte tas på alvor.
På begynnelsen av 1950-tallet stiftet Wallis bekjentskap med Lillie, som også hadde
bakgrunn fra plymouthbrødrene, men som hadde blitt tvunget til å oppgi sitt enga-
sjement i den lokale plymouthforsamlingen på grunn av interessen for pinsevenne-
nes åndsdåpsopplevelse. Lillie opplevde for øvrig sin personlige pinseerfaring i
1949.7 Også han var fascinert av Lang, som han første gang hørte allerede i 1937.8
Møtet med sistnevnte innledet et livslangt vennskap, og Lillie ble en hengiven leser
av dennes bøker: “It was particularly Lang’s personal commitment to biblical Chris-
tianity and ecclesiology which stimulated my desire to see the recovery of some

3
Geir Lie, “Den karismatiske bevegelsen i USA – et historisk riss.” Refleks 4-1 (2005) s.
2-11.
4
Allan H. Anderson, “The Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements in Britain: An His-
torical Overview.” Refleks 3-1 (2004) s. 78-90.
5
For nærmere presentasjon av denne, se David Matthew, “Restorationism in British
Church Life from 1970.” Refleks 5-1 (2006) s. 34-49.
6
Arthur Wallis, “Springs of Restoration (1).” Restoration, juli-aug. 1980, s. 22.
7
Peter Dudley Hocken, Streams of Renewal. The Origins and Early Development of the
Charismatic Movement in Great Britain (Exeter, Devon: Paternoster Press, 1986) s. 30-31.
8
David Lillie, Restoration. Is this still on God's programme? (Devon: Kyrtonia Press,
(n.d.) s. 11.

17
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

semblance of authentic New Testament church life in my lifetime.”9 Lillie hevder

videre:
[Lang] became a kind of spiritual father to me although he wasn’t at all favourably
disposed to the modern Pentecostal movement, although he accepted doctrinally the
teaching that the ministry and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today, but he
wasn’t prepared to admit or recognize that this was working out practically in
Pentecostal circles.10
Med utgangspunkt i Langs ekklesiologi tolket Lillie sin egen og andres pinseerfa-
ring som nødvendig forutsetning for Guds gjenreisning av sant nytestamentlig
menighetsliv. Lillie hadde startet et lite felleskap utenfor Exeter, Devon. Veksten
var imidlertid beskjeden, og Lillie var foruroliget av at andre i felleskapet - til
tross for deres nød for nytestamentlig menighetsorden - hadde lite syn for
“anything beyond the local scene.” Lillie ønsket kontakt med flere som delte det
syn for menigheten som hadde blitt tegnet gjennom Langs mange bøker. Kort tid
deretter traff han Wallis, Denis Clark og Campbell McAlpine, alle med tidligere
plymouthbrødretilknytning.11
Wallis første møte med karismatiske åndsmanifestasjoner skjedde i Lillies gruppe
i Exeter. Et dypt vennskap utviklet seg mellom Wallis og Lillie, og de ble enige
om å kalle sammen til en tre dagers lederkonferanse i mai 1958. Denne samlet 15
deltakere til temaet ‘An Enquiry into the New Testament concerning the Church
of Jesus Christ; its purity, power, pattern and programme, in the context of To-
day’. Nærmere 40 ledere kom sammen til en ny konferanse i 1961 - denne med titte-
len ‘The Divine Purpose in the Institution of the Church’. Ved neste samling året
etter var antallet fordoblet.12
I 1971 inviterte Wallis til enda en konferanse, denne gang for å drøfte eskjatolo-
giske spørsmål. Han var nemlig overbevist om at “not only was Christ soon re-
turning to earth to reign, but that He wanted to establish the foundations of His
Kingdom before He arrived.”13 Den første samlingen ble avholdt i februar 1972 og
bestod av Wallis, Peter Lyne, Bryn Jones, David Mansell, Graham Perrins og Hugh

9
Lillie, ibid.
10
Peter Dudley Hocken, intervju med David Lillie, 31. okt. 1981. Sitert i Hocken, Streams
of Renewal s. 31.
11
Ibid., s. 12.
12
Lillie, Restoration, s. 13; Wallis, “Springs of Restoration (1),” s. 23.
13
Andrew Walker, Restoring the Kingdom. The Radical Sects of the House Church
Movement (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985) s. 67.

18
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Thompson. Etter Jones ‘profeti’ “Seven shall be your number, and thrice you shall
meet,” ble det etter mye dissens besluttet også å trekke inn John Noble. Etter tre
samlinger ble den lille kretsen – “the magnificent seven”, som de spøkefult refererte
til seg selv som, utvidet til “the fabulous fourteen.”14
In the first meetings of the seven, what began to emerge as they prayed and fasted
together was a strong sense of mutual destiny. As they looked around and saw each
other and recognized the work they had already achieved, they became convinced -
under numerous promptings of personal prophecies - that they were already
exercising apostolic and prophetic functions. Their recognition of function became
the way leadership emerged.15
Den gjensidige anerkjennelse av hverandres respektive ‘tjenester’ var imidlertid
ikke eksklusivt basert på subjektive ‘profetord’ som ble uttalt over sidemannen.
Man mente også å ha en forankring i Bibelen, primært i Efeserbrevets kapittel 4
og versene 11-12.
Etter hvert begynte uavhengige ‘house churches’ å knytte seg opp mot det selvut-
nevnte lederskapet. Walker skriver:
By 1974, the self-selection [...] of the ‘fabulous fourteen’ led to the establishment of
a charismatically ordained leadership. This leadership was legitimated by an appeal
to members to recognize the de facto leadership that had already emerged. Bryn
Jones, for example, is an apostle, so the argument went, because he acts like an
apostle. Furthermore, house church members were told, the Holy Spirit who had
separated Barnabas and Saul in the Acts of the Apostles, was the same Spirit who
had separated the fourteen to be leaders of the restored kingdom.16 This truth was
confirmed for the leaders by the inner testimony of personal conviction, and the
outward seal of prophetic utterance. In a sense, the ‘fabulous fourteen’ had ordained
each other not in any formal ceremony, but by mutual recognition of ministry,
prophecy, and the laying on of hands.17

Norsk fellesskapsbevegelse
Utfoldelsen av historikken i Norge berører en rekke personer som er delvis influ-
ert av de samme utenlandske premissleverandørene og som delvis virker sammen
og delvis på hver sin kant. Flere av disse vil bli nærmere presentert under egne

14
De nyrekrutterte bestod av George Tarleton, Gerald Coates, Barney Coombs, Maurice
Smith, Ian McCullogh, John MacLaughlan og Campbell McAlpine. (Walker s. 69.)
15
Walker s. 68.
16
Uttrykket “restored kingdom” er nok Walkers konstruksjon, men på innholdsnivå synes
beretningen pålitelig gjengitt.
17
Walker s. 70.

19
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

underoverskrifter for så igjen å trekkes inn på et senere tidspunkt i artikkelen i

den grad interaksjon med andre norske lederskikkelser er relevant for den videre
historieprogresjonen.

Tore Lende og Erling Thu

En sentral skikkelse innenfor det som skulle utvikle seg til norsk fellesskapsbe-
vegelse, er Tore Lende (f. 1945). Til tross for bevisstgjøringen om at han ønsket å
leve som en kristen allerede under konfirmasjonsoverhøringen i 1959, karakteri-
serer han seg selv som en grubler som i flere år slet med ‘frelsesvissheten’. Dette
til tross - han leste ivrig både i Bibelen og kristne oppbyggelsesbøker. Grunnleg-
ger av Nettverkskirken i Oslo, Tor Undheim, minnes den gjensidig innbyrdes
åndelige berikelsen mellom hans far, som var leder for ungdomsforeningen innen
Indremisjonen på Undheim, og Lende, hvor de delte med hverandre av nyoppda-
gede bøker/tidskrifter eller prekenopptak på lydbånd.18 Lende selv opplevde seg i
ettertid som katalysator for en karismatisk vekkelse i bedehusets ungdomsfore-
ning på Undheim. Han fikk tak i litteratur om ‘åndsdåp’ og tok med seg ung-
dommene på møter i ikke-luthersk regi, blant annet i pinsemenigheten på Sand-
nes.
Innflytelsen via Adolf Bjerkreims bøker var stor. Indirekte gjennom plymouth-
brødrene ble det hamret inn i Lende at det ikke var frelse i vanndåpen. Selv om han
‘tilhørte statskirken’, ble han raskt mottakelig for den anti-kirkelige forkynnelsen av
det frie menighetssyn som preget deler av Vestlandske Indremisjonen. En viktig
impuls ble dessuten forkynneren Anton Eik, som en periode stod forholdsvis sentralt
i De Frie Evangeliske Forsamlinger. Eiks oppvurdering av Watchman Nees under-
visning om ‘korset’ og ‘blodet’ influerte også Lende, etter møtet med Eik i 1961.19

18
Tor Undheim, intervju, 02.11.94.
19
Eiks ‘kilder’ synes av varierende natur. I USA hørte han William M. Branham, og ble
påvirket av amerikanerens syn på kristen dåp i Jesu Kristi navn alene og på ‘kristen enhet’.
I 1967 dro han opp til Skien hvor han sammen med andre ledere besluttet seg for å distri-
buere en Branhamartikkel ved navn ‘Laodikeabudskapet’. Senere tok han kontakt med Per
H. Johansen i Skien og bad sistnevnte om å ta over distribusjonen. I samme perioden fikk
forøvrig Johansen kontakt med en tremenning av Eik, Levi Larsen, som også hadde blitt influ-
ert av Branham i løpet av flere års opphold i USA. Larsen oversatte Branhams taler, som Jo-
hansen distribuerte. Rundt 1969 begynte dessuten Johansen å arrangere årlige sommerstevner,
og det har etterhvert også blitt stiftet en del menigheter. På landsbasis samler man likefullt
ikke mer enn omlag 200 personer. (Per H. Johansen, intervju, 17.03.1996 og Levi Larsen,
intervju, 27.05.1996.)

20
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Etter en noe omflakkende tilværelse tok Lende rundt 1966 opp kontakten med
Erling Thu (f. 1942), som han hadde kjent siden gymnasdagene. Thus opprinne-
lige bakgrunn var innen Misjonssambandet, men han kom raskt med blant pinse-
vennene på Sandnes. Etter et 5 ukers bibelkurs i Oslo i 1962 hadde han umiddel-
bart begynt å reise som fulltids evangelist i pinsesammenheng. Fra begynnelsen
av spredte han Aril Edvardsens nyetablerte publikasjon Troens Bevis, og ble av
Edvardsen spurt om å komme til Sarons Dal for å hjelpe til i 1964. På nyåret i
1966 flyttet så familien Thu til Kvinesdal hvor han til å begynne med fikk ansvar
for innsamling av midler til bibelskolen og litteratursalg. Han besøkte alle som
abonnerte på Troens Bevis og holdt møter hovedsaklig i pinsemenigheter. Senere
ble oppgaven utvidet til også å omfatte støtte til Innfødt Evangelist Misjon.20
I forbindelse med at vennskapet mellom Thu og Lende ble tatt opp igjen rundt
1966, ble Lende gjort oppmerksom på noen aviser av Missionary and Soulwin-
ning Fellowship,21 en internasjonal evangeliseringsorganisasjon med utgangs-
punkt i California, USA, men med lokale sentra ulike steder i verden.22 I perioden
april-august 1968 deltok Lende på deres evangeliseringsskole i England. Parallelt
med dette hadde han også rukket en tur innom T. Austin-Sparks menighetsfelle-
skap på Honor Oak Road i London.23 Gjennom sin tidligere kontakt med Anton
Eik var han dessuten fortrolig med Watchman Nees litteratur, som stod sentralt i
undervisningen på skolen.24
Freelance-forkynneren Roger Forster ble invitert til sommerskolen for å holde
bibeltimer, og undervisningen appellerte til Lende. Han reiste hjem til Forster og
anmodet ham om å komme til Norge for å forkynne. Forster hadde vært i Norge
tidligere, men denne gang passet det ikke. På Lendes oppfordring anbefalte han

20
Thu, intervju, 9-10. april 1994.
21
Lende, intervju, 27.09.94.
22
L.C. Leeder, brev, 06.01.1995. Organisasjonen, som også kalles Christians In Action,
ble etablert i sept. 1957 av Lee og Lorraine Shelley. (Christians in Action. Daring to Go!
Since 1957, brosjyre.) 2. mars 1965 ankom misjonærekteparet Elgin og Dorothy Taylor
Storbritannia med utgangspunkt i London og en visjon om å “train Christians from many
nationalities and then to see their trainees return to their own lands as missionaries.”
(Christians in Action, brosjyre.)
23
For nærmere presentasjon av Austin-Sparks, se Geir Lie, “T. Austin-Sparks – a brief
introduction.” Refleks 3-1 (2004) s. 48-52.
For nærmere presentasjon av Nee, se Geir Lie, “Ekklesiologi på avveie - fra Watchman
24

Nee til Witness Lee.” Refleks 5-1 (2006) s. 7-34.

21
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

tre andre forkynnere som stod for en beslektet undervisning: Lance Lambert,25
Graham Perrins og Peter Lyne. Felles for alle tre var at de ikke var typiske ka-
rismatikere, men også hadde en læremessig forankring.26
Heller ikke Lambert, som forøvrig hadde besøkt Norge et titalls ganger allerede,
hadde anledning til å oppfylle Lendes forespørsel. Lende skrev da til ‘nyåndsdøpte’
Peter Lyne med forespørsel om han kunne komme til Norge. Lende sa seg villig til å
tolke, men kunne verken love penger, møter eller folk. Da Lende vendte tilbake til
Norge i september, dro han likefullt alene. Kort tid etter stoppet imidlertid Lyne opp
for en overskrift i en profan avis: ‘Consider Norway’. Overskriften syntes å tale til
ham, han tok kontakt med Lende og kom så til Stavanger i 1968. Ingen møter var
planlagt på forhånd, men Lende hadde flere venner som delte hans lengsel om kris-
ten fornyelse. I tillegg til noen husmøter, ble det også arrangert møter i det kristne
elevlaget ved lærerskolen i Stavanger. Lyne talte om den karismatiske vekkelsen
som gikk fram i de historiske kirkesamfunn - møtene var gjerne blant de første ka-
rismatiske møter i Norge. Flere reagerte positivt på forkynnelsen og ønsket forbønn.
Etter en del møter i distriktet rundt Stavanger bar det videre til Volda hvor de hadde
møte i det kristne elevlaget ved lærerskolen, et møte som imidlertid endte med mye
diskusjon og motstand. Den etterfølgende søndagen gikk Lende og Lyne på møte i
De Frie Evangeliske Forsamlinger. Siden Lyne var utenlandsk gjest, ble han bedt
om å holde et kvarters innlegg. Folk var henrykte over hva som ble sagt, og Knut
Selvaag - som var invitert som gjestepredikant for 2 uker - opplevde at Lyne var
sendt av Gud og var villig til å gi sin plass til Lyne. Lende og Lyne ble 2 uker i Vol-
da og hadde 6-8 møter i menigheten.27
Etter de vellykkede møtene ringte menighetens ledelse til De Frie Evangeliske For-
samlinger i Bergen for å høre om også de var interessert i å få besøk av den unge
britiske forkynneren. Møtene ble tolket av en ung mann ved navn Kåre Kristing (f.
1943),28 som senere skulle bli sentral i oppbygningen av norsk fellesskapsbevegelse.
Det er derfor naturlig å stanse opp ved ham.

25
For nærmere presentasjon av Lambert, se Geir Lie, “Lance Lambert – a brief introduc-
tion.” Refleks 4-2 (2005) s. 83-87.
26
Lende, intervju, 27.09.1994.
27
Lende, intervju, 27.09.1994.
28
Kristing, intervju, 16.11.1994.

22
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Kåre Kristing
Kristing er født og oppvokst i De Frie Evangeliske Forsamlinger i Bergen hvor faren
var ‘eldstebror’ i mange år. Kristing er utdannet ingeniør, og året etter første møte
med Peter Lyne var han ett år i England hvor han jobbet for Ford Motor Company
utenfor London. En helg han besøkte Peter Lyne, som på dette tidspunkt var pastor i
Black Horse Baptist Church i Bristol, arrangerte menigheten en møteserie om ‘pro-
fetiske budskap’ i vår tid. I tillegg til Lyne, hadde menigheten besøk av Graham
Perrins og Arthur Wallis. I løpet av denne konferansen hørte Kristing for første gang
en menighet som sang kollektivt ‘i tunger’. Den karismatiske uttrykksformen appel-
lerte. Han ble også “grepet av den frie avslappede holdningen mellom menneske-
ne.”29 Kristing ble forøvrig også introdusert for flere av Lynes personlige venner,
deriblant David Mansell og John Noble. Siden traff han andre britiske forkynnere
som deltok på weekender / seminarer i Norge tilrettelagt av Tore Lende, deriblant
Hugh Thompson, Gerald Coates, David Tomlinson, Morris Smith og David
Matthews fra Irland.
Kristing ble boende i England fram til slutten av 1970 og vendte tilbake til Bergen
og De Frie Evangeliske Forsamlinger. Lyne fortsatte å besøke menigheten med jev-
ne mellomrom fram til 1973 og fikk god respons på sin forkynnelse. Også John
Noble var innom flere ganger i denne perioden.
Kristing fikk låne noen lydbånd av Tore Lende med prekener over Efeserbrevet av
amerikaneren Charles P. Schmitt.30 Kristing ble oppslukt av budskapet, med fokus
på Guds angivelige planer for menneskene, og i særdeleshet for menigheten. Ved å
sammenligne situasjonen i De Frie Evangeliske Forsamlinger i Bergen med det nye
‘lys’ Kristing hadde fått over menigheten, ble det etterhvert umulig å fortsette i
førstnevnte:
Jeg stod igjen som et 100% menighetsbarn av den ‘rette’ forkynnelse og arvtaker fra
de store åndelige fedre. Jeg var drillet i alle typer menighetsaktiviteter. Jeg kunne
vitne, be høyt i forsamlingen, innlede møter. Nå, i løpet av kort tid ble det helt klart
for meg at jeg av alle ting ikke vandret i Ånden. Det hadde jeg ikke lært av noen.31
Med unntak av to eldre kvinner i menigheten fant ikke Kristing en eneste person
som kunne være åndelig modell. Dette skulle imidlertid snart endres. Via Peter
Lyne fikk Kristing høre at en misjonær fra Canada hadde slått seg ned litt nord

29
Kristing, vitnesbyrd.
30
For nærmere presentasjon av Schmitt, se Geir Lie, “Charles F. [sic!] Schmitt – a brief
introduction.” Refleks 5-1 (2006) s. 57-59.
31
Kristing, ibid.

23
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

for Bergen. Vedkommende skulle ha et tilsvarende syn på ‘menighet’ og ‘Guds

rike’ som de selv. Lyne anbefalte Kristing å ta kontakt. Olav Ryland - som man-
nen hette - ble invitert til å delta i en bønnegruppe Kristing hadde hjemme sam-
men med flere av ungdommene fra De Frie Evangeliske Forsamlinger i Bergen. I
løpet av kveldssamlingen bar Ryland fram et ‘profetisk budskap’ som gikk ut på
at forsamlinger og pastorer bygger sine egne ‘fjell’ som de måler opp mot hver-
andre. Ingen har imidlertid syn for ‘Guds fjell’ og Hans ønsker. Kristing opplev-
de umiddelbart at han selv og Ryland var ‘gitt til hverandre’ på en eller annen
måte. Selv opplevde han seg som et ‘får uten hyrde’ midt i menigheten. Han ble
overbevist om at Ryland kunne være hyrde og tilsynsmann for ham. Kristing var
allerede på dette tidspunkt begynt på en løsrivningsprosess ut av De Frie Evange-
liske Forsamlinger, en prosess som resulterte i et konkret brudd to år senere. Da
et barn i menigheten døde, til tross for at alle ‘eldstebrødrene’ hadde ‘fått et ord
fra Herren’ om at barnet skulle bli helbredet, var begeret fullt for Kristings del.
Han trakk seg fra all menighetsvirksomhet og ville ikke gå et skritt videre før han
var sikker på at Gud ledet ham:
Nå ville jeg lære Han å kjenne. Ikke som en bestefar langt vekke som man snakket
om - men som en far jeg kunne ha et personlig forhold til. Jeg ville presentere meg
for Han som et nytt ubrukt blankt papirark. Jeg ville lære Han å kjenne, uforstyrret
av tradisjon.32
Den videre progresjon innbefatter først en nærmere introduksjon av tidligere Ca-
nada misjonær Olav Ryland.

Olav Ryland
Ryland (f. 1929), som i ung alder flyttet til Canada hvor han etter en kristen om-
vendelse i 1956 forberedte seg til forkynnertjeneste, kom etter to kortere opphold
permanent tilbake til Norge i mai 1970. Ryland organiserte to studiegrupper på
Frekhaug utenfor Bergen og gjennomgikk Apostlenes Gjerninger med disse. Året
etter startet han ‘Åpen Bibel’ på Frekhaug, ifølge Ryland selv mer et motto enn
noen organisatorisk forening. To år senere grunnla han imidlertid Kristent Felles-
skap, som ble et uttrykk for det lokale menighetsfelleskapet på Frekhaug med 30
til 40 medlemmer.33
Ryland virket også som evangelist i ulike sammenhenger og stod rett som det var
i flere uker på ett sted på grunn av fornyelse/vekkelse. Gjennom bibelseminarer i

32
Kristing, nedskrevet vitnesbyrd (upublisert materiale).
33
I 1979 ble menighetsfelleskapet tilsluttet Det norske Misjonsforbund og tok navnet
Frekhaug Misjonsmenighet.

24
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Bergen kom han forøvrig også raskt i kontakt med kretsen av troende som identi-
fiserte seg opp mot Bernhard Dahls bønnegruppe på Nesttun.34 Gjennom Ryland
ble også Kristing introdusert for kretsen rundt Dahl. Ryland selv ble en slags ka-
talysator for mange unge som på en spesiell måte fikk en berøring av hva
Kristing karakteriserer “det spesielle Gud gjorde i 70-årene.” Ryland reiste selv
til England allerede i 1972 hvor han blant annet besøkte Lance Lamberts menig-
het utenfor London. Lambert deltok siden på en rekke av Rylands møter og bi-
belseminarer i Norge.

Noralv Askeland
En av de mange unge som ble sterkt influert av Ryland, er Noralv Askeland (f.
1952), som umiddelbart etter et åndelig vendepunkt i 14-års alderen opplevde
kallet til tjeneste aktualisert. Gjennom Rylands undervisning opplevde han å få
forståelse av hva som egentlig hadde skjedd da han ble ‘døpt i Den Hellige Ånd’
i 1968, denne opplevelsen forut for møtet med Ryland. I forlengelse av denne ble
han tidlig på 1970-tallet også introdusert for Lance Lambert, som regelmessig
besøkte Bernhard Dahls bønnegruppe fra 1963 til rundt på 1980-tallet. Dahls
gruppe bestod vesentlig av eldre mennesker, med en del unge møtte trofast opp
når Lambert besøkte byen. Askeland kjente Dahls sønn Kjell og kom etterhvert
inn blant de unge. De unge ble raskt tent for Lamberts undervisning om ‘menig-
heten’, mens de eldre var mer engstelig for å ta belastningen å etablere ny menig-
het. Omlag ti av de unge startet rundt 1973-74 en selvstendig bønnegruppe og
proklamerte denne som starten på en ny menighet.35 Lambert støttet dem. Alle

34
For nærmere presentasjon av Dahl og kretsen rundt ham, se Geir Lie, “Poul Madsen og
Kristent Fællesskab-bevegelsen i Danmark.” Refleks 5-1 (2006) s. 35-56.
35
Bernhard Dahls sønn, Arne, hevder imidlertid at ungdommene utviste en noe eksklusiv
holdning fra begynnelsen av hvor de også klart uttrykte at de var ‘Guds menighet i Ber-
gen’. Dette skjedde imidlertid i en periode hvor Dahls sønn ikke bodde i Bergen, men kun
var hjemme på korte besøk. (I perioden 1966-71 bodde han i Oslo hvor han tok teologisk
embetseksamen ved Menighetsfakultetet. Her gikk han regelmessig i Gilbert Horntvedts
bønnegruppe, som senere fikk navn Kristent Felleskap.) Han har imidlertid samtalt med
flere av de eldre som var med i den opprinnelige bønnegruppen, og mange av disse var
blitt både overrasket og skuffet. Flere av de eldre var blitt så pass skrøpelige at de ikke
maktet å være med i samme grad som tidligere. Likevel ville flere ha vært med i den nye
gruppen, men følte at de ikke ble regnet med og at ungdommene ikke hadde bruk for dem.
De eldre snakket aldri ut med ungdommene om sin skuffelse, og ungdommene var gjerne
så pass unge at de ikke var istand til på egen hånd å forstå hvordan de eldre opplevde det
nye. (Arne Dahl, intervju, 03.04.1995.)

25
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

ungdommene hadde røtter til Lambert og Ryland. Dette var i samme perioden
som Ryland startet menigheten Kristent Fellesskap på Frekhaug. Det var uklare
grenseoppganger mellom de ulike gruppene. Askeland hadde vært mest involvert
i Åpen Bibel hos Ryland før denne etablerte en egen menighet på Frekhaug.36
Gjennom Ryland kom Askeland i kontakt med Watchman Nees bøker. Gjennom
Lambert ble han dessuten introdusert for T. Austin-Sparks litteratur. Bøkene preget
etterhvert Askelands menighetssyn da det syntes å samsvare med Bibelens læreopp-
fatninger over samme tema. Askeland opplevde en stadig sterkere lengsel etter å se
menigheten ‘etter Guds bilde’.37
Allerede i 1964 - mens Ryland gikk første året ved Eston Full Gospel Bible School i
Canada, hadde han kommet over Watchman Nees litteratur.38 Ryland ble begeistret
over undervisningsbøkene, kanskje i særdeleshet de som omfattet ‘menigheten’ og
menighetsledelse. I 1973 fikk han kontakt med en av Nees tidligere medarbeidere,
kineseren Stephen Kaung. Ryland besøkte Kaung i 1975, og i desember 1976 brakte
Lambert Kaung til Bergen hvor Santalmisjonens lokaler ble lånt for anledningen.
Kåre Kristings bønnegruppe ble invitert til møtene hvor Kaung forkynte om ‘det
himmelske syn’ relatert til apostelen Paulus syn på vei til Damaskus. Bibeltimene
ble siden nedskrevet fra kassett og trykt gjennom Åpen Bibel på Frekhaug. Kaungs
ydmykhet, samt visjonen for Guds plan gjennom menigheten gjorde inntrykk. Det
samme inntrykket forsterket seg da Askeland besøkte kineseren i Richmond, Virgi-
nia i 1980. Askeland minnes at han drøftet med Lambert og Kaung om bønnegrup-
pen burde slå seg sammen med Kristings gruppe. Begge frarådet angivelig dette.
Rådet ble imidlertid ikke fulgt, de to bønnegruppene ble slått sammen rundt 1978-79
og talte til å begynne med rundt 45 personer.
Gjennom norskamerikaneren Ed Snekvik,39 som hadde hatt kontakt med Bernhard
Dahl, fikk Ryland også høre om den amerikanske forkynneren Gene Edwards.40

36
Askeland, intervju, 31.08.1994.
37
Askeland, intervju, 31.08.1994.
38
Bøkene ble ikke offisielt benyttet ved bibelskolen, men noen derfra hadde kommet over
dem via en ikke-trinitarisk pinsemenighet i St. Paul, Minnesota.
39
Snekviks foreldre var oppvokst i traktene rundt Kristiansund, men giftet seg i Seattle
hvor de ble boende. Snekvik ble aktiv i den lutherske kirken og sendte siden sine 2 sønner
og 1 datter til Pacific Lutheran University. Den eldste sønnen ble uteksaminert i 1965 og
fikk et åndelig gjennombrudd i denne perioden, dog ikke i en luthersk kontekst, men “off
campus by a group from Campus Crusade for Christ.” Sønnens omvendelse vekket Snek-
vik og førte til “my new walk with the Lord.” (Snekvik, brev, datert 25.09.1995.)

26
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Snekvik skjønte at Ryland var opptatt av ‘menighet’ og sendte fast over ett års tid en
rekke bøker og kassetter av Edwards. Ryland var ikke udelt begeistret. Spesielt Ed-
wards isolasjon i forhold til øvrige kristne grupper og fellesskap virket urovekkende.
Kåre Kristing hadde nettopp fått nyss om ukjente Snekviks besøk i Bergen da han
våren 1974 dro til California på forretningsreise. Kristing ble nysjerrig og bestemte
seg for å oppsøke det menighetsfelleskap i Santa Barbara hvor Snekvik var med. Ed
og Alice Snekvik hadde allerede hørt om Øivind Lundh i det karismatiske ung-
domsfellesskapet Guds Fred i Oslo, man aldri møtt ham. De trodde det var han
som kom, og møtte opp på flyplassen i Santa Barbara. Kristing bodde hos dem og
var rundt i felleskapet, tok del i møter og hilste på lederen Gene Edwards.
Kristing opplevde Edwards som “ganske spesiell. En sterk personlighet med au-
toritet.”41 Vel tilbake i Norge tok Kristing kontakt med Lundh, som heller ikke han
hadde møtt tidligere. Sistnevnte reiste siden over til Santa Barbara og bodde der med
familien i flere år.

Kontakten med England intensiveres

Det er fascinerende å følge Tore Lende i sin beskrivelse av sin kristne vandring.
Gjennom nabo Lars Salte, en av lederne på Bedehuset, kom han tidlig over bladet
Hjemmets venn som blant annet inkluderte artikler fra den amerikanske helbre-
delsesvekkelsen etter 2. verdenskrig.42 Allerede i 1961 begynte Lende å abonnere
på tidsskriftene til kjente forkynnere som Gordon Lindsay, T.L. Osborn og A.A.
Allen. Dette til tross, han talte ikke i tunger, bad ikke for syke og hadde ikke en-
gang ‘frelsesvisshet’. I 1964 overvar han et møte med Aril Edvardsen og gikk
også fram til forbønn. Da Edvardsen begynte å be for ham med tanke på ‘ånds-
dåp’, avbrøt Lende ham og sa at han ikke var ‘frelst’ en gang.
Fremdeles i 1965-66, mens han avtjente verneplikten i Bodø, til tross for at han
ivrig leste i Bibelen og tilbrakte daglig ½-1 time i bønn, opplevdes kristenlivet
‘tørt’. Lende var likevel en pådriver i å få andre til å søke Gud og kalte inn til
bønnemøter. Også overfor Erling Thu ble Lende en slags pådriver etter at de
gjenopptok kontakten rundt 1966. Lende introduserte ham for flere av de britiske
Restorationist-forkynnerne, blant annet Peter Lyne og Graham Perrins. Gjennom

40
For ytterligere opplysninger om Edwards, se Geir Lie, “Gene Edwards og hans menig-
hetsforståelse.” Refleks 5-2 (2006) s. 4-33.
41
Kristing, brev, datert 03.12.1995.
42
For nærmere presentasjon av denne, se Geir Lie, “Helbredelse ved tro: Fra Möttlingen
til Tulsa – et historisk overblikk.” Refleks 1-2 (2002) s. 3-19.

27
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Lende stiftet han også bekjentskap med det amerikanske tidsskriftet Voice in the
wilderness som i tillegg til karismatisk undervisningsstoff hadde menighetsrela-
terte artikler av blant annet Watchman Nee og DeVern F. Fromke. Parallelt med
dette ble Thu oppmerksom på argentineren Juan Carlos Ortiz og dennes under-
visning om menighetsfellesskap og cellegrupper.
Den menighetsbyggende litteraturen kom i en periode hvor Thu ble stadig mer
oppslukt av arbeidet med evangeliseringsteamene og hvor han så behovet for
‘ikke-individualistisk’ menighetsundervisning. Blant annet på grunn av lite venn-
skap og fellesskap innenfor de lokale menighetene, ble folk gjerne ‘frelst’, men
ikke ‘bevart’. Litteratur av amerikaneren E.W. Kenyon dannet bakgrunn for ‘in-
divid-undervisning’, men Watchman Nee dekket et annet behov. Thu forsøkte
derfor å kombinere det han opplevde var det beste fra begge.
Pinsemenighetenes vekkelsesmøter, som stort sett kun samlet troende, fungerte
dårlig. Vi må ‘ut til synderne’, mente Thu. Utsagnet ble misforstått, og ryktene
nådde ‘alle’ om at Thu angivelig mente at ‘menighetens tid var forbi’. På en pre-
dikantkonferanse tok Thoralf Gilbrant utgangspunkt i et tidligere Troens Bevis-
nummer som hadde et bilde av David Wulff som med håndspåleggelse innsatte
eldste i en nyetablert menighet på Malta, ikke bare etter paulinsk mønster, men i
‘apostolisk ånd’. Gilbrant angrep Sarons Dal for deres tro på apostler i vår tid,
samt deres ungdomsleder (Thu ledet Operasjon Ungdomsteam), som hevdet at
menighetens tid var forbi. Thu bad om ordet og erklærte at han aldri hadde ment
eller hevdet dette, og at han heller ikke kjente andre i Sarons Dal som hadde et
slikt syn.
Thus forklaring hjalp imidlertid ikke. Ett av spørsmålene fra salen gjaldt den nær
forestående felleskristne ungdomskonferansen som både Rune Brännström, Jon-
ny Noer, Johannes Facius, Thu og Tore Lende skulle delta på. Lende hadde en
husgruppe (bestående stort sett av karismatiske ‘statskirkefolk’) på Bryne, men
pinseforstanderen på stedet reiste seg og hevdet at Lende splittet pinsemenighe-
ten. Han hadde til og med hørt at man danset i Lendes gruppe! På spørsmål om
de ‘danset i Ånden’, hadde Lende svart nei. Han mente åpenbart at de kun danset
‘for Herren’, og ikke ‘i transe’.
Det kan synes som om Lende kun ble tatt opp på pinsevennenes predikantkonfe-
ranse for å så tvil om Thus menighetssyn, og det ble reist spørsmål om hvordan
han kunne samarbeide med Lende gjennom å delta på samme konferanse. Thu
svarte at konferansen i Oslo ville være felleskristelig, og at han selv ikke følte
ansvar for Lendes eventuelle menighetssyn, men at Lende for øvrig var en ‘god,
kristen bror’. Svaret vakte sterke reaksjoner både mot Thu og Sarons Dal. Ett av
resultatene ble at 10-15 av forkynnerne som på forhånd var positive til Sarons
Dal, underskrev et brev til Edvardsen hvor man ikke lenger ville støtte virksom-
heten om Thu fikk tillatelse til å fortsette som tidligere.

28
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Edvardsen var nølende til hvordan han skulle gripe saken an og viste Thu brevet.
Da Edvardsen ikke hadde vært tilstede på predikantkonferansen, redegjorde Thu
for hva som faktisk hadde skjedd, samtidig med at han kommuniserte at Edvard-
sen selv måtte ta en avgjørelse på hvordan den nye situasjonen skulle håndteres.
For Edvardsens del var Thus menighetssyn mindre vesentlig, det som betydde
noe var hva folk trodde Thu stod for. Edvardsen insisterte på at Thu skulle bryte
kontakten med Lende, noe Thu ikke var villig til. Edvardsen aksepterte tilslutt
Thus beslutning på den betingelsen at Thu ikke hadde noe formelt samarbeid
med Lende. Konferansen i Oslo ble avlyst. Thu måtte dessuten slutte som leder
av Operasjon Ungdomsteam da han ikke lenger skulle ha noen offentlig funksjon
i Sarons Dal før tilliten hos pinseforkynnerne var gjenopprettet. Han fikk i stedet
tilbud om en stilling på kontoret og godtok dette.
Neste halvår var preget av mye personaluro. Man hadde alltid stått med Edvard-
sen når det stormet rundt ham, mange mente det ville ha vært riktig å støtte Thu i
denne situasjonen. En annen sak, som gjerne var enda mer vesentlig, var at Ed-
vardsen kanskje ikke hadde sin styrke på det personlige mellom-menneskelige
plan, og mange i personalet følte seg dårlig behandlet. I denne perioden sluttet 14
av Edvardsens ansatte, derav nesten alle avdelingslederne. Også Thu opplevde
halvåret problematisk og sluttet på sommeren 1975.
Mens Thu jobbet i Sarons Dal, hadde Lende fått kontakt med de britiske Restora-
tionist-forkynnerne Bryn Jones og David Mansell. Høsten 1975 ble det arrangert
en pastorkonferanse i Josefvatnet i Troms hvor disse deltok;43 Lende inviterte
Thu og betalte billetten hans. Både undervisningen og den praktiske omsorgen
gjorde inntrykk. Thu ble så invitert til England. Også denne gangen betalte Lende
billetten. I løpet av omlag 14 dager tilbrakte Thu mye tid sammen med Jones,
som var til stor hjelp. Gjennom Jones og de menighetssammenhenger denne var
tilknyttet, opplevde Thu å se realisert i praksis noen av de kristne idealene som
han tidligere bare hadde drømt om og som for ham kun var teori.
I januar 1978 ble Thu spurt om å være hjelpeforstander i pinsemenigheten Zion,
Stavanger hvor Tom Erlandsen virket som pastor. Siden 1976 hadde Thu dratt
regelmessig på kristne sommerstevner i England og hadde utviklet et stadig tette-
re forhold til Bryn Jones, som dessuten hadde besøkt ham i Norge før Thu begyn-

43
Lende hadde tatt kontakt med Det norske Misjonsforbund mens han bodde i Bodø. I
forkant av pastorkonferansen i Josefvatnet oppsøkte de britiske forkynnerne daværende
landssekretær Ingulf Diesen på hans hjemmekontor hvor de viste fram noe litteratur og
samtidig bad om anbefaling for sitt første besøk til bl.a. Narvik og Tromsø. (Ingulf Diesen,
brev til artikkelforfatteren, datert 06.01.1995.)

29
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

te som hjelpeforstander. Erlandsen hadde også vært i England sammen med Thu
og opplevde at “mye var bra,” og refererte da til den gjensidige omsorgen de en-
keltkristne utøvde overfor hverandre. På høsten 1978 inviterte Erlandsen Bryn
Jones bror, Keri, og David Matthew til Zion. Menigheten var positivt innstilt til
deres budskap om vennskap og praktisk menighetsfellesskap. Erlandsen og Thu
prøvde å følge opp undervisningen, og det ble utarbeidet en plan for fornyelse av
menigheten. Man ville skape et levende fellesskap gjennom grupper i stedet for
kun å møtes på offentlige møter. Også Thu forkynte viktigheten av vennskap i
menigheten, men Thus og Erlandsens endringsprosess ble likefullt kun kommu-
nisert til menighetens eldsteråd.
Mens Thu jobbet i Zion tok han et initiativ overfor Erlandsen og Leif S. Jacobsen
om å samle karismatiske ledere som var positive til ‘fornyelse’. Den første ‘Oase-
samlingen’ ble holdt på Vasstuland (nær Geilo) og samlet 10-15 forkynnere. Thu
opplever i ettertid kun å ha hatt til hensikt at man skulle ha fellesskap, be sam-
men og være til gjensidig hjelp og styrke for hverandre. En gang Thu hadde be-
søk av Gwyn Daniel og Hugh Thompson, tok han dem med på en slik samling.
Begge disse fikk ordet og forkynte forpliktende vennskap. Gjennom disse sam-
lingene ble Thu mer kjent med Sverre Granlund, Tony Jessen og Vilhelm
Langemyr.
Da Thu sluttet i Zion sommeren 1980,44 ble det naturlig å dra til Farsund hvor
Jessen hadde vært pastor i Misjonsforbundet siden 1977. På dette tidspunktet
hadde både Thu, Jessen, Langemyr og Granlund (som allerede hadde flyttet til
Oppdal hvor han var pastor i baptistmenigheten) et formalisert forhold til Keri

44
Under et 1 måneders kurs – International Training Programme – hvor Thu deltok sam-
men med Sverre Granlund, ble Thu i enda større grad enn tidligere overbevist om at han
ønsket å stå for “den totale visjon om Guds rike og menighetsliv / menighetssyn. Samtidig
hadde han tvil om hvorvidt dette ville lykkes i Zion, Stavanger.” (Erling Thu, intervju,
datert 09.10.1994.)

30
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Jones. Thu hadde dessuten kontakt med flere yngre pastorer innen Misjonsfor-
45

bundet og fulgte opp disse gjennom undervisning / opplæring.46

Delvis inspirert av Nees ekklesiologi hadde Jessen undervist om “Jesu Kristi her-
redømme uttrykt gjennom tjenestene i menigheten.”47 I forlengelse av dette ble
det uttrykt et behov for et ‘styre’ i menigheten som uttrykte Jesu ‘herredømme’.
Mange av Farsundmenighetens medlemmer var også godt kjent med Nees littera-
tur, så det var ikke eksklusivt Jessens forkynnelse som satte i gang en prosess.
Under menighetens årsmøte i januar 1978 reiste en av menighetens medlemmer
seg da de skulle gå til valg av styret og proklamerte at man ikke nå, som tidligere,
skulle ‘velge’ styre, men at Gud ønsket ‘eldste’ til å lede i menigheten. Han pekte
ut tre personer i tillegg til Jessen. Det ble mange sterke reaksjoner på at Jessen
ikke uten videre avviste dette og i stedet holdt seg til dagsordenen. Menigheten
besluttet likevel å utsette valg av ‘eldsteråd’, og det gamle ‘eldsterådet’ ble sit-
tende inntil videre.
På grunn av den fastlåste situasjonen, ble misjonsforstander Ingulf Diesen invol-
vert (i og med at distriktsforstander Hans Kristian Aas var sykemeldt). Diesen
rådet menigheten til ikke å gjøre noe dramatisk, men å la endringene skje i sam-
svar med en demokratisk prosess i menigheten. På våren ble to av de tre utpekte
lederne demokratisk valgt og innsatt som menighetseldste (den tredje ville ikke)
med Misjonsforbundets velsignelse. Diesen var selv med og innsatte disse. I til-
legg ble det valgt et ‘tjenesteråd’ som skulle ta hånd om menighetens praktisk-
administrative ansvar. Samtidig med denne prosessen jobbet Det norske Misjons-
forbund sentralt med egne statutter og Forbundsstyret oppfordret i den forbindel-

45
I et brev til Kjell Haltorp, datert 30.04.1980, skriver Thu at han, Granlund, Jessen og
Vilhelm Langemyr har opplevd at “Herren har ført oss saman i eit paktsforhold til kva-
randre. […]Vi fire kjem til å møtast ofte i tida framover og vil du vera med i dette pakts-
forholdet er du hjearteleg [sic!] velkomen.” Bakgrunnen for Thus invitasjon var tidligere
sonderende samtaler mellom de to. Haltorp gikk likefullt aldri inn i noe formalisert pakts-
forhold til de øvrige. Til tross for en overveiende positiv tone, hvor han fremhever Thus
redelighet, opplever han sistnevnte som “for sterk,” noe som sannsynliggjør faren for “et
for sterkt menneskelig bindings forhold [sic!].” (Kjell Haltorp, brev til Erling Thu, datert
09.12.1980.) Brevene er gjengitt med tillatelse fra begge parter.
46
Disse kontaktene inkluderte bl.a. Dag Kristoffersen (pastor i misjonsmenigheten i Sil-
jan), Per Lunde (pastor i misjonsmenigheten på Kongsberg), Jon Ultvedt (pastor for ‘ma-
joritetsmenigheten’ etter en splittelse i De Frie Evangeliske Forsamlinger i Haugesund),
samt pinsemenigheten i Lillesand og et uformelt menighetsfellesskap i Snertingdal.
47
Tony Jessen, intervju datert 04.11.1994.

31
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

se menigheten i Farsund til å komme med forslag til eventuelle endringer av sta-
tuttene.
Idet Thu flyttet til Farsund i 1980, tok det ikke lang tid før han ble inkludert i
menighetens ‘eldsteråd’. Offisielt ble han innsatt av Kjell Haltorp og Sverre
Granlund, sammen med det allerede eksisterende ‘eldsterådet’ på tre personer.
Normalt sett skulle distriktsforstanderen ha deltatt ved en slik anledning. Thu var
imidlertid ikke godkjent som forkynner av Det norske Misjonsforbund, og på
høsten dro Jessen og Thu inn til hovedkontoret i Oslo for å få ordnet med forkyn-
nergodkjenning. Denne blie imidlertid ikke gitt – delvis skyldtes nok dette skep-
sis til at Thu i denne perioden ble lønnet fra Storbritannia, og dels ryktene fra
pinsebevegelsens predikantkonferanse hvor Thus kontakt med Tore Lende var
blitt debattert.
I forkant av påsken 1981 kom det til et internt skisma i Farsundmenigheten, og en
av de ledende eldste uttrykte mistillit til Thu. Han fikk med seg en av de øvrige i
‘eldsterådet’. Før ‘eldsterådet’ var blitt innsatt, hadde man imidlertid blitt enige
om å si fra til hverandre om noen ikke fungerte i oppgaven. Jessen oppfordret nå
den ‘ledende eldste’ om å trekke seg, all den stund han det siste året hadde vært
overlesset i mye arbeid utenfor menigheten og derfor ikke hadde ‘fungert’. Den-
ne oppfattet imidlertid oppfordringen som en avsettelse og mistenkte at Keri Jo-
nes stod bak. Også den andre ‘eldstebroren’ stilte nå sin plass til disposisjon, selv
om han ikke var blitt bedt om det. Begge disse tok nå kontakt med Diesen, og det
ble besluttet å holde et menighetsmøte hvor menigheten skulle avgjøre hvem de
hadde mest tillit til. Diesen deltok på menighetsmøtet, og det ble her lagt press på
Jessen om at han måtte bryte forbindelsen med Thu og Storbritannia. Jessen opp-
levde en reell lojalitetskonflikt men valgte å stå sammen med Thu. Mens Jessen
valgte å forlate menigheten, fikk Thu utmeldingsattest uten å ha bedt om det –
med andre ord en regulær utstøtelse. I ettertid skulle Jessen ha ønsket en lykkeli-
gere utgang av misjonsmenigheten. Problemet, slik han ser det, var at det skjedde
en gradvis bevisstgjøring i ham vedrørende den praktiske utformingen av ‘Guds
rike’ i menighetens liv, og til å begynne med hadde det ikke streifet ham at det
skulle kunne være umulig å leve ut ‘Guds rike’ innen et etablert kirkesamfunn
som Det norske Misjonsforbund. Jessen hadde også invitert Keri Jones til menig-
heten delvis utfra en feilaktig forståelse av hvor menigheten i Farsund stod vis-à-
vis Det norske Misjonsforbund sentralt. Han hadde fått inntrykk av at de hadde
hatt et mye løsere forhold til sitt eget kirkesamfunn enn hva som faktisk var til-
felle.
Sammen etablerte de en selvstendig menighet, Kristent Fellesskap, Farsund. Man
hadde et innbyrdes tett fellesskap hvor man hjalp hverandre praktisk, for eksem-
pel med dugnadsarbeid. Ingen var definert som den ledende, idet hovedprinsippet
var at man skulle ‘tjene’, det vil her si ta initiativ, etter det ‘Gud hadde gjort en
til.’ Og en leder var leder fordi han ledet. Etter hvert ble det klart for dem at det

32
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

var Thu som i praktisk ledet, det vil si var lederen. Han fortsatte derfor på fulltid,
mens Jessen tok arbeid utenfor menigheten. Menigheten opplevde imidlertid
massiv motstand fra det kristne miljøet i kommunen og la ned virksomheten på
høsten 1986 da man så lite frukt av flere års arbeid.48

Tore Lende versus Kristen Tjeneste

Vi vender igjen tilbake til Lende, norsk fellesskapsbevegelses katalysator. I løpet
av 1972 flyttet han fra Flekkefjord til Bryne. Han talte på det kristne elevlaget der
og noen få ble ‘åndsdøpte’. Gjennom Peter Lyne ble det så etablert kontakt med
amerikaneren Charles McHatton, som bodde hos Lende i to uker, og hvor det ble
avholdt husmøter hver eneste kveld. Om lag femti ungdommer på Bryne ble
‘åndsdøpte’, og mange vitnet om personlige helbredelser.
I løpet av høsten 1973 hadde Lendes husgruppe vokst til om lag tjue ‘overgitte’
personer. Man hadde igjen besøk fra England, og den lille gruppen ble spurt om
de ville underordne seg ham, hvilket alle, minus én, svarte bekreftende på. Hugh
Thompson innsatte så Lende til ‘eldste’.
I løpet av 1971-72 hadde det, viste det seg, pågått en utvikling i England som
Lende ikke var klar over. Underordning (‘submission’) ble nå et sentralt begrep:
‘Hvis du underordner deg meg, står jeg bak deg med min autoritet!’ Tidligere
hadde Lende på eget forgodtbefinnende spurt de ulike britiske forkynnerne om de
kunne komme over til Norge for å forkynne. Muligens i løpet av sommeren 1973
ble han så kalt over til England. Bakgrunnen synes å være at flere av forkynnerne
der så på seg selv som ‘apostler’. Både Lyne, Thompson og Perrins var frustrerte
- Lende kunne ikke bare kontakte dem hver for seg etter eget forgodtbefinnende,
men måtte forholde seg til én av dem. Lende fikk inntrykk av at Perrins følte at
Norge tilhørte ham og at han skulle være en slags ‘åndelig far’ for ham – en rela-
sjon Lende på ingen måte var fortrolig med. Han opplevde det nye møtet med de
britiske forkynnerne som høyst smertefullt. Han hadde imidlertid opplevd så mye
godt fra England at han ville opprettholde kontakten med ‘brødrene’. Perrins,
Lyne og Thompson besluttet derfor seg imellom at Thompson skulle være Len-
des ‘apostel’. Lende selv regnet alle tre som sine beste venner og syntes det var
kunstig å skulle forholde seg til kun én av disse. Han skjønte heller ikke teologien
bak, men var føyelig og godtok den nye praksisen. Dette innebar at Thompson
ved uenighet skulle ha det avgjørende ordet.

48
Alf van der Hagen, “Kroken på døra for Kristent Fellesskap.” Vårt Land 24. jan. 1987;
Aslaug Bisseberg, “Kristent Fellesskap bryter opp.” Aftenposten 11. feb. 1987.

33
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Etter hvert fikk Thompson anfektelser om hvorvidt han virkelig var ‘apostel’.
Han hadde også problemer med Lendes ‘sterke personlighet’ og karakteriserte
Lende som ‘uregjerlig’. Det ble besluttet at Lende trengte en ‘sterk apostel’ og
John Noble ble utnevnt – uten at Lende selv ble rådspurt. Noble og Lende reiste
imidlertid mye sammen i forkynnervirksomhet og ble gode venner. Problemene
tårnet seg likevel opp rundt 1978. Da ble Lende avsatt som ‘eldste’ i menigheten
på Bryne. Grunnlaget var generelt sett at han ikke ville underordne seg Noble.
Rent konkret hevdet dessuten Noble at Lende hadde lovt å avslutte sin salgsvirk-
somhet uten å overholde løftet. Lende påstår selv at han aldri lovet dette. Når de
britiske forkynnerne kom til Norge, var Lende fri til å la salgsvirksomheten ligge
og i stedet reise sammen med dem. Skulle han legge ned virksomheten, ville han
dog bli påført økonomiske tap. Om de britiske ‘brødrene’ forlangte at han skulle
slippe alt han hadde i hendene hver gang de kom, måtte de være villige til å ta det
økonomiske ansvaret, parerte Lende. Utfra Nobles paternalistiske synsvinkel var
det utvilsomt Lendes ve og vel som opptok ham. Lende passet nemlig ikke til å
drive forretning – det ville hindre hans ‘åndelige tjeneste’. Utfra Lendes ståsted
var ikke situasjonen like enkel: Han kunne ikke bare avslutte forretningen uten
videre uten å bli påført et økonomisk tap som han der og da ikke forstod hvordan
skulle løses. Det store problemet ble derfor Lendes ‘ulydighet’ mot et apostolisk
råd. Teorien var at når du bad om et råd, var du forpliktet til å følge det rådet –
spesielt om det var din ‘apostel’ som gav det.
Ulike versjoner verserer hva angår initieringen av menigheten Kristen Tjeneste.
Trygve Brekke hevder å ha vært inspirert av Lende og å ha startet opp en egen
husgruppe i Stavanger etter at han flyttet dit i 1975. Brekke hevder videre at Len-
des husfellesskap på Bryne gikk i oppløsning like etterpå. I etterkant av dette,
hevder han, flyttet flere fra det torpederte husfellesskapet til Stavanger hvor de nå
gikk inn i Brekkes husgruppe. Denne fikk i 1978 navnet Kristen Tjeneste og ble
ti år senere formalisert som menighet.49 Lende, derimot, mener at husfellesskapet
aldri ble nedlagt, men at man like fullt opplevde seg som i et slags vakuum etter
hans egen avsettelse som ‘eldste’. Brekke kom inn i sammenhengen og ble flere
år senere, av Kåre Kristing fra Bergen, innsatt som ny ‘eldste’.50

Kristne Oslo Vest og Kristne i Gjøvik

Også i Oslo fikk man tidlig kontakt med britiske Restorationist-miljøer. Tor og
Liv Thorhild Undheim, grunnleggere av Nettverkskirken (tidligere Kristne Oslo

49
Trygve Brekke, intervju, datert 30.01.1998.
50
Tore Lende, intervju, datert, 27.09.1994.

34
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Vest), flyttet i 1971 til Oslo for å ta fatt på sykepleierutdannelse ved Diakon-
hjemmet. Året etter tok Åsulf Kvammen, som hadde vært i forbindelse med Tore
Lende, kontakt med dem med forespørsel om de sammen skulle starte en bibel-
gruppe. Gruppa vokste etter hvert til et lite fellesskap.
Gjennom kontakten med Lende ble Kvammen introdusert for flere av de britiske
Restorationist-forkynnerne, deriblant John Noble. Flere av disse ble invitert til
Oslo hvor Kvammen, sammen med Hans Kristian Strand, til å begynne med var
pådriverne. John Noble besøkte Oslo på høsten 1974 og bodde en uke hos famili-
en Undheim. Selv om fellesskapet allerede bar preg av at kristenliv innebærer
noe langt mer enn møtevirksomhet, men hvor man spiste middag sammen og
pleiet det sosiale fellesskapet, ble alt dette forsterket gjennom Nobles besøk.
Til å begynne med hadde man lite innbyrdes kontakt med andre norske menighe-
ter som de britiske forkynnerne jobbet inn i. Dette endret seg imidlertid etter at
Kvammen forlot Oslo i 1975 etter å ha gjort seg ferdig med veterinærutdannelsen
og slo seg sammen med Lende. I 1980 flyttet så Hans Kristian Strand, sammen
med 10-15 andre personer fra fellesskapet, opp til en nyetablert gruppe på Gjø-
vik. Dermed hadde man også en naturlig tilknytning til disse.51
Fra 1980 til 1985 opplevde man en rimelig stor grad av innbyrdes tilhørighet
mellom de norske menighetene som stod i forbindelse med kretsen rundt John
Noble. Man begynte å arrangere konferanser og besøke hverandres menigheter
og samlet blant annet i underkant av 200 personer i Valle i Setesdal. Konferanse-
ne var nok med å forsterke identiteten av tilhørighet de norske menighetene seg
imellom (og avgrense dem i forhold til den øvrige norske frikirkestand).

51
Høsten 1979 kom Olav Slåtten, Anders Aanje og Gunnar Dehli (senere også Lars Ka-
pelrud) sammen på Gjøvik for å utgjøre et fellesskap som de rundt 1986 kalte Kristne i
Gjøvik. De hadde hatt kontakt med Oslo-fellesskapet gjennom flere år og var nok en del
influert derfra, men også fra Maria-søstrene. Gruppen rundt Hans Kristian Strand ble inn-
lemmet i det allerede eksisterende fellesskapet. Via Lars Bjerke (leder av menigheten
Kristne i Askim) ble det etablert kontakt mellom disse og Godtfred Erland i Trondheim
rundt 1985-86. Gradvis ble denne kontakten styrket gjennom diverse gjensidige besøk.
Begge parter opplevde dette positivt. Da Hans Kristian Strand gikk av som en av lederne i
Kristne i Gjøvik i oktober 1989, var én av grunnene at Erland hadde veldig sterke og klare
holdninger til hva han syntes ‘England’ og Noble representerte av illegitim kontroll i me-
nigheten. I kjølvannet av dette sluttet 10-15 mennesker i menigheten. Den andre halvpar-
ten, pluss noen nye mennesker, fortsatte et par år før de nedla Kristne i Gjøvik og istedet
etablerte Josvakirken med Olav Slåtten som pastor. (Hans Kristian Strand, intervju, da-
tert15.12.1994; Olav Slåtten, intervju, datert 10.02.1995.) Hans Kristian Strand er idag
med i et nytt husfellesskap på Gjøvik.

35
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Rundt 1990-91 opplevde Undheim at det var mindre å ‘hente’ fra England. Han
ville, naturlig nok, bevare vennskapet med de britiske forkynnerne, men opplevde
samtidig behovet for å stå på egne ben. Som menighet følte de behov for å knytte
seg mer opp til andre norske menigheter og menighetsledere. Før hadde det vært
rimelig å invitere en del av de britiske forkynnerne noen ganger i året. Nå ble det
mer slik at Undheim inviterte over i den grad han selv opplevde at / om menighe-
ten hadde behov for deres ‘tjeneste’.
I denne perioden ble det på en ny måte klart at man ikke bare utgjorde et forplik-
tende fellesskap, men at man var en selvstendig lokal menighet i Oslo. Det ble
naturlig å formalisere dette gjennom blant annet utmelding av Den norske Kirke,
annonsering av møtene hvor menigheten tok navnet Kristne Oslo Vest (senere
Nettverkskirken). Undheim begynte nå å kalle seg pastor og søkte bevisst kontakt
med andre kristne menighetsledere i andre norske sammenhenger. Han er frem-
deles menighetens pastor sammen med Gunnar Dehli som har en sidestilt funk-
sjon.

Lars Bjerke og Kristne i Askim

Bjerke har tidligere bakgrunn fra det luthersk-karismatiske Guds Fred-
fellesskapet tidlig på 1970-tallet. Her ble han første gang introdusert for norske
oversettelser av Watchman Nees bøker, utgitt på Ansgar og Logos forlag. Gjen-
nom kontakt med Johnny Noer og Johannes Facius, som drev Soli Deo Gloria (et
kristent arbeid for rusgiftbrukere) i København, ble Bjerke igjen gjort oppmerk-
som på Nee og hans litteratur.
Sammen med kona sluttet Bjerke i Guds Fred-fellesskapet i 1973. Etter ett års
opphold i Lillestrøm gikk ferden videre til Askim hvor de drev utadrettet evange-
lisering. Flere fra Lillestrøm flyttet med, og etter hvert hadde man om lag 6-7
personer som virket på heltid, lønnet gjennom frivillige gaver. De gikk til an-
skaffelse av et gammelt småbruk, Ihlen Gård, hvor det ble invitert til weekend-
samlinger. Arbeidet var organisert som stiftelse – Herren er nær-fellesskapet,
men foregikk i ‘statskirkens’ regi, idet blant annet menighetsrådet var represen-
tert i styret.
Herren er nær-fellesskapet ble imidlertid avviklet, og Ihlen Gård overdratt me-
nighetsrådet i samsvar med stiftelsens statutter etter at ekteparet Bjerke fikk teo-
logiske betenkeligheter med luthersk dåp og menighetsforståelse. De hadde tidli-
gere fått besøk (og blitt påvirket) av Øivind Lund (som de kjente fra Guds Fred-
perioden), som hadde hatt et kortere opphold i USA bak seg, men nå skulle over
for en betydelig lenger periode. Lundh fortalte om amerikaneren Gene Edwards
og dennes menighetsfellesskap i Isla Vista utenfor Los Angeles. Edwards bok
Our Mission gjorde et uutslettelig inntrykk, og familien Bjerke tilbrakte selv 3

36
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

måneder i Edwards menighetsfellesskap i 1977. Senere utgav Bjerke Our Mission

i norsk språkdrakt på sitt eget Tusenfryd-forlag.
I 1977 kjøpte Bjerke en grendeskole på Skiptvedt som ble pusset opp og innredet
til bokollektiv for det gryende husfellesskapet som hadde vokst fram rundt ekte-
paret. Siden flyttet man til Askim sentrum og tok navnet Kristne i Askim. De
hadde tidligere (gjennom Hans Kristian Strand og Herleik Nielsen i Oslo-
fellesskapet) blitt introdusert for John Noble, som besøkte Ihlen gård forut for
avviklingen. Dette igjen førte til at det ble knyttet kontakter med øvrige norske
fellesskapsgrupper som Noble aktivt jobbet inn i. I en 4-5 års periode arrangerte
Bjerke, sammen med blant annet Olav Slåtten, Hans Kristian Strand, Tor Und-
heim, Åsulf Kvammen og Tore Lende, en rekke felleskonferanser. Kristne i
Askim opplevde seg like fullt som outsider vis-a-vis de øvrige norske menighete-
ne Noble jobbet inn i, og kontakten avtok. Menigheten ble lagt ned i 1991.52

Kristent Fellesskap-bevegelsen

Kristent Fellesskap, Bergen

Kristent Fellesskap-bevegelsen, med utgangspunkt i lokalmenigheten i Bergen,
har en kompleks historikk, idet menighetens ledere og ideologiske premissleve-
reandører har trukket veksler på de forskjelligste strømninger og tradisjoner.
Sammenslåingen av Askelands og Kristings respektive bønnegrupper er allerede
nevnt. I perioden 1982-84 virket Askeland halv tid i menigheten (man hadde så
smått begynt å titulere virksomheten ‘menighet’) som fikk navnet Kristent Fel-
lesskap rundt 1982, etter inspirasjon fra Lance Lamberts Christian Fellowship i
London.
I 1981 ble Erling Thu invitert til Bergen, ikke for å forkynne, men for å svare på
spørsmål vedrørende seg selv og den strømning han definerte seg innenfor. Aske-
land opplevde en umiddelbart hjertekontakt med Thu som han mente Gud selv
hadde lagt til rette.
Askeland og Kristing var i utgangspunktet likestilte, selv om det hovedsakelig
hadde vært Askeland som forkynte. Thu, derimot, hadde ingen tro på en slik le-
derskapsmodell og mente at én måtte være leder blant lederne. Dette fremkalte en
intern prosess. Selv om det aldri ble uttrykt i menigheten som sådan, så nok
Kristing på seg selv, ifølge Askeland, som den mest naturlige lederen. Askeland
hadde i utgangspunktet ikke noe problem med det, men følte behov for en avkla-

52
Lars Bjerke, intervju, 24.03.1998.

37
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

ring med hensyn til hvem Kristing selv ville høre på. Ifølge Askeland kunne man
ikke utøve autoritet dersom man ikke først hadde lært å ‘stå under autoritet’.53
Etter møtet med Thu i 1981 ble menigheten introdusert for britiske Tony Ling
året etter. Ling avla flere besøk, og Askeland kjente en gradvis større lengsel etter
at menigheten i større grad skulle la seg betjene av den ‘apostoliske tjeneste’ som
Ling angivelig var knyttet opp mot. Mens Kristing forventet at ‘embetsgavene’ i
menigheten skulle vokse opp lokalt i Bergen, på mange måter løsrevet fra hva
som skjedde andre steder, mente Askeland at det var nødvendig ikke bare å opp-
rettholde kontakten med de britiske Restorationist-lederne, menighetens eventuelt
egne apostler burde også anerkjennes av ‘brødrene’ fra Storbritannia.
På Askelands spørsmål om hvem Kristing selv ville ‘stå under’ om han ønsket å
være leder for menigheten i Bergen, svarte Kristing (ifølge Askeland) at Noble
nok var for svak for ham. Dette sammenfalt mer eller mindre i tid med Askelands
invitasjon om å delta på en samling av ulike ‘apostoliske team’ (Inter Team Mee-
ting) i Oxford i 1983. Dette ble Askelands første møte med Keri Jones. Jones
besøkte Bergen første gang året etter. Kristing var i utgangspunktet positivt inn-
stilt til eventuelt å stå under waliserens tilsyn. Samtidig, mener Askeland, hadde
nok Kristing tatt mål av seg å være mannen som skulle samle de ulike norske
fellesskapsmenighetene man hadde uformell kontakt med (som Noble arbeidet
inn i). Disse var imidlertid reservert overfor Jones, og Kristing innså – fremdeles
ifølge Askeland –at det kunne bli vanskelig å fungere som koordinator for de
ulike menighetene om Jones ble ‘apostel’ for menigheten i Bergen. Askeland
hevder videre at et vel så stort problem for Kristing var at Thu var Jones kontakt-
person i Norge, idet Kristing angivelig så på seg selv som kalt til å lede arbeidet i
Norge. I september 1984 innkalte Kristing til et ekstraordinært møte med blant
annet Jones, Thu, Askeland og noen flere og hvor han uten forvarsel listet opp en
rekke punkter som burde diskvalifisere Thu fra ledervervet. Kritikken mot Thu
ble umiddelbart avvist av Jones. Få dager deretter besluttet Kristing seg for å

53
Som allerede nevnt, hadde Kristing på et langt tidligere tidspunkt stiftet bekjentskap
med flere av de britiske Restorationist-lederne. Rundt 1980 kom forøvrig både John Noble
og Hugh Thompson til Bergen for å besøke Kristing. Samme år (og noen år framover) ble
det arrangert uformelle ledersamlinger hvor bl.a. Askeland og Kristing, sammen med nor-
ske ledere i menigheter Noble hadde et særskilt ansvar overfor, deltok. Hensikten med
samlingene var imidlertid primært å ha fellesskap, og selv om man nok drøftet hva man
mente ‘Gud ønsket å gjøre’ i Norge som nasjon, hadde samlingene ingen organisatorisk
bindende myndighet. Ledersamlingene opphørte forøvrig etter bruddet mellom Askeland
og Kristing.

38
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

bryte forbindelsen med Jones. Han mente samtidig at Askeland og menigheten

for øvrig skulle følge hans eksempel.
Askeland kunne ikke støtte Kristing i dette. Jones selv ønsket ikke å gå inn i kon-
flikten, idet han var invitert til menigheten på et tidspunkt hvor denne hadde to
likestilte ledere. Menigheten måtte derfor selv finne ut hva den ønsket og ta stil-
ling til den interne konflikten. En måneds tid gikk med til interne drøftinger mel-
lom Kristing og Askeland før førstnevnte plutselig stod fram på et søndagsmøte
for å meddele menigheten at han og familien herved forlot menigheten. Askeland
opplevde budskapet forvirrende – på den ene siden anbefalte han menigheten å
holde seg til Askeland, på den andre siden gjorde han det klart at menighetens
fremtid var spolert. Resultatet ble at 5-6 personer fulgte Kristing ut av menighe-
ten mens de resterende (om lag 40 personer) forble med Askeland. Nyttårsaften
1984 gikk Kristing rundt og la brev i postkassen til 10-15 av personene i menig-
heten. I brevet advarte han mot å gå videre med Askeland. Etter 2-3 måneder
hadde de alle hatt nok tid til å evaluere situasjonen og måtte skjønne at ting bar
galt av sted.
Askeland tok nå ny kontakt med Jones og gjorde det klart at han ønsket både
hjelp og tilsyn. Ville Jones ta et apostolisk ansvar for menigheten i Bergen? Jones
svarte bekreftende på dette.
Det påfølgende året opplevde fellesskapet en fordobling av medlemstallet. Dette
ble sett på som en stadfestelse på at det var rett å stå under ‘apostolisk tilsyn’.
Siden har det vært jevn vekst som fremdeles pågår. Til å begynne med var det en
viss skepsis til Kristent Fellesskap fra de øvrige menighetene i Bergen, men As-
keland ble like fullt invitert til å bli med i byens Predikantring. Etter hvert har det
utviklet seg til et nært forhold til Reidar Paulsen, daværende pastor i Bergen Fri-
kirke, senere grunnlegger av og pastor i Kristkirken.
I 1990 ble Bergen Bibelskole startet. Helt fra starten fikk man elever også utenfor
Kristent Fellesskaps-menighetene, selv om nok de fleste var rektuttert fra egne
rekker. Mange av elevene er i dag menighetsledere.
Erling Thu flyttet til Bergen i 1992 for å delta i mer undervisning på bibelskolen
og for å kunne arbeide tettere sammen med Askeland. Thu ble også innsatt som
‘eldste’ i menigheten. I 1995 ble Askeland og Thu anerkjent som henholdsvis
‘apostel’ og ‘profet’ av det ‘apostoliske teamet’ de var tilknyttet i England. De
ble bedt for og ‘profetert over’ på Bibeluken med 5000 deltakere i Built Wells i
Wales samme år.
I 1996 flyttet menigheten inn i eget lokale i Møllendalsbakken 6. Her fortsatte
veksten. Dette var midt i den såkalte ‘Toronto-epoken’. Menigheten nøt nå stor
respekt blant de øvrige menighetene i byen og ble etter hvert en av pådriverne for
kristen enhet i byen.

39
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

I 2003 ble tre flokker plantet ut som selvstendige menigheter på Sotra, Nordhord-
land og Osterøy. På Sotra gikk gruppen Kristne på Sotra, som var startet av
Oddmund Ro, sammen med flere ‘cellegrupper’ med tilknytning til menigheten i
Bergen sammen om å starte Kristent Fellesskap på Sotra med Norleif Askeland
som ‘ledende eldste’. Menigheten har ‘cellegrupper’ i de tre kommunene Fjell,
Sund og Øygarden. I Nordhordland hadde det fra lang tid tilbake vært en liten
‘cellegruppe’ som hadde vokst til flere grupper. Morten og Sissel Gundersen flyt-
tet til Norhordland for å lede den nystartede menigheten. Menigheten er i nume-
risk vekst. På Osterøy, derimot, har menighetsplantingen ikke ført til umiddelbar
fremgang.
I 2004 overgav Noralv Askeland menighetsledelsen til Morten Askeland og Per
Arne Gjerde som ble innsatt som ‘eldste’ ved siden av Per Kristing og Erling
Thu. Askeland påbegynte nå et arbeid å Filippinene, men er delvis bosatt også i
Skien. Mellom 400 og 500 mennesker kommer regelmessig til gudstjenestene i
Bergen mens mellom 500 og 600 er med i ‘cellegruppene’ som nå er spredt ut
over hele byen. For tiden pågår et arbeid for å gjøre seg mer gjeldende i bydelene
og for å plante nye forsamlinger.

Kristent Fellesskap, Sortland

Menigheten ble etablert av Samuel Estdahl (f. 1953) og Knut Osland (f. 1959).
Estdahl var i utgangpunktet korpsleder for Frelsesarméen i Melbu, Vesterrålen.
Under denne perioden (1981) valgte han å fordype seg i en del av de menighets-
relaterte bøkene av Watchman Nee som han hadde kjøpt på et tidligere tidspunkt.
Kineserens undervisning om ‘menighet’, at ‘Kristi menighet’ bestod av alle tro-
ende på ett sted, appellerte og bidro til økt bevisstgjøring rundt nettopp dette. Når
man kom til et lite sted som Melbu hvor det ikke var flere troende totalt sett enn
at de kunne samles i hans egen stue, opplevdes det paradoksalt å skulle ivareta
interessene til en bestemt retning (Frelsesarméen) når 3-4 ytterligere retninger var
representert på samme sted og ingen av dem egentlig lyktes i å nå ut til folket.
Om man hadde slått seg sammen og virkelig vært dette ‘Kristi legeme’ som Nee
så sterkt fremholdt, kunne man ha utrettet så mye mer.
Osland var i utgangspunktet engasjert av Det norske Misjonsforbund som barne-
og ungdomsarbeider i Nykvåg. Etter et opphold på Herøya, hvor han ble introdu-
sert for menighetsrelatert litteratur utgitt på Lars Bjerkes Tusenfryd forlag, ble
det nå viktig å tjene Gud utenfor kirkesamfunnsstrukturene. Han flyttet igjen
nordover (1981), nå til Bø i Vesterrålen hvor han tok hovedansvaret i et fel-
lesskristent bønnefellesskap. Det ble snart etablert kontakt mellom Osland og
Estdahl, som begge opplevde ‘kall’ om å flytte til Sortland. De etablerte et hus-
fellesskap og samlet snart et fåtall tilhengere. En av disse, Finn Moe, hadde kon-
takt med mange av elevene i den videregående skolen og arangerte i januar 1983

40
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

en ungdomsweekend med Osland og Estdahl som hovedtalere. Mange av ung-

dommene fra Ten Sing-miljøet møtte opp, og i løpet av et par ukers tid hadde de
også funnet veien til husmøtene hjemme hos Estdahl, hvor mellom 30 og 40 ung-
dommer fylte stua på tirsdagskveldene. Mange av disse utgjør fremdeles stam-
men i menigheten Kristent Fellesskap, Sortland.
Fellesskapet ble til å begynne med kalt Kristne i Vesterrålen. Dette førte snart til
en konflikt med Den norske Kirke på stedet. I forbindelse med at Kirken på Sort-
land hadde bispevisitas, ble Osland og Estdahl oppringt av sognepresten som
gjorde oppmerksom på at de begge ville bli referert til ved navn under visitasrap-
porten på førstkommende søndags høymesse. De møtte begge opp og hørte bis-
kopen advare menigheten som sådan, og i særdeleshet de unges foreldre, mot å
ha noe med dem å gjøre idet de blant annet forvaltet dåp og nattverd uten å være
formalisert som menighet. Biskopens tordentale forsterket imidlertid ungdomme-
nes lojalitet til det uformelle menighetsfellesskapet.
Erling Thu hadde komnmet over det lille tidsskriftet Levende steiner, som Osland
og Estdahl utgav. Han kontaktet dem og kom på besøk i januar 1984. Et nytt be-
søk på høsten samme år resulterte i at Osland og Estdahl formelt bad ham om
hjelp til å ‘bygge menighet’ på Sortland. Kristent Fellesskap, Sortland hevdes å
ha blitt initiert i august 1984, idet Osland og Estdahl stilte det tidligere husfel-
lesskapets ‘medlemmer’ på valg vedrørende hvorvidt de ville anerkjenne deres
spesifikke hyrdefunksjon.54

Kristne på vegen, Stavanger

Menigheten, som i dag er ikke-eksisterende, ble pionert av Robert Erlandsen (f.
1955), sønn av Tom Erlandsen, som var pastor i Zion Stavanger og delvis åpnet
menigheten for påvirkning via britiske Restorationist-ledere. På høsten 1979
hadde menigheten besøk av Keri Jones og David Matthew. Den menighetsrelater-
te undervisningen vakte begeistring, og det ble skapt forventninger med hensyn
til den videre praktiske oppfølgningen fra menighetens side.

54
Sommeren 1989 valgte Estdahl å tre ut av Kristent Fellesskap (han hadde da flyttet fra
Sortland til Bergen og senere til Stavanger for å være med i Kristent Fellesskap). Siden
1986 hadde han vært bosatt i Stavanger, og han begynte snart å gå på møter i Karisma
Senter. I årsskiftet 1991-92 flyttet han til Tromsø for å pionere et selvstendig menighetsar-
beid. Tromsø Bibelsenter ble formelt stiftet 12. juni 1994. Menigheten har siden endret
navn til Jesuskirka. Filialmenigheter er også etablert i Harstad og på Sortland.

41
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Under sommerstevnet i Sarons Dal i 1980 bad Robert Erlandsen om å bli under-
ordnet Kjell Haltorp, Vilhelm Langemyr, Tony Jessen, Sverre Granlund og Er-
ling Thu som ‘kollegium’. Erlandsen hadde tidligere fått Thu til å skrive anbefa-
lingsbrev for ham som evangelist innen pinsebevegelsen. ‘Kollegiet’ anbefalte
heller at han tok ett år ved bibelskolen ICLP (International Christian Leadership
Programme), hvor han begynte høsten 1980. Skoleåret ble imidlertid kortvarig,
delvis skyldtes dette frustrasjon over at ‘kollegiet’ var gått i oppløsning .
1. mars 1981 flyttet Erlandsen til Verdal hvor han ble pastor i pinsemenigheten.
Erlandsen håpet å være i stand til å fornye menigheten etter det mønster han had-
de lært av de britiske forkynnerne, men kom etter hvert til at han ikke hadde ‘tro
for’ dette. Han kontaktet Thu (som i mellomtiden hadde flyttet til Farsund) og
spurte om å få flytte ned og være sammen med Thu som venn, men uten å måtte
love på forhånd at han ville underordne seg ham. Thu ønsket ham hjertelig vel-
kommen uten å stille vilkår. Etter 3 år flyttet Erlandsen, sammen med et annet
ektepar, til Stavanger hvor Kristne på vegen ble etablert i Kvernevig. Liten nu-
merisk vekst gjorde at menigheten ble lagt ned i 1991, og medlemmene ble opp-
fordret til enten å gå inn i en allerede eksisterende menighet i Stavangerområdet
eller å flytte. Erlandsen selv flyttet til Bergen hvor han gikk inn i Kristent Felles-
skap der.55

Kristent Fellesskap, Skien

Menighetens tilblivelse har sin umiddelbare forløper i en karismatisk vekkelse
blant ungdommene i Skien Metodistkirke. Menigheten hadde blant annet hatt
besøk av Hans-Jacob Frøen og Steinar Remetun, og noen av ungdommene be-
gynte i etterkant av besøket å reise innen Frøens Agape-organisasjon. En av ung-
dommene introduserte ungdomsflokken for øvrig for temamessig bibelundervis-
ning av de amerikanske forkynnerne Derek Prince, ‘Bob’ Mumford og ‘Ern’
Baxter.56 Flere leste et hefte av Prince om demonologi, denne ble etterfulgt av
Don Bashams bok Fri os fra det onde.57
I kjølvannet av ungdommenes karismatiske erfaringer kom spørsmålet om ‘tro-
ende dåp’ opp, og flere valge å la seg ‘gjendøpe’. Selv om pastor Harald Wessel

55
Robert Erlandsen, intervju datert 03.11.1994.
56
For nærmere presentasjon av de amerikanske forkynnerne, se Geir Lie, “Shepherding-
bevegelsen – en kortfattet historikk.” Baptist 2/2001 s. 33-43.
57
For nærmere presentasjon av karismatisk demontro og –praksis, se Geir Lie, “Karisma-
tikkens demoner.” Samtiden 1/2005 s. 18-23.

42
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Nørberg, etter betenkningstid, sa seg villig til å etterkomme ungdommenes ønske,

skapte dette spenninger mellom de unge og menigheten for øvrig. I 1978 ble
Nørberg, mot sin vilje, forflyttet til Hamar Metodistkirke, og den nye forstande-
ren skulle være brobygger mellom de to fraksjonene.
Ungdommenes fascinasjon for fenomenet ‘åndsutfrielse’ fortsatte imidlertid, men
uten at menigheten som sådan var informert. Ungdommene fikk etter hvert kon-
takt med ekstreme grupperinger som gjerne tallfestet antall åndsmakter som had-
de tatt bolig i et menneske til 3-400. Også blant metodistungdommene begynte
noen nå å bli bekymret, og en av disse informerte den nye metodistforstanderen
om hva som foregikk. Et par av ungdommene hadde endog laget et eget lære-
kompendium hvor man med utgangspunkt i en allegorisk forståelse av Israelsfol-
kets gradvise erobring av Kanaans løftesland forkynte den troendes motstands-
kamp og (selv-)befrielse fra destruktive åndsmakters illegitime domene i ens eget
legeme og/eller sjelsliv. Det kulminerte i et stort menighetsmøte hvor biskopen
var tilstede og hvor fenomenet åndsutfrielse ble stemplet som ‘alvorlig vranglæ-
re’. Alle som var involvert i dette, fikk midlertidig tale- og vitneforbud. Sanksjo-
nene til tross, de færreste blant ungdommene var overbevist om at de hadde vært
på ville veier. (I ettertid synes alle å ha tatt avstand fra det meste av demonologi-
læren.) I et forsøk på å roe gemyttene ned, ble to sentrale personer i ungdoms-
flokken bedt om å melde seg ut av Metodistkirken. Selv hadde de imidlertid be-
gynt å miste troen på de bestående menigheter. Gjennom lesning især av Apost-
lenes Gjerninger hadde de blitt opptatt av menighetsstruktur og stilte nå spørsmå-
let: hvor har apostlene og profetene blitt av? De lengtet etter ‘nytestamentlig me-
nighetsliv’. I forlengelse av eksklusjonen meldte 25-30 av de øvrige ungdomme-
ne seg ut av menigheten. Selv om en rekke ungdommer ble igjen, utgjorde de 25-
30 unge en vesentlig del av kjernen i den opprinnelige ungdomsflokken.
Kort tid etterpå meldte også Per Erik Olsen seg ut av menigheten. I kraft av sin
alder og erfaring inntok han en slags lederrolle, og da også han etter hvert fikk
‘syn’ for en alternativ menighetsstruktur, var ikke veien lang til opprettelsen av
en uformell husgruppe bestående av de ex-metodistiske ungdommene.
Den karismatiske fornyelsen hadde fått et visst innpass i en rekke metodistme-
nigheter, og ungdommene fikk snart brev fra Åge Pettersen, som de kjente fra
metodistkirken på Kongsberg. Han skrev nå fra Trysil hvor han etter avlagt teo-
logistudium ved Ansgarskolen hadde gått inn som misjonsforbundspastor. Flere
brev fulgte fra Pettersen, og plutselig ett fra Farsund hvor han nå var knyttet opp
mot Erling Thu og Tony Jessen. Pettersen inviterte til en særskilt mannskonfe-
ranse i Stavanger hvor kristne fra blant annet Bergen, Karmøy, Stavanger, Har-
stad og Sortland skulle delta. I tillegg til undervisning om mannens ansvar i hjem
og familie, ble flere fascinert av både samholdet mellom de ulike deltakerne og
den frihet, begeistring og hengivenhet som ble reflektert i deres lovprisning og

43
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

tilbedelse hvor det ble vekslet mellom dans av full kraft, jubel, seierssang og gle-
de på den ene siden og stille ærefrykt og overgivelse til Gud på den annen side.
Husfellesskapet i Skien hadde allerede begynt å kalle seg Kristent Fellesskap.
Man var allerede opptatt av viktigheten av det å ‘stå sammen’, ‘kollektivt leder-
skap’ var gjerne noe som lå i tiden. Impulser i samme retning fikk man blant an-
net gjennom norske oversettelser av Gene Edwards menighetsrelaterte litteratur.
Gjennom møtet med kretsen rundt Erling Thu og Noralv Askeland ble man dess-
uten introdusert for konseptet ‘stå under autoritet’. Samme sommer dro omtrent
hele Skiensfellesskapet til Risøya hvor de deltok på sommerkonferanse sammen
med ikke bare kretsen rundt Thu/Askeland, men også en rekke beslektede
husmenighetsfellesskap som hadde et noe løsere tilknytningsforhold til blant an-
net John Noble i England. Ingen i Skiensfellesskapet evnet å se at det lå et norsk
skisma i luften.
Etter sommerkonferansen ble kontakten med Thu intensivert. Han besøkte Skien-
fellesskapet med en viss regelmessighet og underviste systematisk i ‘Restoratio-
nist-læren’. Undervisningen om ‘pakt’, hvilket grovt sett impliserte full overgi-
velse til både menighet og lederskap, hørtes riktig ut. Selvsagt ble det poengtert
at den enkelte var ansvarlig for å søke Gud for ‘sanksjon’ for det lederne formid-
let, men i praksis ble det vanskelig å ‘høre’ et svar fra Gud som avvek fra hva
lederne allerede hadde proklamert. For mange ble det nesten ikke nødvendig å
søke Guds retning over livet sitt all den stund lederne, opplevde man, hadde svar
på rede hånd hva angikk barneoppdragelse, jobb, utdannelse, flytting, kjæreste-
forhold osv. Flere som tilhørte Kristent Fellsskapsmenigheter utenfor Skien ble
spurt om å flytte fra en landsdel til en annen, og mange opplevde dette vanskelig
– især i ettertid.
Flere intervjuobjekter hevder i ettertid at lederne fikk for stor makt over enkelt-
personer. Man var verdsatt så lenge man ikke stilte spørsmål ved den lære som
ble forfektet, samt ved den umyndiggjøring av ‘menige troende’ som man ble
vitne til fra lederhold. Den omsorg og varme som til å begynne med hadde preget
Skiensfellesskapet, ble snart byttet ut med en nærmest ‘profetisk konfrontasjon’
hvor folk opplevde å måtte stå til regnskap for at man ikke stilte nok opp på ‘fri-
villige’ dugnader, bakte nok kaker til menighetslederne og/eller menighetens
ulike arrangement, ikke vitnet nok for uomvendte eller deltok aktivt nok i møtene
med bønn, vitnesbyrd, bruk av nådegaver osv. Flere av lederne konfronterte med
at man ikke kunne påvise tilfredsstillende åndelig vekst og utvikling, eksempelvis
vedrørende det å tjene hverandre (tjene lederskapet!), og flere følte en usunn til-
kortkommenhet som en følge av dette. Skiensfellesskapet, som hadde vokst til
100-130 troende og var den hurtigstvoksende menigheten i distriktet, opplevde nå
en rask avskalling.

44
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

I forbindelse med at Kristent Fellesskap, Farsund ble avviklet, flyttet blant andre
familien Thu til Skien for å gå inn i fellesskapet (1986-92), fra 1989 til 1990 vir-
ket han som menighetens pastor. Andre igjen flyttet til Bergen, Stavanger eller
Karmøy, hvor de fleste hadde en naturlig tilknytning. Utgangspunktet var at den
enkelte skulle søke Gud for å få klarhet i hva som var Hans vilje i forbindelse
med at menigheten var blitt lagt ned, men det kan synes som om det lå i kortene
at Guds svar til den enkelte ekskluderte menighetsalternativ som manglet en for-
mell tilknytning til Bryn og Keri Jones i Storbritannia. Om flere hevdes det at de
fikk direkte ‘profetier’ om at de skulle bryte opp fra stedet, og valgene var da
nærmest gitt i utgangspunktet.58

Kristent Nettverk
Etter initiativ fra Thu og Askeland ble Bergen Bibelskole startet i 1990. Thu flyt-
tet til Bergen i 1992. Delvis inspirert av Watchman Nees ekklesiologi, hvor det
skjelnes mellom ‘menigheten’ og ‘arbeidet’, har Thu og Askeland etablert Kris-
tent Nettverk, et tjenestefellesskap av forkynnere som jobber sammen som et
‘apostolisk team’ inn i lokalmenigheter som ser hen til dem som ‘apostler’, ‘pro-
feter’, ‘evangelister’ og/eller ‘hyrder og lærere’. Kristent Nettverk er involvert i
en rekke land og driver menighetsplanting, ledertrening, bibelskoler og nød-
hjelpsarbeid. Det er visse overlappinger mellom Kristent Nettverk og Ministries
Without Borders, sistnevnte ledet av Askeland og Keri Jones. Kristent Nett-
verk/Ministries Without Borders jobber inn i følgende norske menigheter: Ber-
gen, Bømlo, Harstad, Hokksund, Karmøy, Lyngdal, Nordhordland, Oslo, Oster-
øy, Skien, Sotra, Stokke, Tromsø, Trondheim og Vesterrålen.

58
Det var for øvrig ikke bare Farsundmenigheten som ble nedlagt. Også Kristent Felles-
skap-menighetene i Harstad, Molde, Karmøy og Stavanger led samme skjebne – dette på
tross av, hevder flere, klare, gjentatte ‘profetiske budskap’ om at menighetene som sådan
skulle vokse, gå fram og bli en plogspiss for gjenopprettelsen av Guds menighet i Norge.
Både på Karmøy og i Harstad er imidlertid arbeidet senere gjenopptatt av mennesker som
var med i forkant av nedleggelsen. Og i Farsund flyttet så godt som hele fellesskapet fra
byen. Også i de øvrige byene synes det som om veldig mange fra fellesskapene som ble
lagt ned flyttet til andre fellesskap innenfor nettverket fordi de fremdeles stilte seg bak
menighetsvisjonen og ønsket videre kontakt og samarbeid. En del mennesker opplevde
likevel at ingen konkret eller offentlig utøvelse av selvkritikk skjedde. Det som imidlertid
ble hevdet offentlig, mener de, var at de som forlot fellesskapsnettverket, hadde mistet
‘visjonen’ og hadde ‘feil holdninger’.

45
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

The modern prophetic movement from the 1980s to the present often has been an
amorphous movement, not easily defined, described, or pinned down. It fre-
quently intersects and intertwines with the New Apostolic Movement, and like
the latter, it has stirred much interest and controversy. Thus this paper is a sequel
to my last article in Refleks (5-1-2006), “The New Apostolic Movement in His-
torical Context.”1 In order to study the modern prophetic movement in historical
context, it is appropriate to begin with a survey of prophetic movements through-
out church history.2

Early Church History through the Middle Ages

The question arises as to whether the gift of prophecy and the role of a prophet
continued beyond the apostolic church age. While cessationists, those who be-
lieve the supernatural ceased after the apostolic age, would maintain that a genu-
ine gift of prophecy no longer exists, a study of church history shows that the gift

1
Paul L. King, “The New Apostololic Movement in Historical Context,” Refleks 1/2006,
60-73.
2
For studies on the gift of prophecy and prophets in the New Testament era, see Christo-
pher Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Envi-
ronment (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995); Thomas W. Gillespie, The First Theologi-
ans: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994); Wayne
Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 1988). For a brief survey of prophecy throughout church history, see Vinson Sy-
nan, “2000 Years of Prophecy,” Ministries Today, Sept./Oct. 2004, 25-28.

46
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

of prophecy has indeed continued periodically throughout the church age, and
prophetic movements arose from time to time.3
The Didache, or the Teaching of the Twelve, an early second century document,
demonstrates that prophets continued seamlessly beyond the first century and
prescribes identification of true and false prophets: “But concerning the apostles
and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. Let every apostle
that cometh to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one
day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remains three days, he is a false
prophet. And when the apostle goeth away, let him take nothing but bread until
he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.”4 Justin Martyr in the mid
second century averred, “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the
present time.”5 Likewise, Irenaeus in the late second century affirms the con-
tinuation of prophecy.6 Montanism, a late second and early third century pro-

3
For cessationist claims, see B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (Edinburgh [Scotland];
Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972); John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). For a defense against cessationist claims, see Jon Mark Ruth-
ven, On the Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on Post-Biblical Mira-
cles (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), access online at
http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/cessbook.html. For discussions on both sides, see Wayne
A. Grudem, ed., Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1996).
4
“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” 11:3-6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), ed. Alex-
ander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 7:380.
5
Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho, Cha. 82, ANF, 1:240.
6
Ireneaus, Against Heresies 2.32; 5:6; Against Celsus 3:24, ANF, 1:409, J.

47
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

phetic movement emphasizing ecstatic prophecy, became regarded as a heresy by

the church, though there has been debate in recent times as to its heretical nature.7
Prophetic revelations and visions are recorded in the works of Ignatius, Shepherd
of Hermas, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and many of the early martyrs.8 Gregory
of Neocaesarea, known as “The Wonderworker,” experienced visions and predic-
tive prophecies.9 Cyril writes that the gift of prophecy and ability to cast out de-
mons can be received in baptism.10 Sozomen, in his church history, records nu-
merous incidents of prophetic revelations among the monks.11 Several of the
early monastics received prophetic utterances, visions, and revelations such as
Antony,12 and Benedict and his disciples.13 Athanasius was known for receiving
supernatural prophetic insight.14 At the same time, prophetic gifts were on the

7
For a discussion of prophecy in Montanism, see C.M. Robeck, Jr., “Prophecy, Gift of,”
New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (NIDPCM), ed.
Stanley M. Burguess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2002), 1008. See also J. Ramsey Michaels “An Eighteenth Century Debate over Montan-
ism,” paper delivered at the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, MO: Assemblies
of God Theological Seminary, Nov. 13, 1992. For a defense of Montanism, see Eddie L.
Hyatt, Montanism: Pagan Frenzy? Or Pentecostal Fervor? (Dallas,TX: Hyatt Interna-
tional Ministries, 1998), Ronald A. N. Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church (Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 1984) 39-40. For a critique, see K. Neill Foster, Sorting Out the
Supernatural (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 2001), 22, 35-36, 81, 103-104, 123-
124.
8
Robeck, “Prophecy,” 1007-1009; Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church.
9
Basil, Treatise on the Holy Spirit, 29:74, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF), ed.
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 2nd. Series, 8:46-47.
10
Cyril, Catethetical Lectures, Lecture 17: 35-36, NPNF, 2nd Series, 7:132-133.
11
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book 6, Chap. 28, Book 7, Chap. 22,
NPNF, 2nd Series, 2:365, 392.
12
Sozomen, Book 1, Chap. 13, Book 6, Chap. 5, NDNF, 2nd Series, 2: 249, 349; Athana-
sius, Life of Antony, 52, 62, 65, 66, 82, ANF, 4:210-218.
13
Gregory the Great, Life and Miracles of St. Benedict, Dialogues, Book 2, Chap. 11-22
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, n.d.), 30-51; Eddie L. Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charis-
matic Ministry (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House, 2002), 39, 46.
14
Sozomen, Book 4, Chap. 10, NPNF, 2nd Series, 2:306.

48
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

decline, and visions and dreams were considered by some, according Cyprian, as
foolish and ridiculous.15
Numerous Medieval mystics such as Julian of Norwich, Francis of Assisi, Hilde-
garde, Abbess Elizabeth of Schoau, Gertrude and other nuns of the Convent of
Helfde, Bernard of Clairvaux, Suso, Catherine of Sienna, Bridget of Sweden,
Catherine of Genoa, the German Friends of God, and many others were known
for their prophetic visions and revelations.16 Movements like the Waldenses ex-
perienced supernatural phenomena including visions and prophecies.17

Prophecy in Reformation Times and Follow ing

Vinson Synan notes of the Reformation time: “In his Institutes of the Christian
Religion, Calvin wrote ‘The Lord now and again revives them [apostles, prophets
and evangelists] as the need of the times demands.’ These offices, however, have
no place in ‘duly constituted churches,’ he added.”18 Luther was considered by
some of his followers to be a prophet. One of his early biographers cited several
prophecies by Luther that were fulfilled.19 The Zwickau prophets during Martin
Luther’s time led by Thomas Münzer, claimed “direct divine inspiration, prophe-
sied the early end of the world and denounced water baptism.”20 They were ac-
cused of “claiming special revelations of the spirit over and above the Scrip-
ture,”21 thus considered by Luther as false prophets.22 Also other groups of Ana-

15
Cyprian, Epistles of Cyprian, 68:10, ANF, 5:375.
16
Evelyn Underhill, Mystics of the Church (Cambridge, England: James Clarke and Co.,
1925, 1975), 74-167.
J.D. Douglas, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids,
17

MI: Zondervan, 1974), 1026.

18
Vinson Synan, “Apostolic Practice,” He Gave Apostles: Apostolic Ministry in the 21st
Century, Edgar R. Lee, ed., (Springfield, MO: Assemblies of God Theological Seminary,
2005), 17.
19
Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, 74.
20
Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity: Reformation to the Present, Vol-
ume II: A.D. 1500-A.D. 1975 (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1975), 720.
21
John Dillenberger, ed., Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings (New York, NY:
Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1961), xxiv.
22
Robeck, “Prophecy,” 1010.

49
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

baptists led by Melchoir Hoffman, John Matthijs and others began to claim end-
time prophecies and visions, which did not come true.23
Perhaps the best known and most controversial prophet was sixteenth century
physician and French Jewish-Catholic mystic Nostradamus, whose predictive
prophecies Pentecostal historian Vinson Synan describes as “arcane and ex-
otic.”24 He made use of astrology and horoscopy, but was on good terms with the
Catholic church of his day. Another controversial English prophet was Mother
Shipton, who in the sixteenth century according to legends was claimed to have
prophesied in poetic language carriages without horses, and other significant in-
ventions such as airplanes, submarines, telegraph, telephone, and steamships, as
well as other discoveries. At the same time, she predicted the end of the world in
1881. Some in Christian circles have accepted her prophetic gifting, while others
viewed her as a false prophet, and even as a witch with occultic background,
while others claim the whole prophecy was a hoax, manufactured later.25
In the late seventeenth century Isabeau Vincent, a ten year old Protestant girl in
the Cevannes mountains of France gave a prophetic utterance in her poor collo-
quial patois, calling for repentance. Her primitive speech turned into forms of
xenolalia, speaking in perfect French and Latin. Then more than three hundred
children (along with some adults) throughout the Cevannes Mountains began to
prophesy, becoming known as “the little prophets of Cevannes.” The French Hu-
guenot prophetic movement continued for more than ten years.26 John Lacy, one
of the leaders of the French prophets, wrote his defense of Montanism and the
continuation of prophetic revelation in his 1713 book The General Delusion of
Christians Touching the Ways of God’s Revealing Himself to and by the Proph-
ets.27

23
Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, 80-83.
24
Vinson Synan, “2000 Years of Prophecy,” Ministries Today, Sept./Oct. 2004, 25; see
also http://www.nostradamus-repository.org/myths1.html.
25
See http://www.mothershiptonscave.com/mother_shipton.htm; http://www.Museumof
hoaxes.com/shipton.html; www.newage.com.au/library/shipton.html; Walter Turnball,
“Mother Shipton’s Prophecy,” AW, Feb. 5, 1927, 90-91.
26
Morton T. Kelsey, Tongue Speaking: An Experiment in Spiritual Experience (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 52-54.
27
Hyatt, Montanism, 1.

50
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Prophecy occurred among Quakers who believed in listening for the inner voice
of the Spirit.28 George Fox, founder of the Quaker movement, experienced pro-
phetic visions and revelations, supernatural knowledge and discernment of spir-
its.29 According to Quaker historian Walter Williams in his book The Rich Heri-
tage of Quakerism, Deborah Darby (late 1700s) and Benjamin Seebohm (mid
1800s) were known for their gifts of prophecy and discernment.30 Others mani-
festing the gift of prophecy included Richard Jordan (early 1800s) and William
Savery (late 1700s).31 John Woolman was carried in the Spirit in a vision or
trance-like state and had dreams, visions and prophecies.32
The eighteenth century Moravian revival also included prophetic utterances.33 At
the same time, Moravian leader Count Zinzendorf, though open to supernatural
movings of the Holy Spirit, witnessed a man falling into an “inspired fit, jerking
and convulsing, and prophesying. Zinzendorf did not hesitate to reject the inspi-
ration.”34 John Wesley writes in his journal of numerous prophetic revelations,
supernatural knowledge, dreams and visions occurring in his day.35 After reading
Lacy’s book on prophets, Wesley wrote in his journal that he was convinced the
Montanists “were real Scriptural Christians.”36 Even so, Wesley did not accept

28
Dean Freiday, ed., Barclay’s Apology in Modern English (Newburg, OR: Barclay Press,
1967), xxi, 16, 212, 251.
29
George Fox, The Journal of George Fox (Great Britain: Aldine Press, 1962), 9, 11-13,
24, 27, 39, 46-47, 50, 57, 59-60, 70, 81, 153, 175, 178, 235, 245, 249, 258, 269; Faith and
Practice of the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, Section 180, 288.
30
Walter Williams, The Rich Heritage of Quakerism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1962), 148-149, 195.
31
Williams, 145, 154.
32
Faith and Practice of the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, Sec. 50;
Edwin H. Cady, John Woolman (New York: Washington Square Press, 1966), 49-50, 82,
90, 96.
33
Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, 96.
Thomas Upham, The Life of Faith (New York: Garland Publishing, 1984 reprint Boston:
34

Waite, Pierce, 1845), 85.

35
John Wesley, The Journal of John Wesley (Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.), 71, 207, 213,
215, 222, 239, 293, 332-333, 389.
36
John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. Nehemiah Curnack (Lon-
don: Epworth, 1938), Aug. 15, 1750, 3:490.

51
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

all claims to supernatural manifestations or inspirations, advising, “Do not hastily

ascribe things to God. Do not easily suppose dreams, voices, impressions, vi-
sions, or revelations to be from God. They may be from Him. They may be from
Nature. They may be from the devil. Therefore believe not every spirit, but ‘try
the spirits whether they be from God.’”37

19 th Century Prophetic Movements

The Kentucky-Tennessee revivals of 1800 and following in Cane Ridge and other
locations had manifestations of prophecies and visions. The Cumberland Presby-
terian Church, formed out of these revivals, continued to experience prophecies.38
Finney upon occasion demonstrated prophetic gifting through predictions, vi-
sions, and supernatural words of knowledge.39 The most significant prophetic
movement occurred among the Irvingites in the 1830s and emerged through the
teachings of Edward Irving, who believed in the restoration of the gifts, minis-
tries and offices of the New Testament Church and founded the Catholic Apos-
tolic Church.40
Methodist evangelist Peter Cartwright experienced dreams and supernatural
knowledge. Yet at the same time he warned against false prophecies and mani-
festations, especially among the Mormons, Millerites, and Shakers.41 The Shaker
communities in North America, influenced by the Quakers and the French proph-
ets, also featured prophetic revelations and visions, but also contained unortho-
dox practices.42 Prophecy also occurred in other unorthodox movements such as
Mormonism, which claimed the Book of Mormon as a prophetic revelation from
God to Joseph Smith.43

37
Martin Wells Knapp, Impressions (Cincinnati: Revivalist Publishing House, 1892), 34.
38
The Cumberland Presbyterian, Feb. 10, 1876, 3; July 1, 1897, 1674.
39
Charles G. Finney, The Autobiography of Charles G. Finney (Minneapolis, MN: Beth-
any Fellowship, 1977), 32, 37, 83, 120, 128, 138, 221.
40
D. W. Dorries, “Catholic Apostolic Church,” NIDPCM, 459.
Peter Cartwright, Autobiography of Peter Cartwright (New York, NY, Nashville, TN:
41

Abingdon Press, 1956), 45-47, 76-77, 88-89, 104-105, 130-131, 143-144.

42
E.L. Blumhofer, “Shakers,” NIDPCM, 1058-1059; Kelsey, Tongue Speaking, 57-58.
43
Kelsey, Tongue Speaking, 58.

52
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Prophecy occurred in the Adventist movement and in the late 1800s “Gift Ad-
ventists” in New England. Phoebe Palmer and other holiness writers of the 19th
century defined one element of prophecy as inspired or anointed preaching.
Palmer emphasized, “Your handmaidens shall prophesy” as authentication for
women’s preaching ministry.44 Charles Spurgeon was prophesied over at the age
of ten that he would become a great preacher, and later manifested prophetic
words of knowledge through his preaching, as well as dreams and visions.45
Prophecy occurred periodically in the early Christian and Missionary Alliance in
the late 1800s.46 The concept of prophecy ranging on a scale from fallible im-
pressions to spontaneously inspired testimony to prophetic prayers to “direct
convictions” was a part of evangelical holiness theology for at least several dec-
ades during the latter half of the nineteenth century.47 Predictive prophecy earned
a bad name in 1890 when several Christian leaders, including Maria Woodworth
(Etter) and C&MA conference speaker Elizabeth Sisson, endorsed and affirmed a
prophecy that had been circulating that an earthquake and tidal wave would strike
the West Coast, a prophecy that proved to be false (although some claimed that
the 1906 earthquake 16 years later was the fulfillment).48

44
Palmer define prophecy as anything prompted by the Holy Spirit that leads to edifica-
tion, exhortation and comfort. Charles Eward White, The Beauty of Holiness (Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, 1986), 192.
45
Lewis Drummond, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1992),
91, 167, 173, 181, 184, 235-236, 271, 281, 284.
46
Paul L. King, Genuine Gold: The Cautiously Charismatic Story of the Early Christian
and Missionary Alliance (Tulsa, OK: Word and Spirit Press, 2006), 32-33, 42, 49-50.
47
A.B. Simpson, The Gentle Love of the Holy Spirit (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publica-
tions, 1983), 48; Martin Wells Knapp, Impressions (Cincinatti, OH: God’s Revivalist,
1899), 109, see also pp. 56-57; George D. Watson, Holiness Manual (Boston: McDonald,
Gall, and Co., 1882), 97; Carrie Judd Montgomery, Under His Wings (Oakland, CA: Tri-
umphs of Faith, 1921), 159-161; A.T. Pierson, George Müller of Bristol (New York: NY,
Fleming H. Revell, 1899), 140, 272, 303. Charles Spurgeon asserted, “The man of obedi-
ent heart prays like a prophet, and his prayers are prophecies.” Charles Spurgeon, The
Power of Prayer in a Believer’s Life (Lynnwood, WA: Emerald Books, 1993), 116.
Murray taught that prophesying to the bones (Ezekiel 37:4, 5) is preaching and prophesy-
ing to the Spirit (Ezekiel 37:9) is prayer. Andrew Murray, The Prayer Life (Basingstoke,
Hunts, England: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1968), 90.
48
Wayne E. Warner, The Woman Evangelist: The Life and Times of Charismatic Evangel-
ist Maria B. Wooworth-Etter (Metuchen N.J. and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,
1986), 99-109; King, Genuine Gold, 33.

53
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

20 th Century Revival Movements

Prophecy and visions were features of the Welsh Revival of 1904 and the revival
at Pandita Ramabai’s Mukti Mission in India in 1905. With the Azusa Street Pen-
tecostal revival in Los Angelus a worldwide resurgence of charismatic and pro-
phetic movements arose. This spawned both genuine and dubious prophetic ut-
terances. Woodworth-Etter, learning from her disastrous support for false proph-
ecy in the 1890s, continued to support prophetic utterances, but she also cau-
tioned, “Don’t take up with every vision that comes along,” giving examples of
spurious revelation.49 There were others who believed in the supernatural and the
reality of prophetic utterance, such as A.B. Simpson and the Christian and Mis-
sionary Alliance, but were also concerned with over-dependency upon such ut-
terances or looking to prophecy as fortune-telling, cautioning:
One of the most alarming tendencies of this movement has recently developed in
several places in the form of a prophetic authority which certain persons are
claiming over the consciences of others and men and women are seeking counsel
and guidance from them in the practical matters of private duty, instead of looking
directly to the Anointing which they have received of him and obeying God rather
than men. It is said that in some instances Christian men and women go to these
new prophets almost as the world goes to the clairvoyant and fortuneteller, and
follow their advice with a slavish superstition that may easily run into all the
dangers of the Romish confessional or the delusions of spiritualism.50
Pentecostal historian Edith Blumhofer acknowledged, “Alliance spokespersons
had an almost uncanny way of discerning potential difficulties that enthusiastic
Apostolic Faith adherents seemed prone to overlook. Within several years, some
Pentecostals would echo Alliance appeals for prudence and balance. For the mo-
ment, however, the cautions seemed to go largely unheeded.”51 Such lack of dis-
cernment often frightened people away from prophetic movements, but groups
like the Assemblies of God tried to rein in the extremes.
In the late 1940s a new Latter Rain Movement sprung up out of a revival at
Sharon Bible College, North Battlefield, Saskatchewan, Canada, with emphasis

49
Maria Woodworth-Etter, Marvels and Miracles (Indianapolis, IN: M. B. W. Etter,
1922), 503, 506.
50
A. B. Simpson, “Annual Report of the President and General Superintendent of the
Christian and Missionary Alliance,” Annual Report of the Christian and Missionary Alli-
ance (1907-08), 12-13.
51
Edith L. Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God: A Chapter in the Story of American Pente-
costalism, Volume 1—To 1941 (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1989), 185.

54
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

on restoring apostles and prophets. They stressed the importance of the role of
laying on of hands for imparting spiritual gifts and personal prophetic words.52
Seeing similarities to problems of earlier prophetic movements and lack of dis-
cernment and accountability, the Assemblies of God branded the movement as
heretical. Nonetheless, this movement was pivotal in laying a foundation for the
recent prophetic movement.53
With the emergence of the charismatic movement in the 1960s came renewal of
belief in restoration of all the gifts and ministries of the Spirit. Along with speak-
ing in tongues and healing, prophecy and related revelational gifts (word of
knowledge, word of wisdom, visions and dreams) were prominent. Renewed
teaching on the Ascension gifts and five-fold ministries (Eph. 4:11) arose, in
part, through leaders who had Latter Rain connections such as James Beall, John
Poole, and Ern Baxter. In the early 1970s Kenneth Hagin wrote booklets on The
Gift of Prophecy and The Ministry of a Prophet, and regarded himself as called
by God to be a prophet.54 He asserted that “a prophet is one who has visions and
revelations,” and to be a prophet “he has to have at least two of the revelation
gifts plus prophecy operating in his ministry. He has the word of wisdom, the
word of knowledge, and/or discerning of spirits.”55
David Wilkerson, founder of Teen Challenge, did not claim to be a prophet, but
published a book in 1974 entitled The Vision describing what he considered to be
a prophetic vision of increased evil and resulting judgment from the Lord for the
future, including predictions of such things as economic confusion, drastic
weather changes and earthquakes, a flood of filth, persecution by media and Hol-
lywood, acceptance of homosexuality by the “super church,” among others.56
Many of the predictions have come true, but the book was controversial because
he predicted some things that have not yet occurred such as persecution of Catho-
lic charismatics by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.57 Revivalist Leonard

52
R. M. Riss, “Latter Rain Movement,” DPCM, 532-534.
53
For an analysis of the Latter Rain movement and related teachings, see B.J. Oropeza, A
Time to Laugh (Peabody, MA: Henrickson, 1995), 58-65.
54
Kenneth Hagin, The Gift of Prophecy (Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin, n.d.); Kenneth
Hagin, The Ministry of a Prophet (Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin, n.d.).
55
Hagin, The Ministry of a Prophet, 10.
56
David Wilkerson, The Vision (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1974). See also David
Wilkerson, Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth (Lindale, TX: World Challenge, 1985).
57
Wilkerson, The Vision, 82-84.

55
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Ravenhill endorsed Wilkerson’s sequel prophetic book Set the Trumpet to Thy
Mouth, calling him a New Testament prophet.58

Late 20 th and Early 21 Century Prophetic Movements

The modern prophetic movement of the last two decades of the 20th century and
first decade of the 21st century finds its roots particularly in the Latter Rain, Char-
ismatic and Third Wave Movements. Prophetic conceptualization re-emerged
through the Third Wave movement beginning in the 1980s with leaders such as
C. Peter Wagner and John Wimber. Influenced by his Quaker background,
Wimber became a proponent of the “signs and wonders” movements, reviving
the Quaker emphasis on hearing the voice of God.
Bill Hamon, who was significantly influenced by the Latter Rain Movement (as
presented in his 1981 book The Eternal Church),59 launched his emphasis on res-
toration of apostles and prophets through his organization Christian International
in 1986, establishing an annual International Gathering of Apostles and Prophets
Conference for enhancing the restoration of apostolic and prophetic ministry. He
has further established a Network of Prophetic Ministries and Churches. His
teaching consummated in his 1997 book Apostles, Prophets and the Coming
Moves of God, endorsed by Oral Roberts, among others. 60 Bill Hamon and his
organization Christian International hold prophetic schools or regional prophetic
conferences for “promoting and propagating prophetic ministry.” In this book he
envisioned the prophetic office being restored in the following ways:
1. In the 1980s came a renewed emphasis on the prophetic office.
2. Since then, a company of prophets has been developed.
3. Spiritual gifts and ministries have further been activated through the
prophetic movement.
4. A new Joshua Generation has arisen, which has “crossed over the Jor-
dan.”
5. Warfare praise and prophetic intercessory ministry have been estab-
lished.
6. Team ministry has been restored, especially apostle-prophet teams.
7. Prophets have not only prophesied to the church, but have become
prophets to the nations.

58
Wilkerson, Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth, Introduction, n.p.
59
Bill Hamon, The Eternal Church (Phoenix, AZ: Christian International, 1981).
Bill Hamon, Apostles, Prophets and the Coming Moves of God (Santa Rosa Beach, FL:
60

Christian Intl., 1997).

56
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

8. Prophetic personal evangelism is arising.

9. Apostles and prophets are being restored for the purifying, maturing,
and perfecting of the saints (Ephesians 4:11-13).
10. The prophetic movement has been preparing the way for restoration of
apostles.61
The prophetic movement expanded in the late 20th century, led by Hamon, Chuck
Pierce, Cindy Jacobs, Mike Bickle, and Paul Cain, among many others, putting
emphasis on personal prophecies, establishing prophetic and apostolic leadership,
and training people to prophesy. Some have regarded it as a resurgence of the
Latter Rain Movement, particularly because Cain had been a part of that move-
ment and Hamon speaks highly of the movement. Bickle’s church, Kansas City
Fellowship, became embroiled in controversy over some of its prophecies and
prophets, with at least one prophet accused of sexual indiscretions. Bickle’s
church then came under the authority of John Wimber’s Vineyard Church, which
exercised church discipline in the matters. Later, Bickle’s church was absolved
and became prominent once again in the prophetic movement, and known for its
strong emphasis on prayer and spiritual warfare through launching the Interna-
tional House of Prayer (IHOP) in Kansas City, Missouri, in 1999.62
Paul Cain, who had been connected with the Latter Rain movement, was pro-
moted by the Kansas City prophetic movement.63 Cain also had associations with
R.T. Kendall, pastor of the historic Westminster Chapel in England, and with
Wimber and the Vineyard movement. Wimber eventually withdrew his active
fellowship with and support of Cain in the early 1990s, presumably due to con-
troversies over prophetic utterances and his eschatological views (apparently
resurrecting in some form the Latter Rain Manifest Sons of God end-time teach-
ing). More recently, Cain was exposed for homosexual activity.
Other prophetic leaders who have emerged include Cindy Jacobs, who with her
husband Mike founded Generals of Intercession; James Goll, founder of Encoun-
ters Network; former Vineyard pastor James Ryle, founder of TruthWorks Minis-
try; and Chuck Pierce, president of Glory of Zion International Ministries who
has served as prophetic counsel for the New Apostolic Roundtable. Another
prominent prophetic leader is Rick Joyner of Morning Star Ministries, who re-

61
Ibid. Hamon, Apostles, Prophets and the Coming Moves of God, 105-121.
62
For an analysis of the Kansas City prophetic movement, see Oropeza, 52-58.
63
For more analysis on Cain, see Oropeza, 53-55.

57
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

counts his prophetic vision of the end times in his book The Final Quest.64 John
Paul Jackson, founder of Streams Ministries, International, teaches on prophetic
ministry and visions and dreams. Kim Clements, a prophetic musician from
South Africa, has established a broad ministry in America. John and Paula Sand-
ford, involved in both the inner healing and prophetic movements, wrote a pro-
phetic book entitled The Elijah Task and founded Elijah House Ministries.65
Two prominent theologians have embraced Third Wave prophetic movements.
Jack Deere, a former professor of theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, re-
canted his cessationist beliefs and embraced the supernatural for today, recount-
ing his spiritual journey and shift in theological paradigms in his book Surprised
by the Spirit.66 In his sequel book, Surprised by the Voice of God, he describes
the prophetic gifting.67 Subsequently, he became involved with the Kansas City
prophetic movement and the Vineyard movement, but has since left both move-
ments and launched his own ministry, yet remains friends with Bickle, Joyner
and other prophetic leaders. Wayne Grudem, a Baptist theologian who embraced
Third Wave theology and for a time identified with the Vineyard movement, has
written extensively on prophecy both in his Systematic Theology and particularly
in The Gift of Prophecy for Today.68
The Toronto Blessing movement of the 1990s featured prophetic revelations,
visions, and dreams. One of the unique traits of the movement was the occa-
sional occurrence of animal-like sounds and behavior such as barking, roaring,
crowing, etc. While such manifestations throughout church history have usually
been considered demonic,69 in this movement they were often interpreted as pro-
phetic expressions from God acted out.70

64
Rick Joyner, The Final Quest (New Kensington, PA; Whitaker House, 1996).
65
John and Paula Sandford, The Elijah Task (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1977).
66
Jack Deere, Surprised by Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993).
67
Jack Deere, Surprised by the Voice of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
68
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994); Grudem,
The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today.
69
Paul L. King, “Supernatural Physical Manifestations in Evangelical and Holiness Re-
vival Movements, “ paper presented at the 32nd Society of Pentecostal Studies/Wesleyan
Theological Society Joint Conference, Lexington, Kentucky, March 21, 2003.
70
John Arnott, The Father’s Blessing (Orlando, FL: Creation House, 1995), 168-183.

58
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

A significant branch and teaching of much of the modern prophetic movement is

that God is raising up an end-time “Joel’s Army” of overcoming believers to be-
come the army of the Lord, having major impact upon the world. Some who
embrace the Joel’s Army concept, though not all, teach a kind of Dominion or
Kingdom Now theology, in which the Church will take dominion over the earth
and fully establish the Kingdom of God (akin to some post-millennial theology).
Others, particularly from the Latter Rain movement, teach that Joel’s Army will
be the manifested sons of God in the end times.
Related to the Joel’s Army concept are the concepts of prophetic praise and pro-
phetic intercessory warfare prayer.71 Psalmists Robert Gay, Lamar Boschman,
and many others have emphasized the relationship of music and prophecy, glean-
ing from the ministry of David and the psalms. Cindy Jacobs and others have
related prophetic prayer and intercession with spiritual warfare, especially in the
strategic level spiritual warfare movement.
In 1998 Wagner created the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders (ACPE) under
his apostolic leadership as a “peer level group of prophets” after urging from
prophetess Cindy Jacobs to bring together a group of prophets who feel the need
to build personal relationships with peer-level prophets from various prophetic
streams and strands meets together once a year (sometimes more) in Colorado
Springs.72 Wagner explains that “ACPE was organized on the basis that prophe-
cies were being released without checking with others.”73 Wagner has also held
National Schools of the Prophets. Members of the ACPE have included Beth
Alves, Mike Bickle, Paul Cain (honorary member), Stacey Campbell, Wesley
Campbell, Joseph Garlington, Ernest Gentile, Mary Glazier, James Goll, Bill
Hamon, Cindy Jacobs, Mike Jacobs, Jim Laffoon, David McCracken, Bart
Pierce, Chuck Pierce, Rick Ridings, John and Paula Sandford, Michael Schiff-
man, Gwen Shaw, Dutch Sheets, Jean Steffenson, Steve Shultz, Sharon Stone,
Tommy Tenney, Hector Torres, Doris Wagner, Peter Wagner, Barbara Wen-
troble, Dominic Yeo, and Barbara Yoder among others.74
About 25 leaders meet annually, with Wagner as the apostolic leader and Jacobs
as the facilitator. They produce an annual prophetic report summarized by Ja-

71
Hamon, Apostles, Prophets and the Coming Move of God, 114.
72
See website at: www.harvestnet.org/reports/aboutWagnerapostles.htm
73
Matthew Green, “Speaking for God,” Ministries Today, Sept./Oct. 2004, 53.
74
http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain21.htm

59
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

cobs and published by Chuck Pierce, James Goll, and others.75 The Elijah List
Ministries provides a website listing prophecies given by prominent prophetic
leaders76 and also a website for prophetic television.77 In 2004 Ministries Today
emphasized the five-fold ministries of Ephesians 4, devoting an entire issue to
prophets, but focusing more on operating with balance, discernment, and matur-
ity in prophetic ministry, rather than looking at various prophetic ministries and
movements.78

Responses and Controversies

1. Interpretations of Roles of Prophets. As mentioned in the last article, current
scholarship presents three views of the phrase “foundation of the apostles and
prophets” in Ephesians 2:18-22: (a) genitive of apposition—the foundation
which is the apostles and prophets, (b) genitive of possession—“the apostles’ and
prophets’ foundation”—“that on which they built or that on which they were
built,” (c) genitive of originating cause—the foundation laid by the apostles and
prophets.79 Which interpretation is valid continues to be debated. Thus, there are
some who regarding the prophetic ministry as more authoritative, and others who
insist that the prophetic role is no longer nearly as authoritative as in biblical
days.

2. Accountability for false or inaccurate prophecies. There is debate over

whether prophecies need to be 100% accurate or not. This is a major source of
controversy. One school of thought declares that New Testament prophets are the

75
http://www.glory-of-zion.org/outmail/ACPE_Report(2-2-05)Online.htm; http://flory-of-
zion.org/news20040216htm; http://www.encountersnetwork.com/pdf/ACPE_word_for_
2006.pdf; http://www.encountersnetwork.com/pdf/acpe_2007.pdf.
76
http://www.elijahlist.com/
77
http://www.prophetic.tv/
78
Ministries Today, September/October 2004.
79
James W. Garrett, “Translocal Ministry in the New Testament Church,” a paper deliv-
ered at the New Testament Church Conclave, May 2005, 22. See website:
http://www.doulospress.org/pprs.php, 14; see also James W. Garrett, New Testament
Church Leadership (Tulsa, OK: Doulos Press, 1996). For discussion of various scholarly
exegetical views, see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 904-911; John Ruthven, “Ephesians
2:20 and the ‘Foundational Gifts,’” accessed online at http://home.regent.eu/ruthven/
220htm.

60
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

same as Old Testament prophets and must come under the same rigorous stan-
dard of complete accuracy.80 Another school of thought says that New Testament
prophets no longer have the authority of Old Testament prophets and therefore
the standard bar is no longer that high. Further, it appears that since prophecies
need to be evaluated (1 Corinthians 14) and Agabus and other prophets were not
totally accurate in their predictions about Paul (Acts 21:10-14), the same standard
of accuracy was not applied in the New Testament and therefore prophets can be
fallible in the prophecies they deliver and yet not be considered false prophets.
The latter appears to be the predominate view today in the charismatic move-
ment, though not widely accepted outside of the charismatic movement. This is
the view of Third Waver Wayne Grudem.81
Many today distinguish various levels or degrees of prophetic insight and inspira-
tion, and thus various degrees of accuracy, in some ways similar to late 19th cen-
tury evangelical holiness movements, as mentioned earlier. Joyner, for instance,
posits a scale ranging from impressions, to special illuminations or anointings, to
open visions with a higher level of clarity, to trances.82 Garrett distinguishes be-
tween “body-life prophetic activity” in 1 Corinthians 14 which “could be under-
stood to have a degree of inaccuracy” since the prophecies were to be judged, and
the activity of “ascension gift prophets” in Ephesians 4:11, which is to be just as
accurate as the Old Testament prophets:
Based upon the scriptural test, when someone puts himself forth as a prophet and
declares that God is present in the meeting to heal backs (no uncertainty—he has
heard from God), and people with bad backs come forward for prayer, but no one
receives a healing, then the purported prophet has misrepresented himself. He is not
a prophet. He is someone who receives impressions. Receiving impressions is not
wrong, but they must be recognized for what they are.83
Likewise, there is a danger in excusing someone’s inaccurate prophecy and fail-
ing to call them to accountability. I heard one prominent prophet on Trinity
Broadcasting Network prophesy that Saddam Hussein would be captured in a
certain month. However, Hussein was not captured until three months later. To
my knowledge, he never made any admission that he missed it, nor has he been
held accountable. There is a tendency to excuse prophecies as not needing to be
accurate, rather than follow the early counsel of Woodworth-Etter, “Don’t take

80
See Foster, Sorting Out the Supernatural, 68-81.
81
Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 74-79, 120-123; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1049-51.
82
Joyner, 9-11.
83
James Garrett, “Translocal Ministry in the New Testament Church,” 40.

61
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

up with every vision that comes along,” and admit that some prophecies are just
plain false.
There is effort on the part of some to encourage discernment and accountability.
Charismatic leader John Bevere warns about those who say “thus saith the Lord,”
yet their prophecies prove false.84 Those who claim to be prophets, if they are
mature, should be discerning the voice of the Lord more clearly, and thus should
be more accurate. If they are not more accurate, they should not be regarded as
mature, or even as prophets. J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, wrote
about the need for those who are mistaken in their prophecies to admit them: “If
prophets claim to speak for God they must submit to correction and make apolo-
gies. Prophets who aren’t willing to be corrected should not be in public minis-
try.”85 The related question then arises: To whom are prophets accountable?
Some say only to other prophets or apostles. Others say to the elders or church
governing bodies. This is still an unresolved issue.
3. Elevating the Status of Revelation. Religious movements that have believed
in the reality of prophetic revelations have sometimes elevated such supposed
revelations to the status of Scripture, such as the Book of Mormon and the writ-
ings of Ellen White in Seventh Day Adventism. There is a tendency on the part
of some in the prophetic movement to regard revelation knowledge on par with
Scripture, to regard prophetic proclamations as authoritative, or to grant prophets
authority to govern the church. Grudem addresses this in his book The Gift of
Prophecy, and cites the counsel of Bruce Yocum: “It is usually a mistake for
prophets to be the ultimate authority in a group. A number of heterodox sects
and groups have been led by ‘prophets’ whose ‘inspired’ statements led people
astray. . . . It is the place of prophets to prophesy, but it is the place of the heads
of the community to judge prophecy.”86
4. Overdependence on prophecies. Gordon Wright, who operates in a prophetic
gifting, nonetheless cautions, “The danger of prophetic ministry is our temptation
to replace the ministry of the Holy Spirit with a man or a man’s ministry. This in
essence releases the believer from the responsibility of personally hearing from
or getting a word from God. It is much easier to go to the prophet for a word
from God than to spend the time and energy necessary to seek God in prayer,

84
John Bevere, Thus Saith the Lord (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1999).
85
J. Lee Grady, “Can You Spot a Prophet?,” Ministries Today, September/October 2004,
38.
86
Bruce Yocum, cited in Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 188.

62
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

find Him and hear His voice personally. This type of relationship tends to pro-
duce an unhealthy dependence upon man as our spiritual source rather than our
true and only source, the Lord Jesus. . . . This unhealthy dependence upon man to
hear from God for us also opens one up to prophetic manipulation.”87
5. Over-emphasis on the sensational. Charismatic teacher Eddie Hyatt has ex-
pressed concern that the prophetic stream has lost its focus and is in danger of
repeating the Colossian heresy (Col. 2:18) of “preoccupation with their own
spirituality” and obsession with “supernatural phenomena such as visions and
angelic visitations.” He explains that he was describing to a class that the Colos-
sians’ “fascination with such sensational phenomena had distracted them from
their one and only true Source, Jesus Christ.” Following his teaching, he went to
the auditorium to hear a well-known prophetic teacher: “As I sat on the platform
and listened to the ‘big name’ guest speaker, I was amazed at how closely what I
was hearing coincided with the Colossian Heresy I had just delineated. This per-
son talked almost exclusively of visions, prophecies and angelic visitations. . . .
Jesus certainly was not front and center and I am not even sure if He was men-
tioned. It was incredible!”88
6. Hermeneutical issues: prominent use of symbolism, typology, allegory, nu-
merology, mysticism, riddle, etc. These features were often a part of Old and
New Testament prophetic and apocalyptic literature. However, there is a danger
of over-spiritualizing, over-using and misinterpreting such literature. A compari-
son of these features in the Bible with those in inter-testamental, non-canonical
prophetic literature, and Gnostic literature shows that such features are more re-
strained in the Bible. Similarly, a comparison of these features in the Bible with
modern prophetic revelation shows that such features are often less restrained
today than in the Bible. Thus there is a danger of Gnostic mysticism and elitism.
Mega-church pastor Michael Fletcher, who advocates prophetic ministry, none-
theless avers, “Whenever you allow the prophetic to interpret Scriptures—a pro-
phetic hermeneutic—then you have a whole new set of meanings and ideas that
may be derived from Scripture but are not grounded in it. That makes us all look
flaky.”89 Jack Hayford observes, “In its pure operation, the manifestation of the

87
Gordon A. Wright, The Ministry and Calling of the Prophet: A Word of Correction
(Tulsa, OK: Jesus Inn Ministries), n.d., 3-4.
88
Eddie L.Hyatt, “The Colossian Heresy Revisited: Has the Prophetic Stream Lost Its
Focus?” Pneuma Review, Vol. 8 No. 4 (Fall 2005), 26, accessed online at
http://pneumafoundation.org/ article.jsp?article-article _0038.xml.
89
Cited in Matthew Green, “Speaking for God,” Ministries Today, Sept./Oct. 2004, 48.

63
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Holy Spirit in ‘prophecies,’ as I have observed them through the years, demon-
strates and tends to sustain simplicity.”90 In dealing with the Toronto Blessing
phenomena, the Board of the Vineyard Churches counseled, “No doctrine should
be based on a prophetic interpretation of a particular manifestation.”91 In a “char-
ismatic” critique of the Toronto Blessing movement, scholar Mark Smith like-
wise cautions about the use of a “‘This-Is-That’ prophetic hermeneutic.”92
7. Danger of psychic or occult phenomena. In a Ministries Today article entitled
“Prophet or Psychic,” Raymond Watts has awakened to the increasing danger of
spurious manifestations, especially psychic counterfeits of prophecy and word of
knowledge, calling for testing the spirits.93 John Wimber also admonished,
“[Demons] may be very religious, very ‘spiritual.’ For example, they may proph-
esy, speak in tongues, even quote Scripture.”94
These warnings are important, because some writers such as Morton Kelsey be-
lieve that prophetic giftings and revelations such as supernatural words of knowl-
edge are a form of psychic or psi phenomena, not distinguishing between psychic
and Christian forms. Kelsey even goes so far as to say that Jesus is the ultimate
shaman, and that Jesus and the apostles practiced clairvoyance and ESP.95 Some
in the prophetic movement, such as Kim Clement, believe psychic power is a gift
from God that psychics just do not know how to use properly for God.96 Others,
however, like Watchman Nee, regard such phenomena as “the latent power of the

90
Jack Hayford, “Despise Not Prophecy,” Ministries Today, Sept./Oct. 2004, 80.
91
“Association of Vineyard Churches Board Report: Summary Report on the Current
Renewal and the Phenomena Surrounding It. Sept./Oct. 1994.” Toronto in Perspective,
David Hilborn, ed. (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Publishing, 2001), 340.
92
Mark Smith, “’This-Is That’ Hermeneutics,” The Mark of the Spirit?, ed. Lloyd Piet-
ersen (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Publishing, 1998), 33-62.
93
Raymond E. Watts, “Prophet or Psychic,” Ministries Today, Jan./Feb. 1998, 53-54.
94
John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Healing (San Francisco: Harper, 1987), 232.
For a historical overview of belief in demonization of Christians, see Paul L. King, “A
Historical Survey of Belief and Practice Regarding Deliverance of Demonized Chris-
tians,” Refleks 3-1 (2004), 53-65.
95
Morton T. Kelsey, The Christian and the Supernatural (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1976), 92-100; Morton T. Kelsey, Transcend: A Guide to the Spiritual
Quest (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1981), 218ff.
96
Kim Clement interview #3, http://www.prophetic.tv/clement3/

64
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

soul,” believing that humanity was created with para-normal powers in the image
of God, but these powers were corrupted, restrained or short-circuited by the fall,
and are not the same as the charismatic gifts and manifestations of the Spirit.97
Others consider that when Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened after the fall, para-
normal powers not intended by God were released. In both cases, supernatural
spiritual entities not from God use these powers. Albrecht and Alexander con-
clude:
Scripture acknowledges the reality of occult phenomena and Para psychological
manifestations, but it does not condone their pursuit and cultivation as a means of
knowing God; on the contrary, much of the Biblical testimony emphasizes the
futility and the danger of such questionable spiritual activities. . . . The Biblical
revelation does not associate occultism and Para psychological occurrences with
victory, joy, or absolute truth; instead it identifies the whole syndrome for the most
part with humankind’s cosmic and temporal dilemma.98
8. Merchandising the anointing. Rick Renner, an advocate of prophecy and
other charismatic manifestations, nevertheless warns against “merchandising the
anointing,” about those who sensationalize or invent new prophetic revelations
for their own purposes of power, influence, money, or other self-centered mo-
tives.99 A sidebar article in Ministries Today cautions against “propheteers.”100
Similar warning was given by the Didache in the early second century, as men-
tioned earlier in this article, but it is just as much a concern in the church today.
9. Intersecting with apostolic and strategic level spiritual warfare movements.
The modern prophetic movement is most often identified with and intertwined
with the new apostolic and strategic level spiritual warfare movements advocated
by C. Peter Wagner and others.101 However, not all who believe in prophetic

97
See Watchman Nee, The Latent Power of the Soul (New York, NY: Christian Fellow-
ship Publishers, 1972); Mark Albrecht and Brooks Alexander, “Separating Wheat and
Chaff: Biblical Discernment and Parapsychology,” Journal of the Academy of Religion
and Psychical Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, July 1980.
98
Albrecht and Alexander, 205.
99
Rick Renner, Merchandising the Anointing (Tulsa, OK: Rick Renner Ministries, 1990).
“Propheteers?: Navigating the Dangerous World of Prophecy and Finances,” Ministries
100

Today, Sept./Oct. 2004, 48.

101
For historical surveys of these concepts and movements, see Paul L. King, “The New
Apostolic Movement in Historical Context,” Refleks 5-1 (2006), 60-73; Paul L. King, “A
Historical Survey of the Concept of Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare: Spiritual Mapping,
Territorial Spirits, and Related Praxis,” Refleks 4-1 (2005), 56-70.

65
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

revelation accept all the tenets and practices of these movements. For instance,
John Paul Jackson, active in the prophetic movement, has been criticized for
writing his book Needless Casualties of War, which critiques some strategic level
spiritual warfare beliefs and tactics.102 Advocates of prophetic ministry such as
R.T. Kendall, James Ryle, and John Sandford have endorsed his cautions, but
others in the prophetic and apostolic streams have been critical of Jackson’s
book. If someone who has a prophetic ministry, but does not fit in with these
movements, then how are they regarded? Prophets have authority only in the
sphere of ministry where their authority is accepted. In 2004 Doug Beachem of
the International Pentecostal Holiness Church published Rediscovering the Role
of Apostles and Prophets, endeavoring to provide a balance to the emerging apos-
tolic and prophetic movements and responding to Wagner’s books.103 Beacham
concludes, “While Pentecostal denominations accept the reality of contemporary
‘apostolic and prophetic’ ministries, not all accept the NAR [New Apostolic
Revolution] premise that there are contemporary ‘offices’ of apostles and proph-
ets.”104
10. The artificiality of coaching people to prophesy. Is prophesying a “spontane-
ous” gift that comes from God, or can people legitimately be taught how to
prophesy? Synan comments, “The practicing of learning to prophesy in a class-
room setting seems to take a gift of the Spirit, which is given and controlled by
the Holy Spirit, and places it in humans apart from a worshiping community.”105
11. Distain for balance and discernment. Concern for over-balance or over-
cautiousness in allowing the prophetic movement freedom and flexibility to pro-
gress forward, has resulted in some showing scorn for attempts at maintaining
balance. Hamon, for instance, claims, “The ‘balanced’ group may become so
protective of the truth and so reactionary toward the extremists that they retain
the original form yet lose the flow of the Holy Spirit.”106 He goes on to make a
broad claim that church history shows the balanced group becomes the persecu-
tors of the next restoration move of God (but does not give any support for his
statement). The question then becomes, just what is balance, or should one even

John Paul Jackson, Needless Casualties of War (Fort Worth, TX: Streams Publications,
102

1999), 11-42, 55-72.

103
Doug Beachem, “The Leadershift,” Ministries Today, Nov./Dec. 2004, 33ff.
104
Beacham, “The Leadershift,” Ministries Today, Nov./Dec. 2004, 35.
105
Vinson Synan, “2000 Years of Prophecy,” Ministries Today, Sept./Oct. 2004, 28.
106
Hamon, Apostles, Prophets and the Coming Move of God, 186.

66
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

strive for balance? Is it possible to maintain a healthy balance in the middle

without swinging to either extreme of the pendulum?
12. Other prophetic pitfalls. Jack Deere, while encouraging prophecy, also warns
of “prophetic pitfalls”: prophesying out of wrong motives or attitudes, rejected
prophet syndrome, desire to please or be awesome, rationalizing mistakes, “God
told me” syndrome, among others.107 One might wonder if Deere’s withdrawal
from active involvement with the prophetic movement might be related to his
perceptions of failure to heed his cautions.

Conclusions
There is effort on the part of many in the contemporary prophetic movements to
exercise discernment and to deal with some of these issues. The Ministries To-
day issue on prophets addresses some of these problems, attempting to provide
balanced counsel.108
The Apostle Paul admonishes both to despise not prophesyings and to judge all
things (1 Thess. 5:21). To deny the reality and legitimacy of prophecy because of
excesses and misuses is not of value. The Latin phrase abusus non tollit usus
applies here: “The abuse does not bear away the use,” or in other words, the
abuse should not obscure or invalidate legitimate use. One early writer, A.B.
Simpson, who observed both the benefits and the dangers of prophecy, put it this
way, “The best remedy for the abuse of anything is its wise and proper use.”109
Prophecy, when exercised in its proper place and manner can do what it is in-
tended—to edify, comfort and encourage. Yet prophecy needs boundaries in
order for it to be used properly and safely for benefit of all. Balance and dis-
cernment are vital, as well as accountability for mistaken prophecies, especially
those spoken by prominent prophetic leaders. Hyatt presents three principles to
keep the contemporary prophetic movement from losing its proper focus:
• Keep Jesus at the Center. Do not seek an experience, seek Him.
• Let the supernatural happen, do not try to make it happen.

107
Deere, Surprised by the Voice of God, 190-216.
“Propheteers?”, 48; Matthew Green, “Speaking for God,” Ministries Today, Sept./Oct.
108

2004, 45ff., Eddie L. Hyatt, “Putting Personal Prophecy to the Test,” Ministries Today,
Sept./Oct. 2004, 30ff.; J. Lee Grady, “Can You Spot a Prophet?”, Ministries Today,
Sept./Oct. 2004, 36ff.
109
A. B. Simpson, Christian and Missionary Alliance Weekly, March 27, 1891, 195.

67
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

• Stay humble. Do not allow spiritual experiences to become a basis for

pride. Avoid an elitist attitude.110
Hyatt’s recommendations echo counsel given even before the Pentecostal move-
ment began to spread that appears to be timely and timeless sound advice for the
prophetic movement a century later:
Beloved, let us understand and admit one for all that we are exceedingly fallible
creatures. So very fallible, in fact, that, though our Father may be very desirous of
imparting to us some truth and though He may breathe into the soul in all His
Divine purity, yet when we undertake to give it voice and pour it out in verbal
phrase to others, we are more than apt—unless we lie low at His feet in deepest
humility—to so tarnish and becloud it by our clumsy touch and exaggerated
language, as will place it beyond the Divine recognition.
A revelation may be truly from God. Yet, being such imperfect transmitters and
interpreters of the Divine thought as is true of each one of us, one may easily be
mistaken in the interpretation given to such revelation.
Those who confidently aver that marvelous experiences have been given them,
accompanied by visions and repeated assurance that a certain one who is ill has
been already healed or is to be healed in the future, and then following such
assurance the sick one dies without healing having been experienced—such persons
either misinterpreted God’s revelation, or have mistaken the voice of the Adversary
for that of the Holy Spirit.111
Matthew Green, the managing editor of Ministries Today sums up a balanced
attitude toward the prophetic movement today, “Fraudulent prophets will always
be with us, as will sneaky evangelists, abusive pastors, heretical teachers and
power-hungry apostles. But, if we allow our fear of the counterfeit to shake our
faith in the authentic, we may miss out on hearing God speak.”112

110
Hyatt, “The Colossian Heresy Revisited,” 27.
111
May Mabette Anderson, “The Prayer of Faith: Part II,” The Christian and Missionary
Alliance Weekly, Feb. 24, 1906, 106-107.
Matthew Green, “Editor’s Note: Can You Hear Me Now?, Ministries Today, Sept./Oct.
112

2004, 6.

68
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Introduction
In 1985 Dave Hunt, a lay cult watcher, published one of the most influential
books of the 1980s, The Seduction of Christianity.1 In that work he lambasted
much of the leadership of the charismatic renewal for “seducing” the American
Christianity with ideas and practices derived from occult sources. He attacked
Mrs. Agnes Sanford and her writing with particular severity. Hunt claimed that
her syncretistic theology was little more that witchcraft and shamanism, and
should be totally rejected by the Christian community. Hunt was convinced that
the ministry she pioneered, inner healing, was especially occultic and dangerous
to Christians.2
In my work, Quenching the Spirit, I argued that such characterizations are de-
structive and untrue. Critics such as Hunt do not take into account the tragic
situation within Nineteenth Century “orthodox” Christianity which labeled any
form of healing prayer as cultic and heretical. The consensus orthodoxy of the
era stressed the doctrine of cessationism, which also declared the gifts of the
Spirit as unavailable in the current age. This theology combined with an unrec-
ognized dependence on philosophical realism that came into both Catholicism
and Protestantism from the late Middle Ages. The result was that the consensus
orthodoxy of the era left no room for the role of the believer’s faith to move in
healing prayer or in the gifts of the Spirit.3
An overview of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries shows a pattern in
which the Holy Spirit moved the Church away from its cessationism-realism

* This article was originally published in Pneuma Review 9-2 (2006) and 9-3 (2006) and is
used by permission.
1
Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon, The Seduction of Christianity (Eugene: Harvest House
Publishers, 1985).
2
Ibid., see especially chapter 9 “Shamanism Revived”. In this paper I will not cover Mrs.
Sanford’s development of the ministry of inner healing.
3
William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit (Lake Mary: Creation House, 1996).

69
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

based theology. The Spirit simultaneously inspired different groups and indi-
viduals towards theologies that reincorporated the gifts of the Spirit. This allowed
for a more active understanding of the role of mind, acting through faith in
Christ, to activate the miraculous powers of the Kingdom of God. This was a
move toward theologies based on moderate idealism, that is, that mind, with
faith, can influence matter, as in healing and the miraculous, and away from theo-
logical systems based on radical realism where the Christian merely petitions that
God act.4 A characteristic of faith-idealism is that physical evidence is of less
immediate concern than the witness of the Word of God.
The shift from cessationist realism to faith idealism was a process that began in
the middle of the Nineteenth Century and has yet to be completed. The first ex-
ample of faith idealism as a conscious theology was in the writings and ministry
of Phoebe Palmer, the famous Holiness evangelist who developed her “altar”
theology which spread the gospel of Wesleyan total sanctification. For Mrs.
Palmer the evidence of the believer’s sanctification was in the Word of God, not
in a person’s physical actions.5 Later, the Faith-Cure Movement of the 1880s
developed a similar doctrine in which healing was affirmed in spite of any imme-
diate change in the health of the petitioner.6
Perhaps the single most important, and controversial, theologian of faith-idealism
was the evangelist E.W. Kenyon. His work greatly influenced the theology and
writings of Kenneth Hagin, and through him the entire charismatic movement.
Dan McConnell’s work, A Different Gospel, strongly critiqued Kenyon’'s (and
thus Hagin’s) theology as syncretistic and occultic.7 McConnell attempted to
show that Kenyon was mostly dependent on New Thought writers, and thus his

4
William DeArteaga, “Confusing the Roots With the Fruits,” Ministries Today 9
(July/August 1991), 56-62, and Quenching the Spirit, passim.
5
Charles Edward White, “Phoebe Palmer and the Development of Pentecostal Pneumatol-
ogy.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 23 (spring/fall, 1983), 198-212.
6
The classic work of the Faith Cure Movement is Carrie F. Judd, The Prayer of Faith
(Buffalo, N.Y.: H. Otis, 1882).
7
D. R. McConnell, A Different Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern
Faith Movement (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988). Subsequent intensive research by Dale H.
Simmons, published in his book, E. W. Kenyon and The Postbellum Pursuit of Peace,
Power, and Plenty (Lanham, MD: Scare Crow Press, 1977) and Geir Lie in his article
“The Theology of E. W. Kenyon: Plain Heresy or Within the Boundaries of Pentecostal-
Charismatic ‘Orthodoxy’?” PNEUMA 22 (spring, 2000) 85-114, have shown that Kenyon
was influenced mostly by Holiness theology, not New Though.

70
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

theology was non-Christian and dangerous to the Church. However, in Quench-

ing the Spirit I argued to the contrary and showed that influence by heretical
movements has often forced Christians into a deeper encounter with truth. This
is a process common to the formation of orthodox Christian theology throughout
Church history.8
In the case of healing prayer in particular, the heretical Idealist Cults of the 19th.
Century, the Mind Cure movement and especially Christian Science, forced
many in the Church to reevaluate and ultimately reject cessationism. Mrs. Agnes
Sanford was among those who faced the challenge of the Idealist Cults head on
and helped to transform healing prayer from a cultic activity to a normative
Christian practice. She played a particularly significant role in moving many
Christians within the mainline churches away from cessationism and into the
pastoral practice of healing prayer, and introduced many to the gifts of the Spirit.
Agnes Sanford (and her friend and colleague, Prof. Glenn Clark) influenced
mainline Protestants towards moderat idealism in much the same way that the
ministry of Kenyon (and later Kenneth Hagin) influenced Pentecostal circles.9

Mrs. Sanford’s Heritage

Agnes Sanford’s father, the Rev. Hugh W. White, was one of the most distin-
guished American missionaries to China in an era filled with dedicated and self-
sacrificing missionaries. Hugh White intended to be a pastor, like his father, but
he felt a calling as a missionary to China and went there immediately after semi-
nary. Except for home leaves, he stayed there until his death in 1940. During his
long service the Rev. White was forced to confront the inadequacies of cessation-
ist theology in two major crises.10

8
DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit, chapter 13. My position is based largely on Harold O.
J. Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy From the
Apostles to the Present (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1984) and Leonard Verduin, The
Reformers and their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1964).
9
The role that Glenn Clark and his CFO played in challenging cessationism and preparing
the way for the charismatic renewal is described in my article “Glenn Clark’s Camps Fur-
thest Out: The Schoolhouse of the Charismatic Renewal,” Pneuma 25:2 (2003), 265-288.
10
The Rev White’s trials with cessationist orthodoxy in China are mentioned in Mrs. San-
ford’s Sealed Orders, (Plainfield: Logos International, 1971), and extensively described in
her autobiographical novel, The Second Mrs. Wu (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1965),
which gives a detailed description of her years at the mission station in Hsuchoufu.

71
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

One of his trusted Chinese elders baptized an entire family that had recently been
converted. In this family the husband had two wives, as was the custom among
the merchant class in China. For the elder, there was no problem in this. The
elder recognized that 1 Timothy 3 takes into account this situation. Further, to
have forced the husband to renounce one of his wives would have condemned the
rejected wife to a life of prostitution. Unfortunately, as clear as this issue was
biblically, mission doctrine and policy forbade such baptisms. The Rev. White
backed his elder. As a result he was forced to leave his comfortable post and
establish a new mission.
The second crisis began when another of the Rev. White’s trusted evangelical
aides reported that on a round of the villages he had baptized two persons, re-
ceived three new inquirers and “cast a demon out of old Mrs. Tsu.”11 White was
astonished by the reported exorcism – cessationist theology, the consensus ortho-
doxy of the times, claimed that demonic possession ended after Apostolic times.
He accompanied his aid on his next rounds, and sure enough, the faith-filled lay-
man ministered another exorcism in Rev. White’s presence. From that time on
Rev. White began collecting evidence on possessions and exorcisms, eventually
ministering many exorcisms himself.
He presented his finding in a book called Demonism Verified and Analyzed
which was published in 1922.12 White believed that possession was a form of
violent disassociation. The possessing force was not a spiritually independent
entity; it was more like a psychic force or idea. Yet the exorcism itself was
“real” in the sense that it was a form of rapid psychotherapy. This theory may
not be entirely satisfactory, but it was a pioneer attempt to integrate biblical reve-
lation with modern psychology, and his book deserved more attention than it
received.13
Rev. Hugh White’'s ministry taught his daughter Agnes, in her years of special
impressionability, that certain elements of normative, “consensus orthodoxy”
could be stubbornly unscriptural. It also showed her that perfectly sincere Chris-

11
A description of this incident is found in The Second Mrs. Wu, 209. See also: Agnes
Sanford, “Prayer of Healing,” Tape #140-A, Ft. Myers: Lord’s Own Tape Ministry, n.d.
12
Hugh W. White, Demonism Verified and Analyzed, (Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission
Press, 1922).
13
It is informative to see the similarities between Rev. White’'s view of possession and
exorcism and the view of M. Scott Peck, whose books on evil have become best-sellers.
See especially Peck’s chapter 5, “Of Possession and Exorcism” in his People of the Lie,
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983).

72
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

tians, such as the fellow missionaries who opposed her father, were all too ready
to confuse consensus doctrines with biblical revelation.

Birth, Education and Marriage

Agnes White was born in the Chinese city of Hsuchoufu on August 15, 1896, the
eldest child of six. She received “home schooling” from her mother that stressed
the conventional topics of Bible stories, verse memorization and reading. Mrs.
White obviously did a good job, as she was able to encourage Agnes’s talent for
writing to the point that at age ten she sold her first piece of writing to the Shang-
hai Mercury.
At age nine, during one of her father’'s periodic home leaves, Agnes attended a
revival in rural Virginia and made a “born again” commitment to Jesus Christ.
By age eleven she was entirely dissatisfied with the conventional arguments that
miracles were for the Apostolic Age alone. Later, as a teen-ager she became
deeply depressed and bewildered over the denominational disputes over doctrines
that split the American missionary effort in China, yet her commitments to Jesus
and the Bible were unshaken. In 1914, age seventeen, Agnes returned to the
United States to finish her education. She received a teaching certificate from
North Carolina and subsequently attended Agnes Scott College for a year as an
auditing student.
Agnes returned to China where she found a teaching position in Shanghai at a
secondary school for missionary children.14 In that city she met and fell in love
with Edgar (Ted) Sanford who was an Episcopal priest and principal of another
Christian school. They were married in April of 1923 and the first of three chil-
dren arrived the next year. Soon Ted moved his family to a post in the interior of
China. That station proved to be a harrowing experience as the young missionary
family was caught in battles between warlords.15 After this the Sanfords decided
to take a temporary leave from China so that Ted could get an advanced degree.
The year was 1925, and while in graduate school Ted felt a calling to go into the
pastorate in America. He accepted a call as rector to a small church in Moores-
town, New Jersey, Trinity Episcopal Church.

14
Agnes Sanford's novel, The Rising River (New York: J.B.Lippincott, 1968), contains
autobiographical details of this period of her life.
15
For a glimpse of this high-adventure, see Edgar L. Sanford, God’s Healing Power
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1959), 155-159.

73
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Continuing Education in Moorestow n

After the Sanfords settled in Moorestown they had their third and last child, John
- later to become the distinguished psychologist and writer. When John was a
year and a half old he developed a severe ear infection. After several weeks of
illness it seemed like John might die. The rector of a near-by Episcopal Church,
Rev. Hollis Colwell dropped by the Sanford residence to see Ted on church busi-
ness, and learned of John’'s situation. Fr. Colwell had read New Thought litera-
ture on healing, and by the time of his visit to the Sanford’'s he had developed
into a practiced and faith-filled healer. He laid his hands on John’s ear, after
which the toddler promptly went into a deep sleep and awoke completely well.
In the days before antibiotics this was indeed a miraculous recovery.16
Fr. Colwell encouraged Mrs. Sanford to pray for the healing of others. At first
Agnes was reluctant to do so. However, with Fr. Colwell help, she began to in-
vestigate the topic. He believed that a necessary ingredient of the healing minis-
try is an adherence to a strict health-food regime. Apparently Fr. Colwell had
read the works of the Episcopal healing and health food pioneer, the Rev. Robert
B. H. Bell, and had taken Bell’s dietary insights to an extreme position.17 Agnes
looked into this and read some of the health-food literature available at the time
(1931). In fact, for the rest of her life she adopted what would now be recog-
nized as a moderate health food diet for herself and her family which avoided
processed foods and stressed fresh fruits and vegetables. However, she also dis-
cerned that although eating health foods was good, that could not be the founda-
tion of either Fr. Colwell’s or anybody else’s healing power.
Agnes then set out to find out as much about healing as she could, and at this
stage made a critical decision. She determined to compare whatever she read or
heard by the standard set up by Jesus in the four gospels.18
This sounds very simple, but it did not prove to be so. First of all, I found that what
He said went directly contrary to many of the explanations concerning religion that
I had been taught since my youth. For instance, I had been told that the age of
miracles was past - yet I had seen a miracle...I also knew that there was no use in
trying to understand what I had not experienced. Therefore I set myself to find an
experience of God’s power.

16
Sealed Orders, 96-98.
17
Fr. Bell’s major work was The Life Abundant: a manual for living, (Milwaukee:
Moorehouse Publishing Co., 1927).
18
Sealed Orders, 102-103.

74
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007
In order to do this, I laid aside temporarily all that I had been taught concerning
Christianity. I did not disbelieve it, I merely laid it on the table to be considered
later. And that is what all of us must do if we are to learn.19
She began with reading Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health With Key to the
Scriptures, but felt bewildered by the vocabulary and philosophical underpin-
nings of Christian Science (radical idealism), and laid it aside. Much more useful
was the Christian New Thought writer Emmet Fox. In his classic work, Sermon
On The Mount, Agnes’s spirit found profound resonance.20 Here was a person
who believed in the power of God and of scripture for the here and now - a com-
mon assumption of New Thought writers. Ironically this non cessationist view
placed Fox closer to the plain and literal understanding of scripture than the more
orthodox and conservative Christians of the era. Agnes’s firm devotion to Jesus
and her determination to use the gospels as her discernment anchor saved her
from adopting Fox’'s Arian Christology - something that in any case is not mani-
fest in the Sermon On The Mount. She continued to look into the available litera-
ture of healing including the literature of the Unity School of Christianity. It
seems that she did not encounter at this time the literature of the Evangelical
healing revival of the 1880s. She also made contact with a small church in Phila-
delphia run by an ex-Baptist who had been expelled from her congregation for
practicing Christian healing.21
Fr. Colwell continued to urge Agnes to move out in faith and pray for the healing
of others. Her first attempt was a failure; she had prayed for a young man who
had gone insane. Years later she recognized that type of illness is among the
most difficult to heal, involving much prayer, deliverance and intercession.22 Her
second attempt was totally successful. This case was one of a young child dying
of severe infection which stirred in her a special compassion, for it was infection
that almost killed her youngest child. Agnes described that case in Sealed Orders:
But the time came when I felt strongly urged to march myself to a hospital and offer
to pray for a child desperately ill with a streptococcus infection. This was in the
days before the miracle drugs, and the child had the infection in the heart, the
kidneys, and the blood stream...

19
Agnes Sanford, Behold Your God (St.Paul: Macalester Park, 1958), 2.
20
Emmet Fox, The Sermon on the Mount: a general introduction to scientific Christianity
in the form of a spiritual key to Matthew V, VI and VII (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1932).
21
See Sealed Orders, 103 ff. for a description of the works she read in her first years of
her healing ministry.
22
Agnes Sanford, The Healing Power of the Bible (New York: Pillar Books, 1976), 54.

75
REFLEKS 6-1 2007
I was terrified. I would as soon have walked up to the mouth of a cannon, or so I
thought. But the urge of compassion was strong, for I knew the child would die
unless something intervened... Strange to say, as soon as I sat down beside the bed
and began to talk to the child, I had no fear at all! The venture seemed as simple
and as natural as if I had been doing it all my life... I laid hands on the region of the
heart and simply asked Jesus to make him well, and then thanked Jesus because I
knew he was doing it. The next day the child’s blood stream and heart were free of
infection. The kidneys took one more day.23
We should notice that already she was praying in the “moderate idealist” style,
thanking God for the healing even though no evidence was manifest. This case
greatly encouraged her, and she began praying for others. Soon she formed a
lady’s Bible study and prayer group which met in the parish chapel once a week.
This group developed great power in intercessory prayer and soon Mrs. Sanford
was building up case upon case in effective healing prayer. She also began ac-
quiring a reputation as an expert in healing and began receiving invitations to
speak publicly on the topic. At first she would be invited by women’'s groups, as
ministers would be deathly afraid of anything to do with healing, especially from
a woman, but gradually she began to receive a few direct invitations to speak in
the churches.24

Ministry at Tilton Army Hospital

By the outset of World War II she was well read, well practiced in healing and
strong in discernment. Mrs. Sanford volunteered for service as a Gray Lady at
Tilton Army Hospital at Ft. Dix. Every week she would spend a full day there.
Her assigned duties were to pass around a cart of comic books, magazines, can-
dies and flowers for the wounded men in the hospital. It was strictly and abso-
lutely forbidden to pray for the men. Soon however her compassion overcame
her respect for the lawfulness of authority (Acts 4:18-22). Often she would place
her hands underneath a copy of Life magazine (the largest magazine available) so
that the authorities would not see what she was doing.
Agnes later came to see this period in her life as the most fruitful one in her heal-
ing ministry. God’s healing power flowed through her to an unusual degree,
partly because there was no publicity and partly because war wounds were not
associated with personal sin of the soldiers. Thus the healing power of God
could flow without impediment from unresolved sin or unforgiveness. As she
gained more confidence in this secret ministry she began to teach the soldiers

23
Sealed Orders, 110-111
24
Ibid., 141.

76
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

how to pray for themselves and one another. She had particular success in the
“wet ward” where soldiers with infected wounds were often relegated to die slow
deaths. Not long after she finished teaching the men to pray for one another, that
ward was closed down with the soldiers discharged and healed.25
Just after the war ended Agnes was caught in the very act of praying for a sol-
dier! She was brought to her supervisor, a dedicated, orthodox Christian woman,
who tongue lashed her as a dangerous heretic and witch, and dismissed her.
Agnes was shaken and hurt by this, but understood that she needed to forgive the
nurse or her healing ministry would be weakened. The Lord turned evil into
good. Agnes then had time to return to her writing, and she wrote a best-selling
novel about her experiences at Tilton Army Hospital, Oh, Watchman! 26 She also
continued a busy schedule of appearances at church healing missions and lec-
tures.

The Healing Light

It was during her ministry at Tilton Army Hospital that Mrs. Sanford wrote her
first, and most successful book, The Healing Light.27 The book was based on the
notes she prepared for an adult education class that she gave during the war. It
was written in simple language. In fact, Mrs. Sanford read the text to her nine
year old niece and would not be satisfied until the girl could understand it.28 The
manuscript was finished in 1945, but it was rejected by the major trade publish-
ers. However, several chapters were serialized in Sharing magazine, the organ for
the Order of St. Luke, the Episcopal healing order. Professor Glenn Clark, foun-
der of the CFO camps, read the chapters in Sharing and recognized their superior
quality. He offered to publish it through Macalester Park, his own publishing
house. It initially sold slowly, partly because Macalester Park was not listed in
Books in Print, and thus had difficulty in distribution, but word of mouth soon
overcame that handicap.
The Healing Light might be termed the crown work of Christian New Thought.
That is, Mrs. Sanford appropriated many of the motifs, vocabulary and insights

25
Ibid., 178-188.
26
Agnes Sanford, Oh, Watchman! (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1951).
27
Agnes Sanford, The Healing Light (St. Paul: Macalester Park, 1947).
28
Taped interview with Dr. Harry Goldsmith, August 1983. Dr. Goldsmith was severely
wounded as a young soldier in W.W.II, healed by Mrs. Sanford’s prayers at Tilton, and
became her life-long friend.

77
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

from New Thought writers, but using her biblical knowledge as filter, eliminated
the unbiblical aspects of New Thought, such as its drift into radical idealism (evil
is unreal, as in Christian Science) and its sub-orthodox Christology. Central to
her understanding and theology was the concept that the Kingdom of God is
manifest through prayer and power on earth, and is not just “other-worldly.”
Among the New Thought motifs that Mrs. Sanford appropriated was that Chris-
tian spirituality could be described as a form of scientific endeavor. This was the
initial intent of Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science, and it permeated all New
Thought writings. It was common to many movements and ideologies of the
Nineteenth Century, such as Marxism and psychoanalysis. In Mrs. Eddy’s writ-
ings and other New Thought systems of radical idealism, the end result of this
quest was little more than a doctrinal mythology with an authoritative, convo-
luted syntax and pretentious vocabulary that aped the science of the times.
In comparison, Mrs. Sanford was far ahead of her New Thought contemporaries
in understudying what true science was and was not.. Mrs. Sanford saw that true
science was not a new system of doctrines, but a methodology of knowledge that
involved exploration, testing, verification (and failure) and humility of spirit with
which to attack a problem. Although this is well understood today, it was not so
clear when Mrs. Sanford wrote The Healing Light.29 Mrs. Sanford wrote:
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.” The scientific attitude is the
attitude of perfect meekness. It consists in an unshakable faith in the laws of nature
combined with perfect humility toward those laws and a patient determination to
learn them at whatever cost…Through the Same meekness those who seek God can
produce results by learning to conform to his laws of faith and love.30
The title of her book, The Healing Light, points to the main thesis, that the heal-
ing power of God is light energy that is accessible to all who understand its law-
ful application in compassion and love. Agnes speculated that the healing light
was the primal light that originated at the beginning of creation, and that this light
is everywhere. On the practical level Agnes guides the reader on how to use the
free gift of God’s healing light for healing. This is done by visualizing God’s
light flooding the afflicted person or area of disease. To many Evangelical and
cessationist educated Christians this seemed like occult hocus-pocus. In fact, the

29
Compare her basic understanding of science with the seminal work of Sir Carl R. Pop-
per, especially his technical The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Science Edi-
tions, 1961), and the more readable Conjectures and Refutations: the growth of scientific
knowledge (New York: Basic Books, 1962).
30
Healing Light, 21.

78
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

use of light in prayer is alien to Western Christianity, but common to Eastern

Orthodoxy, which has a highly evolved theology of light, especially in reference
to contemplative prayer.31 What is innovative about Mrs. Sanford’s work it not
that it urges the use of light in prayer, but its use in healing prayer.
Among other advances in healing prayer that The Healing Light presented was
Mrs. Sanford’s discovery on intercessory prayer for someone distant. The ex-
Baptist minister who had previously advised her gave her the key to effective
distance healing.
When you think of someone, you always see the person in your mind. If you really
believe he’s going to be well, you see him well. If he pops into your mind like your
eyes saw him last, or like your friends tells you he is, all moans and groans and
fever, that shows that your subconscious mind does not really believe he’s going to
be well…When you pray for someone, dearie, you must learn to see him well.32
This whole issue of the use of visualization also caused much controversy, espe-
cially in latter years when cessationist influenced Evangelicals such as Dave
Hunt believed that all visualization was occultic. This of course has no basis in
scripture, and visualization prayer, as a form of devotional aid to Bible reading,
has a long history in Christianity.33
In spite of the New Thought vocabulary of visualization and vibration, The Heal-
ing Light is biblically orthodox where it counts, in its Christology. In practical
terms this meant that the “name of Jesus adds power to all prayer.”34 Mrs. San-
ford believed that it is only through Jesus’ name that the great works of healing
described in the Bible can be achieved.35 Mrs. Sanford’s participation in her hus-
band’s Episcopal liturgy had given her an appreciation of the effectiveness of the
sacraments in healing. She also discerned that the ordained clergy had a special
anointing to heal.36 Another indication of the biblical orthodoxy of The Healing
Light is Mrs. Sanford’s understanding that God is both immanent and transcen-

31
See for example George A, Maloney, The Mystic of Fire and Light: St. Symeon, the new
theologian (Denville: Dimension Books, 1975).
32
Healing Light, 145
33
Quenching the Spirit, chapter 17, “Visualization and the Christian,” and Brooks Alex-
ander’s masterful article “Mind Power and the Mind’s Eye,” SPS Journal 9, no 3, (1990),
8-20.
34
Healing Light, 64.
35
Ibid, 128
36
Ibid., 94.

79
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

dent. “God’s light shines both within us and without us, and by learning to re-
ceive Him within we begin to perceive Him Without.”37
This balanced, classical view of immanence and transcendence had practical con-
sequences. She discovered that a prayer life of meditation (silence) and active
mental prayer of praise, thanksgiving and petition was the way of optimizing
one’s ability to be a channel for God’s graces and light to others. This is different
from most New Thought writers who stressed meditation, but neglected worship
of the transcendent, personal God.
Another major contribution to the modern Christian theology of healing found in
The Healing Light is healing prayer as evangelization. “Some may wonder
whether it is right to pray in the name of Christ and by the power of Christ for
one who might not be willing to accept Christ. But after all, was it not that way
when He was on earth? Did the nine lepers accept Him as Savior?”38 In fact, in
her personal ministry at Tilton Army Hospital Mrs. Sanford followed the pattern
of first praying for physical healing, then evangelizing. It was an effective com-
bination and a precursor to the theology of “power evangelism” made famous
decades later by John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
The years immediately after the publication of The Healing Light were both hec-
tic and most fruitful for Mrs. Sanford. Her speaking engagements in teaching
missions and CFO camps multiplied. The healing missions were often in Episco-
pal churches where the pattern of a two or three day teaching with healing service
and Eucharist had been developed earlier by John Gaynor Banks, founder of the
OSL. However, the missions were by no means limited to Episcopal churches,
and in the South, where Mrs. Sanford’'s work was especially welcome, the heal-
ing missions were given in churches of practically every denomination. CFO
camps, where of course non-denominational, with participants coming from
every denomination of Protestantism (and after the 1960s the Catholics began
attending).

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

By 1952 the success of Mrs. Agnes Sanford’s first book, The Healing Light
brought some unintended difficulties to her life. She was in demand as a speaker,
and toured the US. and Canada in CFO camps and independent healing missions,
while at the same time trying to raise a family and support her husband as rector

37
Ibid.. 77
38
Ibid., 139.

80
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

of a busy Episcopal church. She was exhausted yet felt an inner compulsion to
preach the Good News that Jesus lives and heals in the current age.
Providentially, Agnes had been scheduled for a healing mission in Tucson, Ari-
zona. It was canceled when she arrived, and she took time to rest and pray with
two local women who were also in the healing ministry. All three felt an exhaus-
tion from their ministry and cried out to God for relief. As they prayed for guid-
ance, all three received the same direction, pray for “the Holy Ghost.” In obedi-
ence, the three women prayed for each other with the laying on of hands. The
three were instantly healed of their exhaustion and other maladies and received
an infilling of joy and peace.
None manifested the gift of tongues. They neither expected nor understood it.
After Agnes had returned to Moorstown, one of them, Mrs. Marion Lovekin,
went to a local Pentecostal meeting and received the gift of tongues, and wrote
Agnes enthusiastically explaining her experience. Agnes wrote back saying she
wanted no part of tongue speaking. Mrs. Lovekin wrote again showing her the
biblical basis for tongues, and challenging her to meditate on the issue. Not long
after, Agnes returned to Tucson and the three women again prayed together.
Agnes lifted the “tongues” question to God in prayer:
...immediately I desired the gift of tongues with a great longing! And in another
moment I spoke as they had spoken, in words that the conscious mind did not
understand….I felt as though the love of Christ, already in me, now moved down,
down to a deeper level.39
Agnes spent several days in deep prayer and praise, although still did not quite
understand what had happened. Within a few weeks, on a healing mission in
Florida, she stayed with a Christian woman who had had the gift of tongues for
years. The woman was able to resolve her theological and biblical reservations,
and after that Agnes utilized tongues daily in private prayer. She also used the
gift of tongues while writing, discovering that form of praying helped her avoid
errors by giving her a “check” in her spirit if she wrote anything contrary to the
Word.
The first work Agnes wrote in this manner was Behold Your God (published in
1958).40 This was her first attempt at serious theological reflection since The
Healing Light of 1945. It came after two novels, which Agnes termed her
“teaching parables,” and two children’s books. Mrs. Sanford’s brother badgered
her for something more “meaty” and suggested a commentary on the creeds.

39
Agnes Sanford, Sealed Orders, 221.
40
Agnes Sanford, Behold Your God (St. Paul: Macalester Park, 1958).

81
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Agnes felt this was a word from the Lord and she began work on Behold Your
God. It developed as an extended commentary to The Healing Light, demonstrat-
ing a considerable deepening of her thought. The references to the creeds were
reduced to incidental after thoughts.
Like The Healing Light, Behold Your God was simple in language and humble in
its presentation. Mrs. Sanford admitted, for example, to being befuddled by the
theological discussions of the Holy Spirit that dealt with a filioque debate that
separated Christendom in the Eleventh Century. Yet her understanding of the
Holy Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, as well as her understanding of the spirit of
man were both pioneering and profound.
By the time Mrs. Sanford wrote Behold Your God, she had witnessed wide varie-
ties of healing, from demonic based spiritualism, to Christian Science and meta-
physics, to authentic Christian and Spirit-filled healing. In her understanding,
godly spiritual healing could come at any one of three levels, which she related to
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity41 At the first level, any person who believed
in one God, and who prayed believing would be granted some healing power.
This was true regardless of whether or not one was a Christian. This position,
which some Christians believe is impious, is biblical. The healings in the Old
Testament all took place not because of faith in Jesus, but because of faith in God
as healer (Jehovah-rohi). Agnes saw the contemporary equivalency of Old Tes-
tament healing in those in the Christian Science and the Metaphysical Move-
ments who had strong faith in God, though they saw nothing uniquely divine in
the person of Jesus. However, once a person believed in the divinity of Jesus, and
made a commitment to His Lordship, the person was elevated into a healing
power double that of the Old Testament position. The third and highest level of
healing was reached when a believing Christian accepted the person and baptism
of the Holy Spirit and received the gift of healing. Mrs. Sanford’s insight makes
clear the sad situation of the contemporary world, Metaphysical believers can be
healers, while “born again” Christians, who believe in cessationism, are often
completely ineffective as channels of God’s healing power.
Mrs. Sanford saw the practice of positive thinking and visualization (holding a
desired goal in the imagination) as having similar levels of power. Visualization
is God-given and available to any believer in God. The power of visualization
and positive thinking are increased when a person becomes a Christian and adds
the name of Jesus to his prayer-visualizations. A third level is reached through

41
Behold, 136-137.

82
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

the power of the Holy Spirit. Agnes looked at the biblical evidence and saw a
42

pattern that explains this: Jesus taught first faith (i.e. positive trust expectancy)
to his disciples and only revealed his divine nature later in his ministry.43 (Behold
Your God, 35-36).
This concept of “levels” of spiritual power was broadened to explain the relation-
ship between the powers of the soul (the “psychic” powers) and the powers of the
Spirit-filled human spirit.
The Holy Spirit does not do violence to our natures, but only increases and develops
in us gifts that are already potential to our natures. Some people have natural-born
spiritual sensitivity, and if they use them only in the realm of meditation and
spiritual living, avoiding séances, Ouija boards and automatic writing, the gift can
be greatly used in God’s service.44
Agnes believed that certain natural powers of the soul are increased when a per-
son becomes a Christian and fulfilled with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For
example, the gift of prophecy is a spiritualized fulfillment of the soul’s ability to
perceive non-material realities, often manifested in pre-cognitive dreams. Simi-
larly, the gifts of wisdom and knowledge are increments of powers of the soul to
make intuitive judgments. This is a modern version of the traditional Catholic
doctrine that “grace perfects nature.” It was later used by Catholic theologians of
the renewal to explain to fellow Catholics the gifts of the Spirit.45 This under-
standing of the gifts is contrary to that of many other Pentecostals and charismat-
ics, who base their understanding of the gifts of the Spirit on Calvin’s doctrine of
“total depravity.” In this theology the human soul was so ruined by original sin
that anything “psychic” is sinful. This position - popularized by Watchman Nee
and well established among Evangelicals, Pentecostals and charismatics - does
not make biblical sense. It makes, for instance, the prophetic dream of Pilate’s
wife a psychic and sinful experience, quite contrary to the biblical text (Matt.
27:19). However this theology is so set among evangelical and a majority of
charismatic circles that when Dave Hunt and other critics of Mrs. Sanford called
her theology “psychic” and “occultic” because of its nature-to-grace basis, the
accusation felt “true” it spite of its biblical contradictions.

42
Compare with Brooks Alexander’s essentially similar position in his “Mind Power And
The Mind’s Eye,” SCP Journal 9 #3 (1991) 8-20.
43
Behold, 35-36.
44
Agnes Sanford, Behold Your God, 146.
45
Rene Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 134.

83
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

The School of Pastoral Care 46

One of the most important achievements of Mrs. Sanford during the late 1950s
was the founding of the School of Pastoral Care. She and her husband Ted were
deeply grieved by the destructive nature of the instruction provided by the major
seminaries, which resulted in pastors who knew little of effective prayer and
nothing of healing or exorcism.47 The Sanfords wanted a place where pastors,
medical professionals and seminarians could be taught the spiritual dimensions of
healing and effective prayer and integrate these within their professional minis-
tries.
Although the Sanfords loved the institutions of the church missions and espe-
cially the CFO camps, both these had limitations. They attracted few ministerial
or medical professionals, and because they were open to all, had the problem of
slow learners or persons too deeply wounded or neurotic to receive much instruc-
tion. To remedy these shortcomings the Sanfords founded the School of Pastoral
Care. It was based out of Westboro, Massachusetts, their “retirement” home, with
Ted as first director and administrator. The Episcopal diocese of Massachusetts
provided their retreat facilities for the School. The first School began in October,
10, 1955, lasting from Monday to Friday. The audience was limited and screened
to include only pastors, medical professionals and seminarians. The participants
at this School, and the ones following came from practically every denomination
of mainline Protestantism. The program taught effective prayer, prayer for physi-
cal healing, inner healing and deliverance. The staff for this and all subsequent
school included an ordained minister, a medical professional (physician or nurse)
and a lay person experienced in prayer and bible teaching. Like the CFO camps,
time each day was spent on practicing with each other the lessons of prayer and
healing.
In the first years Ted and Agnes were invariably the main instructors, with one of
their medical friends rounding out the team. The School was founded after the
Sanfords had experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and as a result the cur-
riculum incorporated the Baptism of the Spirit and its role in healing. The School
began to multiply in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In 1956 two branches were

46
The Sources for this section are a taped interview with Dr. J. Howard Rhys, former
director of the School of Pastoral Care (Aug. 13, 1983) as well as his article, “The School
of Pastoral Care,” The Living Church, 162 (May 30, 1971), 8-9. The web site for the
School is www.schoolofpastoralcare.net/
47
Agnes’ heartfelt prayer for the renewal of the seminaries is found in her devotional
work, Twice Seven Words (Plainfield: Logos International, 1971), 93.

84
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

begun in Texas and Ohio. One was begun in Austria in 1961, and this was fol-
lowed quickly by others in England, Canada, Holland and New Zealand. The
Canadian branch was particularly influential, and for a period the Anglican hier-
archy in several Canadian dioceses used the School as part of their priests’s con-
tinuing education program.

Mrs. Sanford as First Theologian of the Renew al

The Charismatic Renewal broke out in 1960, triggered by the publicity surround-
ing the Rev. Dennis Bennett’s “tongues” incident at his Episcopal Church in
California. It reached its crescendo in the mid 1970s. In the beginning years of
the Renewal many of Mrs. Sanford’s books served as the primary theological
inspiration of the movement. The Healing Light was its first healing textbook.
Two other books were also influential, Behold Your God, published two years
before the Renewal began, but circulated among Mrs Sanford’s following at
CFOs and denominational churches, and The Healing Gifts of the Spirit, pub-
lished in 1966 while the Renewal was in full bloom.
From the very beginning of the Renewal there were some who believed Mrs.
Sanford’s theology was “far out” and occultic. Besides the “strange” nature-to-
grace theology, critics would point to her belief in the “pre-existent spirit” as
proof of her unorthodoxy. Significantly, the concept of the pre-existent spirit is
clearly indicated in both the Old and New Testaments. For example in Jer. 1:5,
God addresses the prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew
you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” (Note also: Eph. 1:4 and 2
Thes. 2:13.) The idea seems heretical to contemporary Christians because it was
ruled off the theological agenda as in the Fifth century by a Byzantine Emperor
who fancied himself as a great theologian, and wanted to discredit the earlier
theologian Origen. His prejudice became part of the theological consensus of
the Medieval Church and went unchallenged during the Reformation period.
The Rev. Ted Sanford died in 1960, and five years later Agnes moved to Mon-
rovia, California, to be close to her children. From there she continued her teach-
ing and speaking ministry and wrote her last books, including her autobiography,
Sealed Orders. In California she developed what might be called her “nature”
ministry, which involved praying for the non-human created order. This is a
ministry ignored by most Christians and entered into only by few persons such as
St. Francis and George Washington Carver.
In a story related to this author by Mrs. Barbara Schlemon, Agnes was scheduled
to give a healing lecture in a nearby town, and the minister who was to drive her
found her in her home amidst her house plants with arms upraised and deeply in
prayer. He asked Agnes what she was doing and she said “I’m praising the Lord

85
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

with my prayer group, and they are doing a better job!” Psalm 96:11-12 would
support this unusual view:
Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
let the sea resound, and all that is in it;
let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy;
they will sing before the Lord, for he comes, (NIV)
Agnes wrote a powerful book on this aspect of her spiritual life, Creation Waits
(1978). In it she gives multiple examples of her experiences with nature prayers.
In her view, the secret to prayer power in this areas is standing in the authority of
a child of God:
It is far more effective to talk directly to sea or sky, wind or storm, than simply to
ask God to do this or that. We are God’s agents upon this earth. When praying for
people we ask in His name and by His power, because we so often lack the
necessary understanding of the people for whom we pray. In praying for nature,
however, it is more effective to speak directly to wind or storm or tempest. That,
after all is the way Jesus stilled the storm. “Peace, be still!”48
Pat Robertson, of “The 700 Club,” used a similar prayer and command to veer a
hurricane away from the Virginia coast. His prayer, although successful (the
hurricane suddenly turned out to sea) became a point of ridicule and a negative
factor in his 1988 presidential bid. Needless to say, Mrs. Sanford’s nature minis-
try to nature seemed especially “far out” to more traditional, cessationist influ-
enced Christians and added ammunition to the charge that she was a shaman.
Mrs. Sanford’s later theology was quite insightful and prophetic. She felt many
charismatics were immature, and divisive of the unity of the church as a whole.
Her book , The Healing Gifts of the Spirit (1966) was written in the early years of
the Renewal and there she warned her readers that receiving the baptism of the
Holy Spirit was “strong medicine.” A person who has a weak self-concept, or a
poorly disciplined Christian life, may have serious problems handling the ener-
gies of the Holy Spirit49 She was particularly leery of the value that the new
charismatics placed on the gifts of tongues. Especially destructive, she believed,
was their doctrine of “initial evidence,” derived from the older Pentecostals. She
saw that this belief often produced nothing more than subconscious babble, an
opinion often mentioned among charismatic leaders, but rarely written.50

48
Agnes Sanford, Creation Waits (Plainfield: Logos International, 1978), 16
49
Healing Gifts, 14.
50
See David du Plessis, “Mr. Pentecost Looks to the Future,” Charisma (May 1985), 95.

86
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Mrs. Sanford was particularly concerned about the damage caused by imprudent
ministries of exorcism. For a period in the 1960s there circulated a teaching that
any personality fault or sin was due to a demonic spirit. Thus people were being
delivered from “spirits” of smoking, over-eating, criticism etc. Agnes insisted
that exorcism should be the ministry of last recourse. She had witnessed damage
done to persons who were put through charismatic exorcism rituals when in fact
they needed counseling or inner healing.51 Eventually her suspicions of the Re-
newal softened. From her home in Monrovia, she learned to appreciate the “Jesus
People”, those most exuberant, hippie children of the Charismatic Renewal, and
her heart went out to them. Her last novel, Route 1, (1975) shows the Jesus Peo-
ple in a positive light.52
Just how much her speaking engagements and writings helped to bring the Char-
ismatic Renewal out of its initial immaturity and theological naiveté is one of
those things that is impossible to quantify. She personally spoke to thousands in
that decade, and touched many more through her books. She was especially in-
fluential in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic branches of the renewal. This
should not be taken to mean that Mrs. Sanford was the only person of the 1960’s
who had a mature theology of the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit. In fact, the
Renewal was blessed from the very beginning with outstanding leaders who had
excellent theological training and insights.
However, by the late 1970s many charismatics were becoming leery of Mrs. San-
ford’'s theology. Some were unconvinced that the ministry of inner healing had
any biblical warrant, more believed her theory of the pre-existent spirit was “far
out” and cultic. As the Calvin-Nee theory that all psychic activity was inherently
demonic became part of charismatic/evangelical consensus theology, Mrs. San-
ford’'s more “Catholic” theology of the levels of spiritual powers was also seen
as erroneous. Thus even before the caricature of Mrs. Sanford appeared in Dave
Hunt’s The Seduction of Christianity many leaders of the Renewal were distanc-
ing themselves from her and her theology.
Mrs. Sanford went to be with the Lord on February 21, 1982, Transfiguration
Sunday. She was full of vitality and curiosity to the very end. A week before she
died she planned to go up in a two-person glider and had been excited about it.
To her daughter and to several close friends she said, “You know, I might not

51
Healing Gifts, 144, ff.
52
Agnes Sanford, Route 1 (Plainfield: Logos International, 1975).

87
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

come back. I might just keep right on going!”53 There seems no doubt that she
knew she would continue to a higher place.

Mrs. Sanford's Place in the Charismatic Renew al

There is little doubt that in spite of the controversies she generated, Mrs. Sanford
was indeed the first theologian the charismatic renewal. The Healing Light, is-
sued as a Logos International paperback, became the healing text book of the
early charismatic movement.54 She discipled many of the leadership of the char-
ismatic renewal, including a handsome young priest named Francis MacNutt who
met her at a CFO camp and eventually passed on the core of her teaching to the
charismatic movement with his vastly influential works on healing.55
The tragic rejection of Mrs. Sanford’s theology by large sections of Evangelical,
and charismatic leaders is a sad case of the persistence of theological conserva-
tism confusing denominational theology and prejudices with true heresy. In
every case I have outlined in this paper Mrs. Sanford took solidly, and literal bib-
lical positions that were declared “heretical” not because they contradicted scrip-
ture, but because they were expressed in New Thought vocabulary and would not
fit into the mold of cessationist influenced Evangelical theology. Mrs. Sanford
and her work reminds one of the great Third Century theologian, Origen, who
pioneered the discipline of Christian theology. He was rejected as a heretic by
more conservative and often ignorant critics and his writings anathematized. It is
only in recent decades that Origen’s monumental contributions to Christian the-
ology and his fundamental orthodoxy have been appreciated.56 It took over a
millennium to begin to clear Origen’'s name and appreciate his true role in Chris-
tian history. Hopefully Mrs Sanford’s achievements and fundamental orthodoxy
will not take that long to be reestablished.

53
Story related to author by Mrs. Sanford’s daughter, Mrs. Virginia Clark, in telephone
conversation in Aug. of 1986.
54
Healing Light (Plainfield: Logos International, 1972).
55
See the introduction of Francis MacNutt, Healing (Notre Dame: Ave Maria, 1974).
56
See the seminal work by Jean Danielou, Origen, Trans. by Walter Mitchell (New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1955).

88
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Abstract
With regard to noticing, appreciating and appropriating authorial intended conti-
nuity, a century-old hermeneutical strategy within a contemporary revivalist and
restorationist Christian movement arguably shows an interesting affinity and
congruency to commonsensical interpretive ideas prevalent within narrative-
rhetorical and progymnasmatic procedures in first-century Greco-Roman educa-
tion. The nascent development of a Bible reading method within this Pentecos-
tal/Charismatic sector of contemporary Christianity that calls attention to critical
narrative connections such as plot, sequence, personification, exemplarity and
repetition, with an emphasis on faith-response and experience by readers in
community, could be of interest to current critical hermeneutical discussion.
However, this Christian method that may be detected within global Pentecostal-
ism is not something new, but rather somewhat of a practical and experientially
confirmed interpretive procedure that bears a resemblance to what rhetorically
trained and compositionally minded narrators and active readers in first-century
Christianity would, I suggest, have easily understood. If contemporary Christian-
ity should recapture this interpretive approach that is respectful of expected
meaning and authorial intent, in conjunction with recognizable and confirming
experiential activity of the Holy Spirit, perhaps the central christological and
pneumatological concerns of New Testament writers might receive some benefi-
cial illumination.
In concert with briefly noting the potential similarity between critical narrative
connections raised by the twentieth-century Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal and
the narrative-rhetorical methods taught in Greco-Roman progymnasmatic educa-
tion, it seems appropriate to critique two interpretive methods that currently
command Christian attention. They are not comparable and stem from entirely
different origins. Yet they both tend to mask the potential similarity that I con-
tend does exist between the ancient progymnasmatic rhetorical method and a
strand of significant narrative-critical interpretation within the Pentecos-
tal/Charismatic movement.
It may be suggested that what is usually framed as an “Evangelical Historical
Critical Method” is in need of narrative-critical redesign, given that it is too sus-

89
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

ceptible to and uncritical of both the presupposition of a chasm between original

and later New Testament readers and of the imposition of artificial, narratively
alien and disruptive temporal epochs upon Luke-Acts. These questionable “apos-
tolic age” features of some Reformed-style interpretation, according to this
method, have been insufficiently scrutinized and may be duly jettisoned. They
are unlikely to foster a dynamic relationship or engagement among readers with
the structural elements of texts whose authors do not operate in this propositional
realm. The literary cohesion and connectedness of narrative sequence, plot, and
personification required of literary minded Greco-Roman writers and readers
exposed to first-century progymnasmatic education and rhetorical culture should
not be subjugated to a method with such rational blind spots. Unless the “Evan-
gelical Historical Critical Method” is redesigned, renewed or redeveloped, what
is to be reasonably expected of communicatively minded Christian narrators by
their active readers with respect to the desired rhetorical goals of clarity, concise-
ness, and plausibility cannot be fully realized.
Also to be questioned, with respect to authorial intention and original meaning as
relevant and vital literary concepts that deserve respect, is what may be framed as
a radical “Postmodernist Biblical Hermeneutic.” The overt textual relativism em-
bedded in the secular philosophical construct of “postmodernism” runs counter to
the mainstream canons of ancient literary composition. Its extreme relativism
may be appraised as challenging the central claims of New Testament Christian-
ity wherein intelligent biblical authors deserve respect. The skeptical philosophi-
cal assumption of the non-existence of objective truth within history seems espe-
cially inappropriate when it is misguidedly touted as beneficial to Christian
knowledge and theology. The radical “postmodern” expectation of the illegiti-
macy of truth and objectivity precludes a serious interest in realistic narrative-
critical concerns and is ill-suited to carefully addressing interpretive concerns
within literary texts where authorial competence may be assumed. It may be sug-
gested that the overly simplistic and poorly conceived insistence that humankind
supposedly inhabits a “postmodern age” and that this pronouncement then some-
how supposedly motivates the Christian adoption of a radical and shadowy inter-
pretive approach to biblical narrative—an approach steeped in relativism and
especially well suited to an agnostic or atheistic perspective toward literature that
claims to express objective truth and historical veracity underpinning that truth—
is difficult to reconcile with the research methodology of the wider academic
community.

Introduction
Charles Kingsley Barrett reminds us that “Other studies have their place, but
Christian theology is founded on the study of texts, and exegesis is founded on a

90
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

precise understanding of grammar—logic in relation to language.”1 Authorial

intent and meaning on which Christian theology is built is also detected by a rec-
ognizable strategy with regard to hermeneutical method,2 which brings us to the
topic at hand. Archer advocates that within the development of a century-old
revivalist, restorationist, gender-neutral and multi-racial movement there can be
found an authentic Christian hermeneutical approach that can be retrieved and
reappropriated.3 This approach is not indebted to a strand of modern secular phi-
losophical speculation that will remain controversial within the wider academic
community where written information with authorial intent and original meaning
that accurately tells and confirms truth is employed to advance a multitude of
various concerns. However, in terms of the state of biblical hermeneutics today,4
which is beginning to explore ancient rhetorical influence upon literary composi-
tion and reading, as I have suggested in previous discussion of Archer’s thesis,5
such reappropriation could be a welcomed thing for biblical studies and narrative
criticism.
In the present study, I would like to address two points. First, such potential re-
appropriation is welcome, and deserves consideration, because it serves to draw
attention to the unlikely probability of some modern methods being able to relia-
bly determine what a biblical writer—or any serious ancient writer who deserves

1
C. K. Barrett, “J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Prolegomena,”
Expository Times 90 (1978), pp. 68-71 (71).
2
Indeed, Hans Hübber, Evangelische Fundamentaltheologie: Theologie der Bibel (Göttin-
gen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 9, goes so far as to suggest that “Ohne Hermeneutik
bleibt die Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift in dem, worum es den biblischen Autoren ei-
gentlich ging, stumm!”
3
Cf. Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit,
Scripture and Community (JPTSup 28; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), passim.
4
Cf. Adele Berlin, “A Search for New Biblical Hermeneutics: Preliminary Observations,”
in J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz (eds.), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the
Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 195-207.
5
Paul Elbert, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Review Article,” Ashland Theological Jour-
nal 38 (2006), 111-15; idem., “Toward a Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Observations on
Archer’s Progressive Proposal,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 9/2 (2006), 320-28.

91
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

respect—actually means. Or, to put it another way, for those who would present
their theology through narrative and worship, “By employing more modernistic
epistemological methods we undermine the credibility of our spirituality, we rob
our (own) narrativity of its formative power.”6
Here, I appraise an “Evangelical Historical Critical Method” as an attempt by
Christians at constructing an interpretive method that is in need of recalibration
toward more narrative-critical sensitivity, principally because of the destructive
and disruptive literary effect created by the chasmal and the epochal “apostolic
age” presuppositions it uncritically hides, employs, and implicitly supports.
Another method in need of scrutiny, one with no immediately appealing or intrin-
sic relationship to biblical interpretation, is the questionable quasi-literary “post-
modern” relativism of a supposedly “post-critical” world, a world in the fuzzy
wordsmithery of “postmodern” jargon as supposedly beyond “modernity.” The
attack upon objective truth and the discarding of authorial intention by philoso-
phical relativism undermines not only the credibility of Christian experience and
belief, but, ultimately, even the credible existence of objective Christian spiritual-
ity and testimony. In this scheme, texts that underpin and are harmonious with
that objective experience are no more authoritative or reliable or trustworthy than
any other literary presentation, whether it be the Homeric epics or writings ven-
erating Buddha.
According to “postmodern” relativism, to take one example, there is no way to
determine whether the universe is the work of Zeus, Buddha, or the biblical God.
Given the philosophical shredding of commonsensical and validly established
literary tenets attributable to authors and readers, no text could possibly produce
knowledge or truth (the two concepts being interchangeable) that would possibly
contribute to such a determination.7 This emanates from a fuzzy “postmodern”
worldview—where the adjective “postmodern” is faddishly, simplistically and

6
Kenneth J. Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner,” In-
ternational Journal of Systematic Theology 9/3 (2007), 302-14 (306), parenthesis mine.
7
Nevertheless, I think ancient literary texts exist that do contribute to such a determina-
tion, not because they claim to be “inspired,” but because a reasonable and culturally sen-
sitive interpretation of them yields a result that is harmonious and consistent with the ex-
perimental findings of modern science, cf. Paul Elbert, “Genesis 1 and the Spirit: A Narra-
tive-Rhetorical Ancient Near Eastern Reading in Light of Modern Science,” Journal of
Pentecostal Theology 15/1 (2006), 23-72.

92
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

unthoughtfully applied willy-nilly to morph almost anything into semantic skep-

tical fuzz where unexemplified theories can hide underneath stairs to nowhere.
One manifestation of this worldview is the claim that it is not primarily what an
author intended or what meaning a writer conveys that is very important or even
relevant to the reading event. Rather one might assess how one feels after read-
ing, since meaning is primarily in the mind of the reader.
The determination of meaning is no longer a task. This is left behind in the do-
main of reader response. Neither could the experimental findings of modern sci-
ence—insofar as physical reality is concerned—be understood to question the
authority of literary relativism and the essential irrelevance of authorial intent and
original meaning. To suggest otherwise may simply mark one—among some
philosophic cognoscenti—as an uninformed literary “fundamentalist,” one who is
tendentious and in disrepute. Further, and of particular relevance to the Judeo-
Christian faith tradition, to some philosophic cognoscenti only a “fundamental-
ist” would assent to objective truth as being divinely revealed to humankind in
any form or format. This sentiment might be hidden and unarticulated, but this
methodological tenet has deep roots. Perhaps Christian theology should exercise
care and due diligence when embracing or adapting insufficiently documented
literary arguments stemming from intrinsically agnostic and atheistic methodol-
ogy.
The second point I would like to briefly mention is that a potential reappropria-
tion of a Bible reading method well attuned to narrative convictions is welcome
and deserves consideration because of its potential consistency with what would
be the lasting result of first-century Greco-Roman progymnasmatic instruction.
This lasting result may be seen as impacting the writer of Luke-Acts. This liter-
ary instruction, part of the system of Greco-Roman rhetorical education, on how
to properly compose narratives and speeches within them, leads to a literary ap-
proach to active reading that sees reasonably intended authorial connections be-
tween the same subject. Since authorial intention and the desire to present mean-
ing that original readers would understand is part and parcel of the Greco-Roman
literary mindset, it is interesting that interpretation with regard to the subject of
the Holy Spirit found in Five-Fold or Four-Fold Gospel proclamation is not dis-
similar, with respect to attention to narrative connections, from that advocated
within the stable first-century rhetorical tradition of progymnasmatic instruction.
By way of brief review, the distinctive paradigm of the Five-Fold Gospel ex-
presses the significance of the story of Jesus and Christian experience via salva-

93
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

tion/justification, sanctification, baptism in the Holy Spirit,8 healing,9 and as

soon-coming king.10 In this theological explanation of the New Testament mes-
sage, the Gospels and the book of Acts share a central place and all biblical au-
thors are believed to participate in “God’s inspired authoritative witness—
scripture.”11
One might ask, since Pentecostalism originated and progressed due to the logical
coherence of the Five-Fold or Four-Fold Gospel message, validated by super-
natural confirmation and in direct opposition to the worldview of overly rational-
istic, secular philosophical and cessationistic presuppositions traditionally ap-
plied to spiritual issues within New Testament narrative and epistolary discourse,
why should global Pentecostalism and the international Charismatic Renewal
now uncritically embrace questionable interpretive methods unrelated to its exis-
tence, namely literary methods formulated with prominent underpinnings op-
posed to its raison d’être? How can interpretive approaches at odds with the
communicative genre of the New Testament world be of assistance? For me, this
is the central issue in hermeneutical critique. Hasty embrace of alien philosophi-
cally based methods, unharmonious with the literary emphases in first-century
Greco-Roman rhetorical education, seems to me to be a retrograde and ill-

8
For an interesting treatment of one aspect of this New Testament experience of interi-
ority by a historically prominent minister and educator, cf. Donald Gee, ‘The Initial Evi-
dence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, Redemption Tidings 39/22 (May 31st, 1963), 10-
12. For recent treatment of various strands of evidence, cf. Robert P. Menzies, Empowered
for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (JPTSup 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994),
104-228; Paul Elbert, “An Observation on Luke’s Composition and Narrative Style of
Questions,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004), 98-109.
9
Cf. Kimberly Ervin Alexander, Pentecostal Healing: Models in Theology and Practice
(JPTSup; Blandford Forum, Dorset: Deo, 2006). Alexander’s thesis is complemented by
the biblical theology of John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance:
Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought (JPTSup 13; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1998).
10
This Five-Fold terminology finds foundational documentary expression in Steven J.
Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (JPTSup 1; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1993), 47-57, passim.
11
Archer, “Pentecostal Way,” 311.

94
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

considered move, given that this sector of Christianity has thrived—ostensibly

with the blessing of the one true biblical God—by going commonsensibly in a
different direction.
Perhaps an example might illustrate this. It is observed that “Pentecostalism gave
and still gives to the marginalized masses a new identity within a community
where they are respected as individuals and given a reason to live. The Pentecos-
tal emphasis on the supernatural together with its rigorist ethics proves to be a
haven of protection from the horrors of bewildering secularization.”12 Similarly,
“Pentecostalism provides a sense of community of being personally recognized
and welcomed, of connecting in a more permanent and warmer way with other
human beings, of being treated as equal, of not being despised and marginalized
in the church because one is illiterate or because one is a woman or brown or
black.”13 Neither the chasmal and epochal interpretive approach of the “Evan-
gelical Historical critical method,” presupposing a chasm between original and
later readers and the effective existence of a “post-apostolic age” holy spirit or a
“spirit of prophecy,” nor the secular erasure of objective truth by “postmodern”
relativism and a radical “Postmodernistic Biblical Hermeneutic,” are employed in
the missionary endeavors of Pentecostalism or the international Charismatic Re-
newal. Instead, right spiritual affections, transforming initiatives and a new
heart14 put the Christian theologian/missionary into direct involvement among
and with those poor and marginalized who suffer and who seek to receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit from the heavenly Jesus. There is emphatic concern for and
identity with those who are suffering and those who sincerely desire to receive
and be obedient to a heavenly person. Right doctrine—as important as sound
doctrine is to Christianity—and speculative philosophical relativism do not of
themselves alone produce these right affections or right missionary actions. One

12
John P. Medcraft, “The Roots and Fruits of Brazilian Pentecostalism,” Vox Evangelica
17 (1987), 67-94 (89).
13
Otto Maduro, quoted by Manual A. Vasquez, “Pentecostalism, Collective Identity, and
Transnationalism Among Salvadorans and Peruvians in the U.S.,” Journal of the Ameri-
can Academy of Religion 67/3 (1999), 617-36 (631).
14
Cf. Chiu Ban It, “The spiritual gifts,” in Michael Harper (ed.), Bishops’ Move: Six An-
glican Bishops share their experience of Renewal (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978),
139-60; Glen H. Stassen, “Recovering the Way of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount,”
Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 22 (2002), 103-26.

95
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

might ask why the right affections that the Holy Spirit has wrought should now
be seriously jeopardized in favor of adapting or adopting the supposedly more
fashionable modern constructs of some?

Critique of an “Evangelical Historical Critical Method”

As to a working definition of method, I would suggest that a method is a com-
prehensible series of instructions or guidelines with a special purpose,15 the pur-
pose in this case being to determine the intended meaning (the intentio auctoris)
of a narrative written by an intelligent biblical author who deserves respect. Nar-
rative criticism,16 with attention to all the visible narrative elements such as plot,
story line, repetition, personification and characterization, literary cohesion and
connectivity (recurring terms and themes) and exemplarity, evidently comes into
play when the method is rightly applied. Critical engagement should ask if the
method could be modified or redesigned in such a way so that its positive impact
and proper function is increased.

15
With R. Kamitz, “Methode/Methodologie,” in Josef Speck (ed.), Handbuch wissen-
schaftstheoretischer Begriffe, II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 429-33
(429); K. Lorenz, “Methode,” in Jürgen Mittelstrass (ed.), Enzyklopädie Philosophie und
Wissenschaftstheorie, II (Mannheim: Bibliographic Institute, 1984), 876-79 (876).
16
E.g., Mark A. Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990);
Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 21997); George J. Brooke and Jean-Daniel Kaestli (eds.), Narrativity in
Biblical and Related Texts (BETL 149; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); James L. Resseguie, Nar-
rative Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005).

96
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

One of the disagreements between Evangelical Protestantism and the Pentecos-

tal/Charismatic movements is about what Scripture is and is not.17 This disparity
is accentuated because the former tradition can be generally perceived as narra-
tively insensitive and disruptive (with respect to Luke-Acts) and manipulative of
obvious authorial intent (with respect to interpersonal spiritual gifts discussed
discursively by Paul). In this sense the “Evangelical Historical Critical Method”
can be perceived as over emphasizing appropriate historical concerns and inter-
ests at the expense of some important narrative-rhetorical concerns in its selective
exclusion of divine action. In this way the Gospel message is diminished. A se-
ries of dispensations imposed upon biblical texts and a set of epochs imposed on
Luke-Acts was built on the unquestioned theory of an “apostolic age.” Evangeli-
cals imbued with the scheme of Lukan and Pauline cessationism as absolute often
seem to assume that such beliefs commission them to educate others: “The Pen-
tecostals simply had to be educated into the modernistic thought and argument of
the more ‘intellectual’ tradition.”18 However, it does not seem to be who is the
most intellectually astute, but rather what presuppositions are brought to the text

17
Samuel Solivan, The Spirit, Pathos and Liberation: Towards an Hispanic Pentecostal
Theology (JPTSup 14; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 94-95, stresses that “Classi-
cal Pentecostalism did not ground the authority of Scripture on inerrancy of its composi-
tion, as did the fundamentalists. On the contrary . . . the verification of Scripture’s claims
was not to be found in the internal claims made by Scriptures themselves, but in the exter-
nal power of the Holy Spirit transforming people’s lives in the light of those claims.”
Mathew S. Clark, “Pentecostalism’s Anabaptist Roots: Hermeneutical Implications,” in
The Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Russell P. Spittler (ed. Wonsuk Ma and
Robert P. Menzies; JPTSup 24; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 194-211 (206), observes that
“Pentecostal interest in the accuracy of Scripture is based on a different concern to conser-
vative evangelicalism: not to validate the great confessions of the church, but to inform a
choice for a lifestyle of discipleship and witness.”
Land argues that “The Bible as Spirit-Word is the light that shines upon the path illuminat-
ing the journey of life as salvation and mission. The Bible was and is inspired. In the
community of worship and witness, of praise and proclamation, the Word is written, living
and preached. But it is not so much a textbook of propositions as it is a story of redemp-
tion in Christ by the Holy Spirit and the journey in the Spirit through Christ to the Father.
The doctrines of verbal inspiration and infallibility are precipitants of a spirituality which
practiced a much fuller doctrine of the Word of God” (Land, Pentecostal Spirituality, 74).
18
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 64.

97
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

that is a major factor in what meaning is perceived and applied.19 Evangelical

Protestants generally assume that some Lukan characters, like the women in
Luke 7:36-50, exemplify repentant sinners who experience forgiveness and sal-
vation. Pentecostals share that view. Other Lukan characters, for Evangelicals,
exemplify nothing. They are merely historical events, like Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8,
14; 2:4, 33, 38-39; 8:12-18; 9:17 (a passage that according to Evangelical theol-
ogy neither exemplifies nor indicates any previous tradition of Spirit-filling); and

19
Graham N. Stanton, “Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism,” in I. Howard Mar-
shall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Exeter: Pa-
ternoster, 1977), 60-71 (62), observes that “If an individual’s prejudice is so deep-seated
that, in effect, a verdict is passed before the evidence is even considered, then, surely,
prejudice negates the possibility of understanding a text.”
In an “Evangelical Historical Critical Method” the presupposition against narrative coher-
ency and a disconnect between original and later readers (à la the chasmal and epochal-
mindset of some Calvinistically-oriented scholarship in the early twentieth century) come
directly into play. Personal Spirit-reception in Lukan characters’ lives are presupposition-
ally encapsulated or entombed in an “apostolic age.” Evangelical Protestant dictums are
arrived at: “Pentecost can never be repeated,” or Lukan portraits of a personal Spirit-
reception were osmotically “Once for all.”
Other persuasive presuppositions may be identified, namely a bias against the possibility
of the supernatural, doctrinal prejudice against experience and an almost exclusionary
suspicion of the non-rational and the non-cognitive. If a conjunction of these presupposi-
tions would occur, or if any one of them becomes overridingly intense, it is unlikely that a
valid reading of a text like Luke-Acts, with regard to activities of the Holy Spirit in liter-
ary connection, would even be possible.
By “valid” reading I mean a reading that realistically detects Lukan expectations for
Theophilus. It is obvious to me that Luke intends Theophilus to anticipate shared experi-
ence with the characters that Luke chooses to portray. Luke has both salvific experience
(repentance, forgiveness, faith, conversion) and pneumatological experience (Spirit-filling,
Spirit-reception by disciple-believers) in view due to the examples and precedents of each
category that he employs in his personification of this event in diverse characters’ lives.
Assuming that Luke personally knows that Theophilus is already a believer, a circum-
stance that most students of Luke-Acts would agree with, Luke’s narrative arrangement
and personification of Spirit-baptism may have been considered especially appropriate for
Theophilus.

98
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

19:1-7. Pentecostals do not share that view and find it both narratively inconsis-
tent and revealing of hidden and unarticulated “apostolic-age” presuppositions.
Although Evangelicals and Pentecostals share some overlapping tradition, their
lack of agreement about what Scripture is also plays a role in how these two faith
traditions are going to interpret Scripture. When Evangelicals sneeze, some Pen-
tecostals catch a cold; others do not, as illustrated by Archer’s willingness to ini-
tiate a critique of an “Evangelical Historical Critical Method.”20 It is clear that
differences exist between these two faith-traditions and that interactive discussion
of particular textual portions of Scripture and hermeneutics in general could be
appropriate. From the perspective of Pentecostals, there is a history of negative
results stemming from the uncritical acceptance of what Evangelicals say about
proper interpretation. This shame-enhancing, spiritually unproductive acceptance
of what is supposedly more rational, more intellectual—with perhaps little dis-
cernable attention to the leading of the Holy Spirit and communal verification
with the Holy Spirit on the part of Evangelicals21—might be observable today
within some Pentecostalism in the marginalizing of testimony, of tarrying and in
the propensity of some to be led more by their own acquisition of academic his-
tory than by the Holy Spirit, or by dreams and visions.22 On the other side of the
coin, some Evangelicals bemoan the loss of influence their axiomatic cessationist
presuppositions once had, as if Christianity itself had been lost.23
Historically, I think that traditional Protestant Christianity, somewhat scholasti-
cally, did employ more of a “proof-texting system,”24 whereas a more proper Bi-
ble reading method would require all of the biblical data to be gathered and har-

20
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 148-54.
21
On these possibilities, cf. James B. Shelton, “Epistemology and Authority in the Acts of
the Apostles: An Analysis and Test Case Study of Acts 15:1-29,” The Spirit & Church 2/2
(2000), 231-47; John Christopher Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible: An Ex-
periment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994), 41-56.
22
This is suggested from several considerations in my “The Globalization of Pentecostal-
ism: A Review Article,” Trinity Journal 23NS/1 (2002), 81-101.
23
Cf. Michael Scott Horton (ed.), Power Religion: The Selling Out of the Evangelical
Church? (Chicago: Moody, 1992).
24
With Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 74.

99
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

monized with respect to plot and context.25 For example, Evangelicals proof-text
1 Cor 14:34 out of its context, erasing 1 Cor 11:5a and 14:39 in the process. This
result satisfies a previous presupposition in the form of a principle, a principle
not coincidentally aligned with secular culture, that they impose on the text.26
Pentecostals are not above some proof-texting of their own, as in the case of 3
John 2, but I would suggest that the catechistic and over-reaching philosophical
“apostolic age” style of interpretation is much more likely to merit a proof-
texting award. Pentecostals take a much greater interest in uniting the biblical
past with the present, contrary to traditional chasmal-oriented creeds, prayers and
ecclesiastical dictums that imply or demand otherwise. I suggest that personal
reception of the Holy Spirit by disciple-believers—according to the examples and
precedents set out in Luke’s second volume—is responsible for this difference.
Oneness (or Triunity) and Trinitarian Pentecostals see the first Jerusalem Pente-
cost and its ensuing repetitions in the ministry of disciple-believer-witnesses as a
“commanded promise”27 for all Christians who were and who are now afar off,

25
One of the five premises of “premodern” interpretation adduced by Luke Timothy John-
son and William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive
Conversation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 47-59, is that Scripture speaks
harmoniously.
Just why such a working premise is necessarily “premodern” needs to be spelled out. For
example, would an active literary Greco-Roman reader of the Pauline letters, who later
picked up a copy of Luke-Acts, not think that these texts should speak harmoniously? To
argue otherwise would be difficult. Nevertheless, this premise, an assumption against
Greco-Roman rhetorical culture, of a difference between the Christian worldview and
Christian expression of Luke and Paul, seems to be a foundational presupposition hidden
within an “Evangelical Historical Critical Method.”
26
This and other ingrained proof-texting proclivities by some Evangelicals are addressed
in my A Pastoral Letter to Theo: An Introduction to Interpretation and Women’s Minis-
tries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, forthcoming).
27
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 91.

100
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

whether they be Jew or Gentile, a personal promise to all believers—whether

they be original or later readers—beyond narrative time.28
In a “Charism-Sensitive or Pentecostal/Charismatic Narrative-Critical Method,”
plot would encompass the framework of a narrative and its detailed arrangement
of incidents and patterns as they relate to each other. Narrative-critical aspects of
all the repetitive elements of the author’s presentation would be duly considered
and appropriate historicity and authorial intention would not be denied. None of
these literary elements would be systematically excluded or marginalized, nor
made to fit chasmal presuppositions. Neither would plot be dissected and dis-
rupted by the imposition of divisive artificial temporal epochs on the narrative.
Temporal carvings and the cocooning of narrated events to enforce “apostolic
age” Protestant meaning are inappropriate, as are readings of Luke-Acts through
glasses attributed to Paul that he never wore himself.29 A better understanding of

28
As to the syntactical setting in Lukan thought of the gift of the Holy Spirit as a “promise
to as many as the Lord shall call who are afar off” at the conclusion of Peter’s speech in
Acts 2, not only is it necessary to consider the intentional foregrounding of the “promise”
in the preceding narrative in Luke’s double-work, and to consider the impact of Greco-
Roman personification, as I mention below, but also to consider the original meaning of
Luke’s own Greek-speaking and Greek-thinking with regard to his employment of an
imperative-future passive combination at Acts 2:38. This syntactical combination in a
conditional sentence indicates two temporally non-simultaneous events, cf. Paul Elbert,
“Acts 2:38c Reconsidered: The Syntax of Imperative-Future Passive and Imperative-
Present Participle Combinations in Luke-Acts and Implications in Light of the Narrative-
Rhetorical Tradition,” presented at the Society of Biblical Literature International Meet-
ing, Gregorian University, Rome, 2001.
29
The result of such questionable procedures, where the Holy Spirit may be essentially
marginalized or replaced as a character by a new spirit, or just willfully rewritten out of a
narrative, is aptly identified by Raniero Cantalamessa, The Mystery of Pentecost (tr. Glen
S. Davis; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001), 43. Cantalamessa is concerned about a
procedure that results in “holding the Holy Spirit carefully outside of the true and actual
life of the Church, demanding that he adapt to our truth, instead of we to his.”
(footnote continued)

101
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

plot also operates in the mind of the reader who then tends to organize and make
connections between events. However, if presuppositions and “make it fit” impo-
sitions break these connections between events or exclude them from impacting
readers, this understanding of narrative is lost.
Both Evangelicals and Pentecostals believe that the narrative of Luke-Acts tells
what happened. The traditions share a strong sense of textual truthfulness. In the
case when redaction criticism can be applied to assist what individual Evangelists
may mean and be interested in doing, as in Luke’s improvements on Mark and
Matthew, both traditions share a common understanding of the reasonable lack of
modern precision of historicity and temporality. But in an “Evangelical Historical
Critical Method” the pressure to bend Luke’s text, to essentially “proof-text” it in
order to “make it fit,” appears much more intense because of adherence to unde-
clared presuppositions tied historically to the construct of an “apostolic age” and
its interpretive ramifications and requirements. Correction and rejection of im-

However, anti-narrational carving of Luke-Acts into three divisive epochs to suppos-

edly determine Heilsgeschichte—marginalizing Pneumageschichte and Pfingst-
geschichte—became formally fashionable within some Protestant scholarship via the the-
sis of an Estonian Lutheran pastor, Heinrich von Baer, Der Heilige Geist in den Lukass-
chriften (BWANT 3/3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926), who resisted the wise and thought-
ful narrative instincts of Hermann Gunkel. Von Baer’s thesis, from the university of Greif-
swald, was later embellished by Hans Conzelmann, James Dunn, and Max Turner in Prot-
estant tradition. Von Baer assumed an “apostolic age” and an apostolic-age Holy Spirit as
a pre-condition for his simplistic and narratively insensitive epochal theory of salvation
that accordingly began for Lukan characters at the first Jerusalem Pentecost. For example,
Luke 7:36-50 is not cited in von Baer’s thesis, evidently because it cannot be proof-texted
to make it fit his scheme of epochal imposition.
Acta-Forschung in Roman Catholic tradition over the past eighty years takes little notice
of von Baer’s thesis. It is infrequently mentioned or employed. For example, it is not cited
in sources of “Apostelgeschichte und lukanische Theologie,” by Gerhard Schneider, Die
Apostelgeschichte, I. Teil: Einleitung. Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1 – 8,20 (HTKNT 5/1;
Freiburg: Herder, 1980), 29-48.
Von Baer’s thesis illustrates uncritical over-catering to the Reformers’ cessationistic
pneumatology and to a poorly considered proof-texting process wherein discursively dis-
connected Pauline snippets are extracted and inserted into narratively disconnected Lukan
snippets to supposedly find out what Luke means.

102
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

balanced and inaccurate procedures that are unflattering to Luke’s intelligence

are needed. Perhaps developing a “Charism-Sensitive or Pentecostal/Charismatic
Narrative-Critical Method” might be helpful. Not until Evangelicals are ready to
articulate “full disclosure” regarding what approaches they are taking—what pre-
suppositions they are assuming—will they be able to articulate an interpretive
method that “will lift us out of the quagmire in which we find ourselves.”30
It was well known to ancient literary culture that a narrative elicits a dynamic
interpretive relationship between text and readers. One may note as well that the
great narratives of Homer have long been read by classicists in just this manner,
similar to how Homer was read in the progymnasmatic stage of Greco-Roman
education before and within the New Testament period.31 But now Pentecostals
are engaged in a battle of interpretation with their Evangelical Protestant forerun-
ners who inherited and have embellished both an exclusionary tradition between
Luke and Paul with respect to the Holy Spirit and a chasmal division between
original and later readers of both of these authors. These features of “apostolic-
age” hermeneutics are not helpful and may be overdue for reconsideration.32
As a methodological example of one probable feature within a “Charism-
Sensitive or Pentecostal/Charismatic Narrative-Critical Method,” Shelton,33
Thomas,34 and Archer35 call attention to the role of the community, in concert
with the quite possible activity of the Holy Spirit—recognizable and discernable

30
So, Joel B. Green, “Interpretation, Reflection, Formation: Unfinished Business,” in
Craig G. Bartholomew, Joel B. Green, and Anthony C. Thiselton (eds.), Reading Luke:
Interpretation, Reflection, Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 437-51(447).
31
Cf. Ronald F. Hock, “Homer in Greco-Roman Education,” in Dennis R. MacDonald
(ed.), Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and
Christianity; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2001), 56-77.
32
With respect to some Evangelical Protestants, a recent five year dialogue with them is
reported in Paul Elbert, “Pentecostal/Charismatic Themes in Luke-Acts at the Evangelical
Theological Society: The Battle of Interpretive Method,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology
12 (2004), 181-215.
33
Shelton, “Epistemology and Authority in the Acts of the Apostles,” passim.
34
Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible,” passim.
35
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 156, 182-91.

103
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

activity that could be guiding and helpful—with respect to a Scriptural text. The
situation in Acts 15 provides a solid example or basis for this suggestion. When a
difficult issue arises, a matter that is not made entirely clear to some by an appeal
to texts, texts on which there may be conflicting opinions, the collective wisdom
of individuals within the Spirit-filled community, in conjunction with the Holy
Spirit, may play a positive role over time in understanding what a biblical writer
meant in the setting of his original concern and what the Holy Spirit would ad-
vise or endorse in a contemporary setting. This of course does not imply or even
suggest that interpretation of the text resides solely in the mind of a reader. When
a certain contextual meaning may not be entirely clear, surely the Holy Spirit and
the community together, through testimony, prophecy and other charisms and
through collective wisdom, could reach a consensus with regard to a contempo-
rary circumstance. However, this will not be the case, for example, in determin-
ing the meaning of John 3:16 or Rom 3:23. For most Scriptures, a rational, studi-
ous, and multi-contextual approach will yield an understandable and highly prob-
able outcome. There is no need to deny that objective truth can be contained in
Scripture. Biblical scholarship is an ongoing task. The fact that biblical writers
are intelligent, competent, appear to be making serious effort to communicate
effectively and obviously believed that their preservation, presentation, and inter-
pretation of events were able to provide objective truth about God assists the
hermeneutical task and should not be discarded.
In developing the different interpretive method that I am suggesting, some dis-
agreement may be expected and this needs to be entered into in an atmosphere of
gentleness and respect. In what will be controversial territory for many Pentecos-
tals and Evangelicals, as well as for many throughout world Christendom and in
Judaism, there are some who would draw a marked distinction between an au-
thor’s intended meaning and a meaning that might later be determined by readers.
This theory is being taken to extremes by a strand of contemporary secular phi-
losophy and may unduly influence some. For example, Archer is skeptical of the
following construct: “Once the authorial intention is uncovered (say, by encir-
cling levels of contextual exegesis), which is then argued to be the true meaning
of the text, one may apply it to the contemporary church. This application of past
meaning, however, would be the significance of the text for the contemporary
reader. The significance of the text should not be confused with the intended
meaning of the author. The significance of the text will become the different ap-

104
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

plications based on the intended meaning, but the meaning always remains fixed
and determined.”36
According to Archer, this construct is wrongheaded because it adopts a “modern-
istic historical paradigm as the defining arbiter of truth.”37 Just what Archer’s
ahistorically sounding statement indicates is bound to be unclear, since what has
happened in history, when truthfully reported, can be a basis for truth.38 Further,

36
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 148-49 (parenthesis mine). This construct quoted
above is one that Archer proposes to be deceptive and insufficient. To the contrary, Robert
P. Menzies, “Jumping Off the Postmodern Bandwagon,” Pneuma: Journal of the Society
for Pentecostal Studies 16/1 (1994), 115-20 (118), presses a cogent and convincing argu-
ment in support of the construct set out above, namely that “The distinction between the
meaning of the text and the numerous applications or significances it may have in situa-
tions and cultures is necessary if we are to restrain ourselves from distorting the text. Un-
fortunately, this distinction is lost in the postmodern paradigm.”
37
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 148.
38
Several conversations with Archer have helped me understand what a “modernistic
historical paradigm” is to him and why, accordingly, he thinks that it cannot be a “defining
arbiter of truth.” To begin with Archer defines a concept of “Modernity (Modernism)” as
follows: “A nineteenth- and twentieth-century western cultural worldview that was an
intensive extension of Enlightenment beliefs. It is characterized by strong belief in human
progress through scientific, rationalistic reasoning from the perspective that a person is
neutral and objective. Scientific and historical verification were the means of validating
all truth claims. Modernism was the attempt of some Christians to bring Christianity into
harmony with the beliefs of Modernity. The reconfiguration of traditional Christian
thought into acceptable modernistic concepts produced Liberalism and Fundamentalism”
(Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 198 [italics mine]).
The highlighted portion is the key to his statement that a “modernistic historical para-
digm” cannot be a “defining arbiter of truth.” In my opinion, Archer is reacting to the
exclusion, by some Christians in the past and in the present, of personal experience as a
source of true knowledge within charismatic Christianity. Within global Pentecostalism
and the international Charismatic Renewal, personal experience is widely believed to be
able to convey revelatory information and experience that can be reasonably evaluated to
be spiritually helpful, valuable and true. This information is Scripturally seasoned. So,
there is immediate disagreement with those Christians—mainly some Evangelical Protes-
tants—who excluded and who exclude this experience. However, labeling those Christians
as “Fundamentalists” may not be the most accurate means of defining them, perhaps “Lu-
kan and Pauline Cessationists” might be more apropos.
(footnote continued)

105
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

to assess the aforementioned construct as “deceptive and insufficient”39 seems to

suggest that an author cannot have an intended meaning, which is unbelievable in
itself. For Archer, the supposed deception and insufficiency of the construct lies
elsewhere, namely in his claims that “Texts have meaning only as they are read
and used by communities of readers,” that “Meaning is created in the very proc-
ess of dialogue with a text” and that “Meaning is not something we discover then
appropriate. Meaning is something we construct.”40
However, to suggest that the role of the reader or the reader’s community is so
great in the act of interpretation that an author’s work and effort is erased or
obliterated and is really of little or no import cannot be correct. Cultural and his-
torical analysis, together with contextual exegesis that is sensitive to narrative-
rhetorical concerns, provides necessary controls on a reader’s possible subjectiv-
ity; a Scriptural text has limits; it cannot mean anything.41 Unless this theoretical
stance can be well illustrated via convincing illustrative textual examples (Archer
does not provide any), I suspect that it will be difficult for most Christians to be-
lieve that it is correct, or that it is related to the Holy Spirit and to biblical writers.
One might ask, how do we know that human perception will be so active and so
reliable in the reading event that an intelligent author’s meaning and intent no

My input on this point is that the scientific method and historical research that throw light
on the past have nothing whatever to do with the practice of Christianity. Accordingly,
there is no need to posit an age of “modernity” within the affairs of humankind because
some Christians did behave in the manner that Archer cites. Employment of this charac-
terization of Christian history is insufficiently precise when addressing important details
and ideas that everyone wants to understand. Further, the Enlightenment was beneficial to
humankind in several respects. In other words, Archer’s categorizations are over extended
in their explanatory range and introduce nebulosity. Generally, they make sense, but they
may be too general for effective usage in discussion that needs to be more precise for eve-
ryone’s benefit. Lastly, it is certainly not correct to suggest that the scientific community—
past or present—ever believed that its methodology could address spiritual matters.
39
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 149.
40
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 149, 154.
41
So too, Hannah K. Harrington and Rebecca Patten, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics and
Postmodern Literary Theory,” Pneuma: Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies
16/1 (1994), 109-114 (113-14).

106
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

longer have a significant role? Or, has this claim that originates in secular literary
theory of twentieth-century philosophy, where it was not adequately tested in the
first place, been prematurely appropriated? If so, perhaps its philosophical roots
should be thoroughly examined to appraise its relevance and the wisdom of its
hasty adoption to Christian theology.
The fact that Archer provides no biblical or literary examples to substantiate such
sweeping claims about intelligent and competent authors would be astonishing to
participants in large sectors of the wider academic community. However, if they
are paying any attention to “postmodern” speculation, this is something they al-
ready know. My own search for any worthwhile examples to support such theo-
retical claims within the so-called “postmodern” literature shows very clearly that
Archer is no exception here. He is repeating a tradition that is essentially bereft of
solid examples of an author’s lack of intent and of communication of original
meaning, as contrasted with a reader’s uninhibited and pleasurable construction
of a valid meaning that is not already present in the text.
Repeating tradition is something that thesis writers often do. Some of this is to be
expected by the nature of the exercise. Foremost, however, it is up to thesis su-
pervisors and established professionals to challenge the repetition of what some-
body advances as a new thesis within their own professional ranks. Is it right? Is
it believable? Is it supported by evidence? Does it have literary documentation?
Is it supported by concrete examples that are convincing, credible and plausible?
If not, should it be repeated ad nauseam? These are primarily the concerns, obli-
gations, and responsibilities of the profession itself, not of postgraduate students
and thesis writers. Foremost, it is a professional concern and obligation to incul-
cate and propagate attitudes of “How do we know?” and “Why do we believe?”
If an established profession is not taking care of its own housekeeping, thesis
writers cannot be expected to do it for them.
I patiently have looked in the professional philosophic literature produced by
“postmodern” theorists for these necessary examples to support claims that
meaning is primarily in the mind of readers and that authorial intention is sup-
posedly obtuse and to be evacuated. They are not there. Perhaps inventive phi-
losophers might not have assumed that overly indulgent colleagues and/or ensu-
ing students would allow such claims to be passed on without critical engage-
ment. Perhaps they expected colleagues and students to challenge their specula-
tive notions, to see if they might be verified. Nevertheless, imitation and uncriti-
cal repetition can happen. (As an example, I once was able to convince a physics
student—with no questions or challenges from him—that the phases of the Moon
occurred because the Earth’s shadow fell upon it!) As a physicist-theologian in
the scientific tradition and an explorer of philosophical constructs, I expected to

107
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

eventually find examples somewhere in plentitude, given the overarching literary

claims advanced as if they were the assured results of scholarship, claims imi-
tated and repeated by “postmodern” talkers and writers.
What I have found, however, is something utterly different, if even anything
worth mentioning. One might occasionally encounter something perhaps ap-
proaching an example, like a New Testament passage lifted out of its narrative
context and subjected to a convoluted discussion, perhaps comparing it to a pas-
sage from Alice in Wonderland. No convincing conclusion is ever reached—
assumptions are built upon assumptions, hand-waving rules and professional
housekeeping is overly dormant. No one ever writes, as the wider academic
community would expect, “according to the following well known examples, we
can confidently assert the literary theory that . . . .” This academic emperor has
no clothes.
Modification of such emphatic claims on meaning created by readers instead of
primarily by authors could, hopefully, begin to flow from an awareness or recog-
nition of the dearth or non-existence of convincing and persuasive examples of
this strand of literary “postmodern” philosophy. The inventors of this specula-
tion, whom I interact with below, presented themselves as “postmodern” theorists
using various ploys of wordsmithery, perhaps the most intimidating one being the
talk of a “postmodern” world. To suggest that an interpreter—let’s say a Greco-
Roman active reader—helps create meaning and, especially, that a text “only”
has meaning as it is read by that reader, finds no grounding in concrete and con-
vincing biblical examples so as to be adapted to Christian theology.
It will no longer suffice to direct me to another book and tell me that if I look
harder and read more I will “get it,” as if these controversial claims about authors
and readers somehow represents a sweeping, grandiose, and supposedly obvious
fact. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, after close inspection, for me,
it really is a duck. I think I understand what I am looking at, namely at unveri-
fied, unsubstantiated jargonizing that is unexemplified. Even as a literary possi-
bility these emphatic claims find no known cogent support from specific exam-
ples from ancient and respected narratives that first-century rhetorical students
would be reading and discussing and that the world’s literary community has
studied for centuries. I am sure that educated Greco-Roman writers who took pen
and papyrus or parchment in hand to record, interpret, explain and proclaim the
Gospel would find such claims by modern secular philosophers of literary theory
difficult to reconcile with their own literary projects and with what they rightfully
expected their readers to understand.
Since narrative criticism is concerned with meaningful relations within the text
itself, to suggest that this intended authorial meaning only occurs in the world of

108
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

a reader, and is not already fixed in the text by an intelligent author, much less an
inspired author, will require precise argument from specific examples. These
have not been proffered by the inventors of “postmodern” theory, let alone by
their students. Until then, the aforementioned construct of making significant
applications of an author’s original meaning cannot be easily dismissed as at all
deceptive and insufficient. In fact, it is neither. Since a multitude of competent
authors, ancient and modern, will be read and understood as making their mean-
ing clear, supposed exceptions in their work where viable meaning can “only” be
achieved through an overt interpretive act on the reader’s part, through a reader’s
special knowledge, must be set out by way of clear example lest the inadequately
examined theory of some gets way ahead of itself. Time has passed and such
theory is well ahead of itself.
Leaving controversial theory behind for the moment and, importantly, welcoming
Evangelicals into the conversation, we might take note of Archer’s purpose,
namely that “We praise the Lord who saves, sanctifies, heals, Spirit baptizes and
is coming for us. The central narrative convictions of our story are doxological
testimonies that shape our community. . . . Pentecostal theology must be done in
a holistic integrative manner. We can be more creative in our articulation of the
Gospel. This may lead to important insights missed by other traditions as well as
necessitate a revision of our story. Furthermore, a Pentecostal narrative theology
would have immediate benefits for the Pentecostal community by shaping and
reshaping its identity through a critical engagement of its story. A Pentecostal
theology structured around the Five-Fold Gospel would make an important con-
tribution to the Pentecostal communities, but not necessarily the definitive con-
tribution. For surely the Spirit has more to say and ways to say it.”42
Neither Archer nor I want to attempt to develop an interpretive method that “en-
tirely accepts the pluralistic relativism of Postmodernism.”43 We would insist,
however, that the reader must not subjugate a passage to secular or cultural

42
Archer, “Pentecostal Way,” 312, 314. A New Testament theology structured around the
Five-Fold Gospel has yet to be written. Having taught New Testament theology, I suspect
that such an endeavor would turn out to be interestingly different than, for example, I.
Howard Marshall’s New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 2004). I suspect that perhaps more unity and less diversity among
the witnesses would be found with respect to pneumatology and that more individuality
among the Evangelists might be detected.
43
Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 153.

109
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

norms, nor try to “make it fit” a previous ideology. In particular, the marginaliz-
ing of the narrative character of Scripture in some Evangelical theology in order
to extract propositional statements cannot be sustained.44 In this vein, as I have
argued, the supposed difference or diversity between the pneumatology of the
epistles of Paul and the later composition of Luke-Acts must be reconsidered.45
Further, the reader or the reader’s community must not approach Scripture so as
to extract from it some disembodied principle supposedly hidden in the text—a
principle that a biblical author or authors probably never intended or would not
even probably contemplate—and then turn this into the authoritative and absolute
“word of God.” The proof-texting and cultural extraction of 1 Tim 2:12 may
come to mind here. A sensible interpretive method should explicitly disallow this
tactic by its very nature. Lukan and Pauline cessationism might also be curbed
thereby. In all these particular areas, a traditional “Evangelical Historical Critical
Method” should be reconfigured and renamed. As a continuing interpretive prac-
tice among many Evangelicals indicates, the temporal chasm inserted between
New Testament authors and their later readers with respect to the work of the
Holy Spirit—in Luke’s case even between his characters and his original read-

44
So too, Alister E. McGrath, A Passion for Truth: The Intellectual Coherence of Evan-
gelicalism (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1996), 106. Of course many Evangelicals
do not encourage exegesis by proof-texting or the extraction of disembodied principles.
Note, for example, the sincere desire to make the best attempt possible to understand a
Scriptural author’s intended meaning as “that which the words and grammatical structures
of that text disclose about the probable intention of its author/editor and the probable un-
derstanding of that text by its intended readers” (William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg,
and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation [Dallas, TX: Word,
1993], 133). Note too the reasonable realization that “We can apply interpretive controls
only if we seek as our primary goal the meaning that would have made sense to the origi-
nal writer and readers” (Klein et al., Introduction, 135). This commonsensical approach
has a time-honored history and emulates the efforts of the great classical grammarians, cf.
Eduard Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns
Griechischer Grammatik, II: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (4th. Edition; ed, Albert De-
brunner; München: Beck, 1975), passim.
45
Cf. Paul Elbert, “Possible Literary Links Between Luke-Acts and Paul’s Letters Re-
garding Spirit-Language,” in Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E.
Porter (eds.), Intertextuality in the New Testament: Explorations of Theory and Practice
(New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield: Sheffield-Phoenix, 2006), 226-54

110
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

ers—is an interpretive act by contemporary readers that mistakenly leads to the

manipulation or the outright erasure of the original meaning of many New Tes-
tament passages. A critical examination of the impact of Evangelical pre-
understandings built upon the semi-theological conception of an “apostolic age”
in their faith tradition would be a good place to start the redesign.

Critique of a Radical “Postmodernist Biblical Hermeneutic”

As a physicist-theologian, when I first learned that I was supposed to believe that
I was living in a “postmodern” world, I immediately wondered how and by
whom such a worldview characterization was reached. I also took an interest in
discovering what it meant and on what was it based. Upon investigation I was
astonished to find that philosophers of religion had decided to divide up the
world into “modern” and “postmodern” categories based on the simplistic notion
that the advent of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, along with the tiny si-
multaneous uncertainties between certain dynamical variables in quantum phys-
ics supposedly marked a dividing point. According to them, the scientific method
of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton lead to the scientific characterization
of physical reality as “modern.” This would presumably include thermodynamics
and the disciplines of engineering and technology. Atomic, nuclear and particle
physics, plus other scientific disciplines like physical chemistry that made use of
quantum mechanics, would be “postmodern.”
As far as I am aware, no physicists were consulted as to the veracity of this
overly simplistic philosophical dichotomization as a basis for controversial theo-
ries about literary relativism that have nothing whatsoever to do with physical
reality. The scientific method as used by physicists and their colleagues in the
scientific and engineering communities, and less exactly in humanities like soci-
ology, psychology and elsewhere, is a method that eliminates doubt. Invention
without testing is not science. Science must be construed as real, if sometimes
incomplete, knowledge. Sometimes it is able to eliminate all doubt. Sometimes
not all doubt can be eliminated, but a respectable level of inexactness reasonably
suggests a correct interpretation. Einstein’s general theory of relativity has been
tested experimentally over time in a number of entirely convincing ways. Now
there is no doubt that it is the correct theory.
The “postmodern” literary theory that authorial intention is nil and that meaning
is only to be constructed by readers, as I have stated above, entirely lacks the
necessary elimination of doubt via exemplarity. This is more than a very serious
defect; it is a fatal flaw. Therefore, I suspect that is why inventive humanities
scholars never ventured across campus to try out their pet theories on students
actively using literary compositions written by scholars who expect readers to

111
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

grasp their authorial intent, and most certainly not to construct their own mean-
ing. When “postmodern” theorists travel by air, I doubt that they look out the
window and say to themselves, “I hope that these big engines under the wings
were designed and built according to how I taught my students to read literary
information.” Here, they don’t reject the “modern” and invent the “postmodern.”
Now, in the real world, not just the world of talk, they like “Cartesian moder-
nity.” Here, it does not necessitate the need for “ahistorical detachment.” The
pejorative philosophical characterization of modern science as “immanentism”
seems forgotten.
In any case, the “deconstruction” contained in the notion of “postmodern” liter-
ary relativism, where authorial intention is marginalized or erased—and where
playing word games implies that the goal of reading is to make one pause to see
how one feels, not to comprehend meaning—is in no way connected to any as-
pect of modern physics. Also, such abstract and controversial theories about how
written information may be perceived, philosophically charming to inventors
who obviously had a deeper secular agenda, bears absolutely no relationship or
connection to classical physics or to any scientific, engineering or technological
discipline. While the scientific and engineering academies in the world’s public
universities were busy using the scientific method—which depends on objective
truth that occurs now and in the past because of the continuing physical proper-
ties of the real world revealed by experimentation and observation—a small
group of insular philosophers were headed off in the opposite direction.46
Again, Einstein’s general theory is believed to be true because it has been exten-
sively verified by a series of repeatable experiments. There is no belief-system in
science prior to experimental confirmation, something that some philosophers
might take to heart. Physicists are not prone to exhibit professional “belief” in a
theory of macro-evolution because evolutionary biologists say that there is an
undiscovered, unexplained, and unobserved mechanism of increasing complexity

46
Some brief thoughts on this are offered in Elbert, “Globalization of Pentecostalism,” 95.
For an essentially praise-oriented assessment of some basic “postmodern” tenets, but one
that is so lopsided so as to fail even to mention the efforts of “postmodernism” to rational-
ize positions by claiming supposed analogies with modern science, cf. James K. A. Smith,
Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The
Church and Postmodern Culture; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 18-21, passim. Smith’s
zeal to convince Christians that “postmodernism” exhibits a “deep affinity with central
Christian claims” (22), may have overshadowed some pertinent facts that are unhelpful to
his thesis.

112
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

that must account for all observable life forms.47 They will assess claims, but, for
the most part, will not rush to the ultimate stage of “belief” without considerable
experimental evidence from examples that are unambiguous and convincing. The
presupposition of the non-existence of God may also be reassessed, given the
discovery of a cosmic beginning in 1964.48 This is another “belief” issue that can
effect the paradigm of exclusive naturalism.
Further, the nature of time as a dimension, something whose intrinsic nature de-
pends on the relative motion of the observer and the observed, offers nothing
whatever to support the philosophical notion that objective truth is not present in
physical reality or in historical reality. Further, while some “postmodern” phi-
losophers and theologians, who have not done the necessary work to get into the
details, engage in empty talk of “collapsing wave functions,” the understanding
of physicists today who work in numerous experiments involving the quantum
properties of light is that the intrinsic nature of the microcosm itself simply pre-
cludes the simultaneous knowledge of certain dynamic variables. This tiny quan-
tum uncertainty has nothing whatever to do with positive knowledge of the

47
A molecular biologist appears not to have forgotten everything he learned in physics
classes when he demonstrates by way of examples—in the face of over-extended and re-
peated assertions of evolutionism and exclusive naturalism that go beyond theory to true
belief too quickly—that concepts of random mutation and natural selection cannot explain
the series of physically unlikely events in the history of life on Earth, cf. Michael J. Behe,
The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 2007).
48
Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow, describing this discovery, quipped that “For the
scientist who had lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he
pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been
sitting there for centuries” (God and the Astronomers [New York: Norton 21992], 107).

113
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

physicality of the rest of the universe.49 Moreover, the precision and predictability
of what we would call laws of nature, like the second law of thermodynamics in
open systems, do not break down anywhere in the large structure of the cosmic
machine nor in molecular machines within cells. It might be recalled as well that
one of the great successes of quantum mechanics was Dirac’s ability to predict
the existence of the positron (the positive electron which was subsequently dis-
covered). Here, quantum physics led, as it often does experimentally today, to a
quantitative and well-verified prediction, not to the extinguishment of objective
truth or to physical relativism.
The philosophers of religion and of secular literary theory who invented the sup-
posed “modern” and “postmodern” dichotomies evidently did so for their own
purposes, to advance their own innovative views. They simply used features of
the real world in an incorrect and naïve manner to try and make their theories
credible within their own academic niche. They find it easy to talk and not bring
physicists into the conversation. Their philosophical claims are not motivated by
science in any way and these inventors of highly controversial approaches to lit-

49
So-called “postmodern” theologians and philosophers now attempting to influence the
Pentecostal/Charismatic movements with such ideas might realize that Heisenberg was not
thinking about how his discovery would later be grossly misused by others to invent
splashy and controversial claims of literary relativism. His own words are appropriate:
“The physicist must postulate in his science that he is studying a world which he himself
has not made and which would be present, essentially unchanged, if he were not there. . . .
we see that the statistical nature of the laws of microscopic physics cannot be avoided,
since any knowledge of the ‘actual’ is—because of the quantum-theoretical laws—by its
very nature an incomplete knowledge. The ontology of materialism rested upon the illu-
sion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be ex-
trapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however” (Werner
Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science [World Perspec-
tives 19; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958], 144-45).
For an explanation of the basic ideas for laypersons, cf. Richard P. Feynman, “Probability
and Uncertainty – the Quantum Mechanical view of Nature,” in his The Character of
Physical Law (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1965), 127-48; Richard P.
Feynman, “Basic Physics,” in his Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics Explained by Its
Most Brilliant Teacher (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995), 23-45. For helpful con-
text, cf. Gordon Kane, The Particle Garden: Our Universe as Understood by Particle
Physicists (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995), 1-40.

114
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

erature should not be taken seriously on this score, as Poirier and Lewis demon-
strate to those with Pentecostal/Charismatic interests.50
Nevertheless, I want to be clear that I entirely support philosophers of religion
and of literature being free to propose and discuss whatever they want. My ad-
vice to them is not to misuse science in the process. Misusing science to justify
and make their notions attractive to outsiders is improper. This gives the impres-
sion that they are trying to impose their controversial literary “postmodern” theo-
ries upon the scientific and engineering communities. Since these theories—the
ones under scrutiny here—would be appraised there as ridiculous and nonsensi-
cal, this tactic of justification via scientific analogy will backfire and cannot be in
the best interest of philosophy as an academic discipline. Perhaps this is why
Smith’s project, Who’s Afraid?, ignores this subject altogether. Perhaps someone
who already is an inhabitant of a “postmodern” culture and a “postmodern”
church is reluctant to risk a topic that might contribute to the unmasking of the
Wizard of Oz while encouraging Christians to step onto and keep traveling the
yellow brick road. Nevertheless, if urging this distinctively contemporary phi-
losophical approach to literary composition and communication upon Christen-
dom is misguided, as I suspect that it ultimately is, we may look back and ask
whether most philosophers do not have something better to offer.
However, irrespective of what philosophers like Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault
may assert about historical reality or literary communication, humankind today
lives in a world of science and technology.51 This circumstance and characteriza-
tion is very unlikely to change. From my Christian perspective, the possibility
might be suggested that perhaps the biblical God is modestly initiating dramatic

50
It is encouraging that finally some other voices from within the theological community
are recognizing this truth and speaking up in a quantitative manner, cf. John C. Poirier and
B. Scott Lewis, “Pentecostal and Postmodern Hermeneutics: A Critique of Three Con-
ceits,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15/1 (2006), 3-21. One of the conceits that Poirier
and Lewis competently address is “Postmodernism, the Miraculous, and Quantum Phys-
ics,” 6-11. They expose the hoax that “postmodern” relativism is supported by quantum
physics.
51
Perhaps a brief perusal of the following might serve to illustrate this widespread aware-
ness, cf. Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990);
John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1998); idem., Faith, Science & Understanding (London: SPCK/New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2000).

115
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

new natural revelation of his creative power for those in humankind that are pay-
ing attention to recognize and appreciate.52 Of course, to some that are overly
indulgent to agnostic/atheistic methodology, the suggestion that humankind
might be considered to have entered into an “Age of the Glimpse of God” within
a world of science and technology will seem completely absurd. But, if so, let me
caution them that this is a suggestion, not a claim of conclusive evidence.53 Also,
I do not share the automatic methodological perspective of some that the biblical
God would not or did not interact with life at any time in over a billion years of
life-history on Earth to make anything, or that one poorly understood mechanism
explains all or that exclusive naturalistic processes can satisfactorily account for
all experimental observations to date. I attempt to reason from the experimental
findings of modern science. Also, I take Christian theology to begin with the

52
My suggestion is that we might consider ourselves as living in an “Era of the Glimpse
of God,” possibly inaugurated in 1964 for world attention, cf. Elbert, “Globalization of
Pentecostalism,” 96. This former suggestion might be complemented by the implications
drawn from ongoing investigations of the temporally abrupt explosions of dissimilar com-
plex animals in the Ediacaran and Cambrian geological periods. The prospect that a new
law of physics may be discovered that could validate the self-organization and increasing
complexity required for these striking radiations of different animals to occur, very un-
usual and sudden worldwide events that cannot be explained by changing environmental
conditions alone, as well as to validate cellular “evolution,” seems bleak.
53
In the process of experimentation and observation within the scientific method, ambi-
guities may not be able to be removed. So there is the presence of doubt and one is content
with the weight of a reasonable suggestion based on what experimental evidence is avail-
able for interpretation. My suggestion of an “Era of the Glimpse of God” falls in this cate-
gory and cannot be fully discussed here due to limitations of space. However, I might note
some similarity, some parallel nature, of my suggestion with the efforts to determine
whether sedimentary rocks yield unambiguous evidence of carbon-based life some 3.820
to 3.840 billion years ago, which would be the oldest indications of life on Earth to date,
cf. John M. Eiler, “The Oldest Fossil or Just Another Rock,” Science 317 (24 August
2007), 1046-47. For argument against life before that time in the Hadean geological pe-
riod, cf. “Extreme Life,” in Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life: Biblical and
Evolutionary Models Face Off (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 171-81.

116
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

starting point of Christian faith and to be done in the light of the contemporary
faith of the Church.54
In any event, it is my opinion that there is little evidence, if any, that may be con-
strued so as to claim, and indeed confidently assert, that humankind currently
inhabits some vague “postmodern world” where objective truth and historical
reality is supposedly illegitimatized or voided because of notions of literary rela-
tivism. In my opinion, such worldview language functions as a tool of word-
smithery to justify these philosophical notions, notions that were originally held
by the inventors in their reaction to modern science and who sought a respectable
framework through which to propagate them as scholarly results, bereft of exam-
ples.
It is easy, however, to see why physicists were ignored while unsubstantiated talk
about their work was employed to supposedly make credible what would be seen
as incredible. There is no “po-mo” science, if I might preempt an adjective from
the frivolous socio-jargon of “postmodern” theologians. The idea that objective
truth cannot be conveyed in the literature of intelligent authors and that meaning
rests only with the reader, and not essentially with a competent author, would be
perceived by the scientific and technological community, as well as by the major-
ity of the world’s thinking community, as bizarre. This would be especially so if
the camouflaging husk of worldview wordsmithery is peeled away. Objections to
philosophic quasi-literary theory and to adopting interpretive methods unhelpful
to Christian theology, and to Pentecostal/Charismatic theology in particular, are
not strawmen. The fuzzy “postmodern” conception cannot be sold as fashionable
by claiming that it somehow provides a philosophical space wherein it is mean-
ingful to speak of encountering the transcendent. Christians should realize that
biblical Christianity already does that, the Holy Spirit making texts relevant for
life, and say, “No sale.”
To the contrary, instead of “no sale,” we now observe a new commercial enter-
prise that, in its first volume, Smith’s Who’s Afraid?, essentially exploits the re-
sults of past philosophical notions that science is supposedly nihilistic (following

54
Perhaps I am somewhat similar in outlook, with respect to faith being the starting point
for Christian theology that is then conducted throughout in the light of faith, to Michael C.
McGuckian, “The Role of Faith in Theology: A Critique of Lonergan’s Method,” Irish
Theological Quarterly 71/3 & 4 (2006), 242-59.

117
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

the theories of Heidegger from his Sein und Zeit [1927] that “language is the
house of being” and that things are a derivative of language), that the textual
world is walled off from reality (following the theories of Derrida) and that pro-
moting “postmodern” relativism is beneficial for Christianity.55 Smith claims that
“postmodern” theorists and their formulas for understanding how texts should be
understood have been misread and inappropriately sloganized, to wit: “there is
nothing outside the text” (Derrida); postmodernism is “incredulity toward meta-
narrative” (Lyotard); “power is knowledge” (Foucault).56
Derrida’s walling off of the text does not correlate in any way with the Reform-
ers’ concept of Sola Scriptura. This kind of comparison is unreliable. Saying that
the understandability of Scripture with “meaning that is objectively there—
available for the taking” necessarily comports with modern isolationist deport-
ment57 is a fabrication. Community and the Holy Spirit may assist in some diffi-
cult cases, but the understandability of the Evangelists—because they are inter-
preting events in what they believe to be a truthful manner—does not require that
the community in turn must always play a central role in interpretation. Calvin,
for example, stressed that the Holy Spirit brings texts to life and helps build faith.
The texts were not walled off from spiritual reality in the perception of an indi-
vidual disciple-believer.58 It is Christian faith and the Holy Spirit that enable a
Christian to obtain meaning in and from the text. How would the absence of faith
and Spirit affect a non-believer’s interpretation of such a text? He would also be
able to use rhetorical principles to determine meaning and an author’s intent. Yet,

55
Contra, John C. Poirier, “Why I’m Still Afraid: A Response to James K.A. Smith’s
Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism,” Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007), 175-84.
56
Smith’s project is designed to show that there is a “cultural shift” that supposedly makes
it possible for Christians to appreciate these secular assertions of Derrida, Lyotard, and
Foucault (Who’s Afraid?, 23-24). This “culture” of a supposed “postmodern church” is up-
front worldview wordsmithery imposed onto the real world of the readers as an ill-defined
prelude. This presupposed environmental prelude—more undefined than ill-defined—then
allegedly fits Smith’s dubious Christianized adaptation of the philosophers’ agendas.
57
So Smith, Who’s Afraid?, 57.
58
Cf. Paul Elbert, “Calvin and the Spiritual Gifts,” in Richard Gamble (ed.), An Elabora-
tion of the Theology of Calvin: Articles on Calvin and Calvinism (vol. 8; New
York/London: Garland, 1992), 303-31, passim.

118
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

he would miss out on spiritual meaningfulness. Invoking Derrida’s theory of a

“postmodern” community does not help Christians in their community and is
totally unnecessary and superfluous.
Lyotard’s attitude toward a meta-narrative like the Bible, colored by his thinking
that all experience is interpretation, is a far cry from biblical hermeneutics.
Smith’s simple argument is that the centurion’s claim that Jesus was truly the
Son of God (Matt 27:54) is an interpretation. This is simply stating the obvious.
Matthew understood that (11:27 and his use of Son of Man support this). But
Matthew selects this statement to impress his readers with the point that he (Mat-
thew) also believes this truth claim. That is his authorial intent and the original
meaning of the centurion’s statement about Jesus—like reading a road sign—is
clear, as this title, the related Son of Man, and the development of New Testa-
ment christology in general, strongly suggests. Neither Lyotard nor Smith seems
to appreciate these aspects of biblical study and hermeneutics. Smith’s claim that
Lyotard pushes us to “recover the narrative character of the Christian faith”59 is
extreme. It is Christian faith and biblical scholarship within the Christian com-
munity that pushes Christians here, not a strained adaptation of Lyotard.60

59
Smith, Who’s Afraid?, 23.
60
Smith is repeating here his earlier argument, “A Little Story About Metanarratives:
Lyotard, Religion, and Postmodernism Revisited,” Faith and Philosophy 18/2 (2001),
353-68, which seems quite unconvincing for the following reasons.
The Bible is a meta-narrative and, for Christians, is unharmonious with Lyotard’s interpre-
tive approach that urges “incredulity toward meta-narrative” and that abandons any “idea
for a universal history from a cosmopolitan point of view.”
Meta-narrative to Lyotard is a story that legitimates its universal claims by appeal to rea-
son, but reason here must include the input of Christian experience and Christian faith.
This helps legitimate this story and this is incredulous to Lyotard. Lyotard seemed to think
that the scientific method could not even legitimate the past so as to offer an objective
neutral rationality. Hence no meta-narrative could exist that could reveal objective truth.
Smith seems overly sympathetic to this (362) since he wants to reappropriate Lyotard.
However, science can legitimate the past because natural rules or physical principles exist
now that existed then. Lyotard’s “postmodern” critique of meta-narrative—based on a
wrongheaded appeal to what science supposedly could not do, but actually does—says
that a story cannot contain objective truth. This philosophy is unharmonious with the Bible
and with Christian faith and thought; it is certainly not an ally, as Smith mistakenly advo-
cates.

119
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

As to Foucault, Smith’s performance here may be the most convoluted and osten-
tatious of all. Yes, knowledge is power in a political sense, but the
Smith/Foucault knowledge-power connection is not the power that Luke-Acts
(Acts 1:8) or Paul (1 Cor 4:19-20), or even the Fourth Gospel (John 1:12) is talk-
ing about. It is personal reception of the heavenly Jesus and of the gift of the
Holy Spirit that makes possible the building of spiritual discipline and Christian
formation, not an appeal to Foucault.61 To overlook a New Testament interpreta-
tion of this information in favor of trying to twist Foucault around to make him
sound like a Christian epistemological benefactor is wrongheaded. It may be
difficult to follow a number of assertions and implications, namely how Chris-
tians should subscribe to treating truth and knowledge interchangeably, as Smith
seems to do on occasion,62 or how they should subscribe to a theory that writers
and interpreters are almost irrelevant as individuals, or how texts can only be
properly interpreted by a socially minded community. It is highly unlikely that
these three fleshed out slogans—unharmonious with authorial intent and original
meaning—display a supposed “deep affinity with central Christian claims.”63
Other impressions of and implications from Smith’s effort to adopt for Christian-
ity what might be labeled a radical “postmodernist biblical hermeneutic,” or an
interpretive method as a series of thought processes, deserve scrutiny. If truth is
identified as the meaning attributed to a community of readers, how could a
community ever be wrong? Where would this lead Christendom? Might there not
be meaning somewhere else after all, like in the mind of a credible author who
tells a truth that readers can be certain about? Smith seems impervious to this
point, but it is unlikely to go away; for example, “A philosophical paradigm and
a hermeneutical method which cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood,
valid and invalid interpretations, will hold little attraction for most Christians.”64
Next, why bring Derrida and Lyotard and Foucault to church? Nowhere in
Smith’s presentation do I find the suggestion that work of the Holy Spirit will be
assisted in any way by adapting the work of these philosophers into how biblical

61
Cf. Smith’s appeal, Who’s Afraid?, 95-103.
62
Smith, Who’s Afraid?, 43.
63
Smith, Who’s Afraid?, 22.
64
Menzies, “Jumping Off,” 117. Poirier, “Why I’m Still Afraid” also raises this serious
methodological question in various ways.

120
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

texts are to be understood. Deliberate interpretive methods65 that could be as-

sisted by the Holy Spirit do this far better. Are we going to embrace the unhistor-
ical god of the philosophers?66 Far be it for a lowly physicist to assume that his
advice to secular philosophers might always be heeded, but I find very good
company in Plantinga’s advice to Christian philosophers.67 Plantinga warned the
latter to beware of seriously compromising, distorting or trivializing the claims of
Christian theism. He advised that Christian philosophy must be wary about as-
similating or accepting presently popular philosophical ideas and procedures,
since many of these have roots that are deeply anti-Christian. Smith’s project
must surely be considered in the light of Plantinga’s advice.
I find “postmodernism” à la Smith to contain a number of oversights perhaps
driven by the desire to formulate novel ideas. This is particularly evident and
problematic if one would attempt—perhaps with undue haste—to apply “post-
modern” notions to biblical authors or even to the basic idea that God could have
or would have decided to provide humankind with literary documents that con-
veyed objective truth within history. The notion that meaning only occurs in the
minds of readers is not a Jewish or Christian or Greco-Roman literary concept. It
certainly has never been nor will ever be a quantitative concept that is employed
in any serious communication. Perhaps it may be flattering if I label it as a
“quasi-literary” concept, given that from the time of the first ancient literary texts
a writer’s intended meaning has always been respected as the province of author-
ial intelligence. On the merits, it is evident to me that “postmodern” understand-

65
For example, cf. Berlin, “Search” and Archer’s emphasis on “Central Narrative Convic-
tions” (Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 114-18).
66
Cf. Heribert Mühlen, “Die epochale Notwendigkeit eines pneumatologischen Ansatzes
der Gotteslehre,” Wort und Wahrheit 18 (1973), 275-87 (278).
67
Alvin Plantinga, “Advice to Christian Philosophers,” Faith and Philosophy 1/3 (1984),
253-71; slightly updated version online at http://www.faithandphilosophy.com/onlinearti-
cle/advice.

121
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

ing of truth and meaning is incompatible with the Gospel as presented by New
Testament thinkers who evidently believe what they write.68
Another impression of Smith’s application of Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault is
his apparent unwillingness to admit or acknowledge that he is not illustrating his
controversial claims with specific, plausible and concrete examples. This should
at least have been attempted before overarching and sweeping new generalities
are proclaimed. I appreciate that some professional philosophers might be unac-
customed to this requirement or be unwilling to do the necessary work to find
and identify them, and further that in this philosophic debate there is a tradition
that ignores the otherwise quantitative use of exemplarity in the wider academic
community to illustrate a thesis, especially a controversial one. Smith is not a
postgraduate student writing a thesis where it may be expected that some element
of undue acceptance of some previous material naturally occurs because of the
nature of the exercise. Because of Smith’s stature as a professional philosopher
this leniency toward requiring concrete and specific examples does not apply to
him.
Smith is obligated not just to engage in a broad philosophical outlook supposedly
provided by a new interpretive paradigm that he desires to espouse, but to be
specific. He employs no Scriptural texts to support his improbable thesis as to
how “postmodern culture” and a “postmodern church” supposedly exist in a
“postmodern” age and why the philosophers’ theories he touts supposedly dis-
play a deep affinity to central Christian concerns. Does this seem a bit odd? For
Smith and his likeminded “postmodern” fellow-theorists of quasi-literary relativ-
ism, it may not seem odd. That is why I suggest that they are insular and not in
tune with the central concerns of the wider academic community. Also, Derrida,
Lyotard, and Foucault could be adapted equally well to Buddhism or to Islam,
not just to “Church.” But the Bible is a world-class book. It is the subject of in-
tense international study. It is not going away any time soon. One would think
then that textual examples from it would be judged to be crucial if Derrida, Lyo-

68
This is essentially the independent result of Poirier’s analysis of Smith’s Who’s Afraid?
In his “Why I’m Still Afraid,” Poirier, a keen contemplator of pertinent philosophical
materials, concludes as follows: “In spite of the book’s goal, a careful reading of Smith’s
book reveals many reasons for Christians to be wary of postmodernism. The postmodern-
ist understanding of truth and meaning truly is incompatible with the Gospel of the New
Testament” (184).

122
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

tard, and Foucault are now to be refashioned as churchmen. Could we possibly

conclude that “postmodern” theorists are reluctant to offer those illusive convinc-
ing examples because they don’t want to stop theorizing down the same path
instead of finding a more productive path?69
For example, does 1 John 2:20, 27 state unambiguously that the chrisma teaches
true knowledge or not? The Johannine chrisma (often rendered in English as
“anointing” and in German as “Salbung”) apparently functions interiorly to teach
truth and the author intends to convey that information as an objective experien-
tial fact, independently of whether his readers believe or understand this interior
operation of the Spirit or not. Surely this writer did not believe that this informa-
tion was “socio-cultural fiction.” Truth and knowledge are not interchangeable.
Truth must consist of knowledge, but not all knowledge is true. Objective truth is
knowledge that is true. It is difficult to see how “postmodern” assumptions can
void these observations or adapt textual meaning to fit how the reader or commu-
nity may like to feel. When Smith enters the public arena of Christian thinking,
he should be expected, as an established philosopher, to explain his meaning by a
serious set of convincing concrete textual examples, not by constant appeal to
novel philosophical innovations. The wider academic community is a rigorous
place and expects a bit more.
Of course I come from a different academic tradition than Smith, but the lack of
recognition of the importance of illustrating a controversial thesis by specific

69
For an example of a scholar who might fit this mold and perhaps better employ his tal-
ent elsewhere, cf. George Aichele, Sign, Text, and Scripture: Semiotics and the Bible
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997). Aichele is good at setting out what everybody
already knows, but the dearth of illustrative examples persists. Here it is again: “The
reader ‘plays’ the text . . . Meaning is dependent on the reader in the same way that play-
ing a game is dependent on the player” (39); “From the modernist point of view, the goal
of biblical study is to uncover the message that is contained in the Bible . . . there is a mes-
sage and it is ‘in’ the biblical texts(s)—this is the basic assumption of modernists semiot-
ics” (37). “Postmodernist” or “postmodern” semiotics “rejects the notion that language
offers a clear channel of communication . . . . Postmodernism holds that the seemingly
clear message must always be questioned . . . language is fundamentally fictional. ‘Real-
ity’ and ‘history’ are themselves narrative constructs, socio-cultural fictions” (38). With
all due respect, Aichele is a thesis writer who imitates, repeats and embellishes, but does
not critically engage or evaluate inherited claims.

123
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

textual examples from the Church’s book is troubling. Advancing a theory that is
argued to be obviously the right literary theory—so as to assert not only the ques-
tionable existence of a “postmodern” age in which the Church is supposedly to
dwell, but also a questionable “postmodern biblical interpretation” that is going
to lead Christian theology in a better direction, the latter without specific argu-
ment from literary documentation—seems hasty at best. In the world of Christian
thought where a stable and venerated text is employed that is not irrelevant to his
thesis, Smith’s lack of examples from that text to support his ambitious claims is
questionable.
Of course I realize that Smith may dismiss the above criticism as nothing more
than quaint bibliolatry or “fundamentalist” nonsense. I also raise another issue.
How about some quantitative examples for the shifty wordsmithery-division of
humankind into “modern” and “postmodern” epochs, quantitative and compe-
tently reasoned historical analysis of the endeavors of humankind as a whole that
support such talk, along with counter examples. Philosophers, not their post-
graduate students, need to seriously justify their employment of this fuzzy talk to
the wider academic community if they are going to use it as a prelude to other
theories. They can’t just say so and so said this or that, or go read this or that and
you will “get it.” This is not how the thinking community operates.
Perhaps I am what Smith ambitiously labels as a “quasi-gnostic” because I hold
to the scientific belief of real or true actuality in spacetime and that this eventual-
ity can be portrayed by literary characterization with authorial intention. I am
probably also a “quasi-gnostic” because I value documentary evidence as neces-
sary to support argument. Perhaps in Smith’s philosophical niche these concepts
that the scientific and engineering communities highly value might seem less

124
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

necessary. If “history” is but the history of religious ideas,70 perhaps employing

textual examples from a meta-narrative that is historical and is believed by Chris-
tians to convey objective truth, not just a mythological text or fable that contains
truth, to support his “postmodern” claims of relativism, ecclesiology, mission,
worship, etcetera—may, for those of Smith’s mindset, not be necessary at all.
It is apparent, when some scholars advocate “postmodernism” as a way of intel-
lectual life that Christian theology should adopt, that within the secular “post-
modern” construct of relativism the Bible has virtually no more literary signifi-
cance than the Odyssey or the Aeneid. The work of biblical authors, not perceived
within relativism as objective truth tellers, may actually be treated with less re-
spect than authors/editors of other ancient literary compositions. Also, attributing
the creation of physical reality, spacetime actuality, to the work of Zeus may be
easily, readily, humorously and mockingly suggested to draw attention to the
dictum that in a “postmodern” age attributing the existence of the cosmos to the
biblical God is out of tune with relativism. Whether the cosmos is the work of
Zeus, Buddha or the biblical God must remain an open question.
This should be understood by Christians as the very real and visible fruit of rela-
tivism and, perhaps not too indirectly at all, of “postmodernism.” The same phi-
losophically rooted mindset motivated and led seamlessly to the agenda of demy-

70
This is how I understand Smith’s presentation of “history.” Whatever Smith’s diffuse
concept of “history” may be, perhaps more than evidenced by Who’s Afraid?, it is to be
expected that his methodology of “postmodern” relativism would be decidedly prone to
marginalize history. This is understandable, given that what could be objectively true and
therefore be intentionally conveyed by an intelligent and competent author would occur in
history. If readers are the predominate players in determining meaning, the value of his-
tory is considerably lessened. While it could be argued that 100% objective truth is un-
available, my response would be to go for the real and historically sustained truth that is
available, not to opt for its ultimate non-existence. Also, insofar as the Christian Gospel is
concerned, there is objective truth that can be contained in what is not historical, like the
parables of Jesus, for example. To marginalize history and truth for the sake of a philoso-
phical theory, an in-house theory that will appear to many other academic thinkers—
Christian and non-Christian—as unreasonable, unreal, and very poorly exemplified, not
only goes against the grain of Plantinga’s “Advice,” but also offers a less than helpful
testimony to the cause of the Christian Gospel, no matter how many faddish “postmodern”
adjectives are appended.

125
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

thologizing Scripture. Now, again, overtones of an agenda wherein Scripture is

inert and eclipsed, skepticism about biblical authors’ competence and intelligence
reigns, readers and communities are king, and wherein the world is immune from
the interference of God loom large. Openness to the gods may be but empty talk.
Which god is the one to be open to? Insistence on the inactivity of the biblical
God to produce Scripture or to make or to do anything in cosmic history looms
large. Just why Christians employ the Bible in their churches instead of Homeric
epic is considered a “good question.” Is it because they wanted to have a Chris-
tian testimony? Or, is it because of their “unwarranted” epistemological presump-
tion of information that was objectively true independent of them? “Postmodern-
ism” would favor the latter explanation. Christians had better take a careful look
at what a radical “postmodernist biblical hermenutic” actually entails and astutely
consider its story before they take the first bite from this apple.

The Potential of a “Charism-Sensitive or Pentecostal / Char-

ismatic Narrative-Critical Method” w ith Greco-Roman Pro-
gymnasmatic Affinities
Poirier and Lewis suggest that “Pentecostals are best served by a primitivist her-
meneutic that looks back to the earliest apostolic witness as its criterion for the-
ology, practice, and affections.”71 They are rightly concerned with the truth that
the New Testament writers evidently sought to convey.72 I would suggest that
biblical interpretation in this case would be well served by considering the liter-
ary methods that functioned in the contemporary world of Greco-Roman educa-
tion, credible literary methods that probably influenced the New Testament writ-
ers and their active readers. Their hermeneutic is actually a well-developed and

71
Poirier and Lewis, “Pentecostal and Postmodernist Hermeneutics,” 20. They are con-
cerned that the undermining of traditional methods of biblical hermeneutics by a sector of
literary philosophy within the historical and biblical guilds could cause Pentecostals to shy
“away from restorationist identity of their movement, siding instead with a more ahistori-
cal hermeneutic of Scripture” (20).
72
“Pentecostals need to get back to the understanding of truth that underpins New Testa-
ment theology, an understanding that turns on the spacetime actuality of the events nar-
rated in the apostolic kerygma” (Poirier and Lewis, “Pentecostal and Postmodernist Her-
meneutics,” 21).

126
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

historically stable tradition of literary minded rhetorical education in the Greco-

Roman world.
Young men in rhetorical schools that prepared students for various professions
were drilled in the composition of exercises, progymnasmata,73 that taught them
how to appreciate narrative convictions such as repetitive themes, aspects of nar-
rated time, plot development, personification and characterization.74 This educa-
tional procedure is believed to have had a lasting impact upon students. Kennedy
translates portions of textbooks employed by these grammatical instructors.75
Students learned how to critically interact—both orally and in written exer-
cises—with the best literary features that the great literature of their day afforded,
particularly Homeric epics. I have drawn attention to this wealth of contextually
relevant background with respect to two areas, namely the common Spirit-
language of Paul and Luke, and Luke’s probable use of progymnasmatic proce-
dures.76 Perhaps many probable connections to New Testament documents re-
main to be investigated here. However, it is clear that extant contributions to nar-
rative-rhetorical literary composition and critique, contemporary with the New

73
In his discussion of Progymnasmata, Klaus Berger,”Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen
Testament,” ANRW II.25.2 (1984), 1031-1432 (1296-98), cites the common appraisal
“denn die Progymnasmata sind ‘the minimum formal rhetorical equipment of any literate
person from the Hellenistic period on’” (1296).
74
These are some narrative elements that may be drawn attention to when assessing the
development of interpretation that is assisted by oral-aural relationships with biblical texts,
cf. Archer, Pentecostal Hermeneutic, 118.
75
George A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and
Rhetoric (SBLWGRW 11; Atlanta: Scholars, 2003).
76
Elbert, “Possible Literary Links,” (n. 45), 234-37; “Paul of the Miletus Speech and 1
Thessalonians: Critique and Considerations,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlich Wissen-
schaft 95/2 (2004) 258-68 (265-67); review of Mikeal C. Parsons, “Luke and the Progym-
nasmata: A Preliminary Investigation into the Preliminary Exercises,” in Todd Penner and
Caroline Vander Stichele (eds.), Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman
Discourse (SBLSS 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), in Review of Biblical
Literature (August 20, 2005) on-line at http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4026_5045.pdf;
and “Luke’s Possible Progymnasmatic Improvements on and Employment of Paul’s Letter
to the Romans,” presented at the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Uni-
versity of Vienna, 2007.

127
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Testament as evidenced, for example, by the work of Aelius Theon,77 are of sig-
nificant import with regard to narrative cohesion and connectivity.
Theon’s teaching on how a proper narrative should be composed to enhance clar-
ity and plausibility (plausibility, for Theon, being the most characteristic quality
of complete narrative), his teaching on how a thesis about a controversial subject
should be composed and his teaching on how to compose a speech in character
with a speaker, all have immediate resonance with the method by which Luke-
Acts should be interpreted. For example, consider the following narrative se-
quence: Luke 3:16; 11:13; 24:49; Acts 1:4-5, 8; 2:4, 33, 38-39. Here we find
connective and cohesive repetition and variation as in Homeric epic.
Theon’s instructions for narrative composition indicate his concern for effec-
tively treating important acts. When a significant character like John the Baptist
prophesies about the central character (Luke 3:16), this would be, for Theon, an
important attention-getting act. Theon advises that a narrative becomes unclear if
things are omitted that of necessity ought to be mentioned. Would the central
character (Jesus), being aware of this prophecy about him, be likely to say some-
thing about it? Obviously, for Theon and for Luke, plausibility indicated that he
certainly would and that such characterization should not be omitted. So, we ex-
pect to find Jesus engaging this prophecy. He does so at Luke 11:13 in the con-
text of his instructions on how and what to pray for. (Luke would not anticipate
that Jesus’ instructions on prayer would later be extracted via Luke 11:2-4, since
these instructions reach their narrative zenith as readers traverse Luke 2-13.) For
Theon, a narrator is obliged to pay attention to the thrust of the whole subject.
This prophecy creates a subject about Jesus that requires matters relating to it to
be addressed in a plausible and believable manner. It would be implausible for
Jesus to appear unaware of and not to respond to this prophecy about himself.
This subject, to be convincing to active readers, must be treated with consistency.
Luke’s performance is consistent with this progymnasmatic guidance. Theon
advises that the final portions of a narrative are where commands should be
placed. From Luke 11:13, we connect with the command of Luke 24:49 and are

77
Cf. Michel Patillon (ed.), with Giancarlo Bolognesi, Aelius Théon: Progymnasmata
(Collection des Universités de France; Paris: Société d’édition Les Belles Lettres, 1997).

128
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

then led to Acts 1:8 which provides a Theonic thesis-statement, a focal point for
the entire narrative.
For Theon, a controversial thesis requires contiguousness and continuity in that
the subject under discussion must be dynamically related to what succeeds it.
Obviously this procedure is conducive to the arrangement of a successful argu-
ment. So we might expect the narrative sequence of Luke 3:16; 11:13; 24:49;
Acts 1:4-5, 8 to extend into the argument of a major speech to that effect. In Pe-
ter’s speech, Acts 2:16-18 explains the event of Acts 2:4 and progymnasmatic
speech-in-character or personification is employed to set forth in a non-
controversial way what this speaker—already portrayed as a disciple-believer—
would appropriately be expected to say if he were present, namely that his “gift
of the Holy Spirit” Spirit-reception language at Acts 2:28-39 refers to the same
gift that he himself just received.
While this narrative cohesion may seem unusual today, from a first century
progymnasmatic mindset it could seem rhetorically clear, concise and plausible.78

78
The critical emphasis and attention to plot, sequence, repetition, unity, emphases, ex-
pectation and narrative-rhetorical continuity within ancient narrative-rhetorical composi-
tion (including Luke-Acts), enhanced by the focus on the narrative virtues of clarity, con-
ciseness, and plausibility is a distinctive feature of first-century progymnasmatic educa-
tion.
As to the state of education in Luke’s world, cf. Henri I. Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation
dans l’antiquité (Paris: Seuill, 1950); Donald L. Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Educa-
tion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957); Stanley F. Bonner, Education in An-
cient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1977); Teresa J. Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds
(Cambridge Classical Studies; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Raffaella
Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
(footnote continued)

129
REFLEKS 6-1 2007

Theon’s intention to provide narrative-rhetorical guidance marks him as a serious

and respected educator.79 In addition to ancient rhetorical strategy in general,80
Theon is committed to illustrating main points with the finest examples and
precedents that would not be tarnished by time and that could be imitated. Luke’s
employment of believable examples to show how Christian readers, who like
Luke’s characters are also disciple-believers, should expect John the Baptist’s
prophecy to be fulfilled by the heavenly Jesus with respect to them. Such exam-
ples would be essential and expected in order to make John the Baptist’s proph-
ecy about Jesus’ ministry plausible. These examples and precedents complement
and make complete the rhetorical processes detected in Luke’s treatment of the
subject of the narrative sequence initiated by John the Baptist’s prophecy. Luke
would anticipate his active readers to seek to imitate these examples and prece-
dents, or to put it another way, to expect them to occur when they too, along with
Theophilus, are appropriately attentive to the earthly Jesus’ teaching on prayer
for the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The development of a narrative-critical method sensitive to connective detail and
to the fulfillment of prophecy theme evidently visible in Luke-Acts must be will-
ing to shed some of the presuppositional features of an interpretive method
locked into the “apostolic-age” presuppositions of the Reformers. In “Die Zeit
der Geistgabe”81 new approaches to New Testament interpretation are needed that
are sensitive to narrative convictions and to connections within discursive
thought. Authorial intention as appreciated and respected in the Greco-Roman

The introductory prose exercises of the Progymnasmata were a basic part of Greco-
Roman education and probably a component of Paul’s and of Luke’s own Greek educa-
tion. Progymnasmatic training in compositional exercises created an indelible impression
upon students, shaping their writing skill, style and rhetorical knowledge whether or not
they moved on to the full rhetorical curriculum, cf. Ruth Webb, “The Progymnasmata as
Practice,” in Y. L. Too (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Leiden: Brill,
2001), 289-316 (309-10); Craig A. Gibson, “Learning Greek History in the Ancient Class-
room: The Evidence of the Treatises on Progymnasmata,” Classical Philology 99 (2004),
103-29 (105).
79
Patillon, “L’auteur et son propos,” in Théon: Progymnasmata, vii-clvi.
80
Regarding this background, cf. Bennett J. Price, “Paradeigma and Exemplum in An-
cient Rhetorical Theory” (Ph.D dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1975).
81
Rudolf Pesch, “Die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes,” Bibel und Kirche 21 (1966), 52-53
(53).

130
 REFLEKS 6-1 2007

literary world must be reclaimed. Modern philosophical speculation that is textu-

ally unwarranted and inhospitable to Christian theology must be left behind.

131