THE RECOVERY OF MSSON Vinoh Ramachandra n recen years he erm 'religious pluralism' has come o be used no only in a descripive sociological sense bu also as heologically prescripive. Wihin his new paradigm, radiional Chrisian undersandings of Chris, conversion, evangelism, mission ec. have been radically re-inerpreed. The Recovery of Mission explores he pluralis paradigm hrough he work of hree of is mos influenial Asian exponens, subjecing each o a heological and philosophical criique. From bibical, parisic and conemporary heological wriings, i argues for he uniqueness and decisiveness of wha God has done for us in Jesus Chris. The auhor seeks o show ha many of he valid concerns of pluralis heologians can bes be me by rediscovering and re-appropriaing he missionary hrus a he hear of he gospel. The book ends wih suggesions, challenging o pluraliss and conservaives alike, as o how he gospel needs o be communicaed in a muli-faih world. VNOTH RAMACHANDRA lives in Colombo, Sri Lanka. He has served, since 1987, as he regional secreary for Souh Asia of he nernaional Fellowship of Evangelical sudens (lfes), a global parnership of over niney auonomous, naional suden movemens. He holds bachelor's (firs-class) and docoral degrees in nuclear engineering from he Universiy of London. Turning his back on boh nuclear energy and an academic career, he reurned o Sri Lanka in 1981 and helped develop a pasoral and evangelisic universiy minisry (FOCUS) in he mids of a disinegraing sociey. An Anglican llo preacher, he also has an exposiory and eaching minisry ha spans many denominaions. This is his firs full-lengh book. SBN 0-85364-739-9 pb/229x145mm 307pp.l 19.99 paernoser press =""'''''''' '" "'." (. ",.A3f),?,\", """,,-,E.'. iaq;,,\ ; '-'NJ ;;;;;::;< ;'<MJ!iJOj".M\J. - ; Jf"'\'-'-".f",NO. 5j': <;::rl'j\v!mi1.' '?ry:x,..b;, :m Thll... en OQ "T. g p..8 O.>-' C1l p.. 5'0 " r+.?"'s s 00 s... >- " -. p.. 'lj r+ p..0" OQ ::;: r+ r-< l) s >-,l) o 0 \0""... 1l Cl). s- C1l - s l)... " g:1l0"'. " C1l s. OQ ' ::s (fl ' 5 Qq l),"" "j Q p.."00 o C1l S...'lj 1l'1j o -j... p.. o _ Cl 9- p..ss > '"... C1l ::. r+ < 'rl 00 <:l Cl)... C1l '" ;:! J!'<OQ '\:j OQ C1l C1l 0 n iii " r+ 00? OQ S :j ro 1-'-... 0 q::r ::s 00 OQ C1l Q. 0 'lj C1l e.. P- ro... oo ::r:. 0 Q. Q. l) ' 00... 9-... o -j fi\" ffi ii 9- a g -i..0 C1l r+ 00 S n p.. O"' C1l C1l r+ C1l ril a- S.' El ii <2 g; C1l 5 00 O"';s 00 C1l..." p........... s.. r;. 00 &. $ 00 C1l S 5- s 0 p.. ffi g: s S o!+... 00. 0 'lj 0"'... " " S' p.. ::r' C1l :::a Gl g. g. 2.; @ 9- Q c: rr. allaalll::roo 0"'C1lOQr+p..0_5 <: 1-1 a- <. a- 1:1. 0.. 9- il a 6. "8' rr. 00 s-" C1l 00 C1l n "C. e!. C1l::r 0... 0 C1l S 9-2 r+ F"4 o OQ ur '1j g ur n r'" 00 &.... r+ ii 00,,!» ::P s >- 1-10 a: 8 a <. J!' S' [g S g' z g; 9- o s 6. m a ; ;. C1l n 0"'r+00'lj... C1l 0... 00 j:j '1j... 1l nc1lc1l Sl<C1lr+r+"O. r-< sc1lc1l00 C1lrill]C1lO"'OO c:: Cl 00 O "'0 'lj?\' " - a- C1l r+ :n 0"' 0rr.l> n E- 9-C1lC1l OOaSC1la r+. C1l C1l n > o C1l.." s:.. "< 00 ::-- 9- S > n >--,l ;$ ::'"C 9-la ; OQai 0 Cl Ol-l 0"' S 0 00 [- C1l "T. "< 10 0 C1l Cl >- a...... C1la-C1l go 0"'... - r+ nr+oo -j C1l0"' n :1:1 o 8: s C1l ii... g: S 00 2 00 " C1l n a-c. s :1:1 - ;O ;ifri rilri rr.lrr. z p.. 00C1l,,. SOO><(j)0' 1l >--,lc1l1ll :: Cl o zr.r. f800... Olloo::roos 00... 0::1:' -j p.. s. 00 a C1l 'lj... 00... r+ "C1l::C... 0"' no> S G').--.) a o SOOO"'S -g rr. n Q C1l ril 0"' @ C1l p..'s C1l e:' El "< F"4 (j)a C1llloan 1-1 rl OQ S Tj f C1l C1l, 0 ::1. 51 ",,< S c::l 00 0.:; S' 'lj. C1l fir - 9- ii C1lC1l.;::''lj C1l 0 1l00r+C1l ::;';:: 0"'- "2C1l p..... l.c1l. S 1>Cl 8 p.. C1l (j) 00 p.. " 00 C1l. p.. C1l ::r 0 ur m C1l hl 9-0"' -. r+ " 0 0 _ " 00 C1l r+ r+:=: r+ 0"' 0 'lj 51 0 0 0... S "op..r+ 0'<: 0'<:... C1l, :=:r+... C1l...
24 DavidGibb which many conservaive evangelicals would happily embrace. nfluenced by George Eldon Ladd, he believes ha he kingdom of God has dawned and is a war wih he kingdom of Saan. We awai he final vicory when he consummaion of he kingdom will ake place on he basis of he decisive work achieved by Chris on he cross. n his in-beween sage believers are o advance he kingdom of God, aware ha hey are involved in war and conflic wih he kingdom of Saan. Bu his conflic or clash is a necessary par of he demonsraion of he arrival of he kingdom of God. is in his conex ha' signs and wonders' occur. 'Signs and wonders' aesed Jesus and he aposles, bu hey were also demonsraions of he kingdom's arrival and power. Similarly in he church's evangelism, 'signs and wonders' assume an apologeic funcion, and conversions in conemporary evangelism should be accompanied by 'signs and wonders' (which include exorcisms, healings and words of knowledge), and hese are o be expeced because hey are a necessary by-produc of he wo kingdoms in conflic. Tha is no o say ha such manifesaions will occur every ime he gospel is proclaimed, bu i ough o be he norm. This view of evangelism is perhaps he major conribuion made by Wimber. ndeed i was his views on his issue, ha 'power evangelism' is a necessary par of Chrisian winess, which led o his fame amongs evangelicals in he early 1980s. 2 Wimber claims ha much of he wes's evangelisic effors are devoed o reaching he minds and hears of people hrough message-cenred communicaion, hrough raional debae or argumen (wha he ermed 'programmaic evangelism'). Wimber sees he need for a differen emphasis in evangelism alogeher. He believes ha insead of evangelising ou of obedience o, for insance, he 'grea commission' of Mahew 28:18-20, people should go when hey are promped o do so by he Holy Spiri. By depending on he Holy Spiri's guidance he resul is likely o be more successful. n he firs ediion of his Power Evangelism he argued: By is very naure and assumpions, programmaic evangelism ends o have as is goal decisions for Chris, no disciples. Many people who make decisions do no encouner God's 2 was primarily hrough he Anglican Evangelical David Wason ha John Wimber was inroduced o his counry. Through Wason's book, Fear No Evil (London: Hodder & Soughon, 1984), which recorded his experience of suffering wih cancer, Wimber became beer known as i relaed his saemen, '1 believe ha God wans o heal you' (25). was in 1985, he year afer David Wason's deah, ha Power Evangelism was published in his counry. f, i \ '\ r, l i! f. r Look Back in Wonder? power and hus frequenly do no move on o a maure faih. Because here is somehing inadequae abou heir conversion experience, laer growh for many is rearded. 3 He wen on o claim: My conenion is no ha programmaic evangelism has been wrong... My poin is ha programmaic evangelism is ofen incomplee, lacking demonsraion of he kingdom of God in signs and wonders - bu his in no way invalidaes he gospel presenaion. 4 However, in he recenly revised ediion, Wimber has modified his posiion somewha: n he firs ediion we lef he reader wih he impression ha we were criicising programmaic evangelism in is enirey. n fac, we believe in programmaic evangelism and pracise i. 5 Bu even if programmaic evangelism is no bad, he implicaion remains ha power evangelism is sill beer. Wha characerises his form of evangelism is a conscious co-operaion wih he Holy Spiri 6 so ha along wih he proclamaion of gospel ruh goes he expecaion and encouragemen of miraculous aciviy. Wimber claims ha: n power evangelism, resisance o he gospel is overcome by he demonsraion of God's power, and recepiviy o Chris's claims is usually very high. 7 3 Wimber, Power Evangelism (orig. ed. 1985), 56-57. n his original ediion Wimber offered various criicisms of 'programmaic evangelism': he hear of he evangelisic ask was a presenaion of several seps needed o ener a relaionship wih Chris; an emphasis on organisaion or echnique, usually a one-way communicaion and a prepared message given by a speaker o passive liseners; an assumpion ha if people undersood he proposiions hey would decide o become Chrisians. n power evangelism people are vulnerable, whereas in programmaic evangelism people are sure abou wha hey will say. 'n programmaic evangelism". we do somehing and hen God works. n power evangelism, God speaks and hen we ac' (56-57). 4 Wimber, Power Evangelism (orig. ed. 1985), 57. 5 John Wimber wih Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism (London: Hodder & Soughon, rev. ed. 1992), 16. All subsequen ciaions are from his revised ediion. 6 Wimber, Power Evangelism, 78-79. 7 Wimber, Power Evangelism, 78-79. 25
26 DavidGibb Wimber finds his combinaion of 'proclamaion' and' demonsraion' in Jesus' minisry. n fac, one of he hree quesions Wimber claims o have asked himself when he was hinking hrough he issue of 'power evangelism' was, 'how did Jesus evangelise?'8 is his assumpion, ha Jesus was involved in 'power evangelism', ha led Wimber o conclude ha Jesus commissioned his disciples o coninue he minisry which he began. 9 And his is a cenral elemen of Wimber's hesis. Jesus auhorised his aposles, and hrough hem churches, o do he works he was doing. He also rebuked hem for heir unbelief when hey failed o do so, and held hem responsible. Thus conemporary churches find hemselves sill mandaed o coninue his minisry of Jesus. Bu i is no merely ha we can do wha Jesus did. Wimber reads his as a command: we mus do wha Jesus did if we are o see dramaic church growh. m. REFLECTONS ON WMBER'S POsmON 1. How far should he conflic beween Jesus and Saan conrol our undersanding of his and our minisry? There is lile doub ha Wimber is correc o highligh he imporance of he heme of he kingdom of God in Jesus' minisry. Jesus undersands his miracles and exorcisms o be direc resuls of he 'inbreaking' of God's saving rule ino he world hrough him (Ma. 12:28-29). The exorcisms demonsrae he power of Jesus over he powers of hell. Bu Wimber is prone o see he conflic beween hell and heaven behind everyhing ha Jesus says or does, and in majoring on his he overdoes an imporan bu, noneheless, secondary heme. The following excerp is a good example: Jesus never me a demon ha he liked, and he me hem frequenly. Demon-expulsion is a direc aack by Jesus on Saan, a primary goal of Jesus' mission. 'The reason he Son of God appeared', John wries in his firs leer, 'was o desroy he devil's work' (1 John 3:8).1 0 8 Wimber, Power Evangelism, 85. The oher wo quesions were, 'how did Jesus commission he disciples?' and 'in he ligh of heir commissioning, how did he disciples evangelise?' 9 The four 'classic' exs ha Wimber uses are Mahew 10:7-8, Mahew 28:18-20, Mark 16:9-20 and John 14:12. 10 Wimber, Power Evangelism, 166. f f Look Back in Wonder? 27 Here Wimber links a verse ha a firs Sigh has a fairly general meaning wih he specific aciviy of 'possession' (or as Wimber prefers o call i, 'demonisaion ll ). As a resul, he is in danger of minimising Saan's work, seeing all references in he New Tesamen o Saan's aciviy as meaning 'demonisaion', and so over-emphasising he role of exorcism, is only remedy. is Mark's gospel more han any oher ha emphasises Jesus' exorcisms, and Wimber uses Mark's demoniac in Capernaum (1:21-28) and he Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20) as examples. He also majors on he inciden in which Peer is rebuked by Jesus (8:31-9:1), seeing a link here beween Mark's use of epeimesen (rebuke) and his use of he same word in Jesus' silencing demonic aciviy in he synagogue a Capernaum (1:25).12 Bu on his basis i could equally be argued ha Peer saw demonic aciviy in Jesus' words, for Mark uses epiiman o describe how Peer disagreed wih Jesus. Perhaps i is a lile faceious o ask why i was ha Jesus didn' seem o hink i necessary o perform an exorcism on Peer despie his harsh words! Even in Mark's gospel, however, he exorcism moif does no dominae and is used in conjuncion wih oher more prominen hemes (especially ha of conflic and opposiion which leads o Jesus' rejecion).13 The primary funcion of he moif, i seems, is chrisological and serves o enhance oher imporan hemes in he minisry of Jesus. However, Wimber undersands he Markan exorcisms o have prescripive force for he church and o be he chief framework for undersanding Jesus' minisry.14 11 Wimber prefers o use his erm because i has a broader scope of meaning han 'possession'; see his 'Deliverance: Can a Chrisian be demonized?', in Spiriual Warfare, A Conference Reader (Anaheim: Mercy /Vineyard Minisries nernaional, 1988), 97-107. 12 Wimber, 'Deliverance: Can a Chrisian be demonized?', 100. 13 On Mark 1:21-28, for example, see E.K. Broadhead, 'Jesus he Nazarene: Narraive Sraegy and Chrisological magery in he Gospel of Mark', SNT 52 (1993), 7, who argues ha 'he focus of he sory falls no on bare power, bu on he auhoriy of Jesus' message'. The healing of he Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20) serves o develop he heme of Jesus' ideniy; i also shows somehing of his compassion (5:19) and his expecaion ha he healed man will 'declare' (5:19) o his family wha 'he Lord' has done for him. The inciden wih he Syro-Phoenician woman (7:24-30) serves o show Jesus' concern for 'ousiders' and his power over demons even a a disance. The healing of he boy wih a deaf-mue spiri (9:14-29) shows how powerful he unclean spiri is, how powerless he crowd, he scribes, and he disciples are, and how supremely powerful Jesus is in being he only exorcis able o succeed. 14 E.F. Kirschner, 'The Place of he Exorcism Moif in Mark's Chrisology wih Special Reference o Mark 3:22-30' (CNAA: Unpublished PhD Thesis, 1988), in his sudy of he Markan exorcisms emphasises he uniqueness of Jesus' minisry: 'Jesus as an exorcisic figure is presened as unique. Even he disciples are no o emulae him. They
28 DavidGibb Elsewhere Wimber argues ha Peer's denial in Luke (22:54-62) 'was he resul of demonisaion',15 bu despie Luke having already poined o Saan's involvemen in he falling away of he disciples during he evens of he Passion here is no obvious indicaion in he ex ha Peer was demonised, and exorcism isn' offered as a remedy. Raher han seeing demons behind Peer's acions, he poin seems o be ha by puing his own securiy and welfare firs Peer finds himself on he opposie side o Jesus - Saan's - a far more suble and dangerous form of 'demonisaion' han Wimber is commied o. Wimber seems unable o undersand ha he presence or menion of Saan in he ex does no have o mean ha he is possessing or 'demonising' anyone. Sickness, famine, povery, and sin have all come abou because of our rebellion agains God, and hey all find heir source in Saan (i.e. indirecly Saan sands behind all of hese evils). Bu i is no rue o say ha he sands behind each in exacly he same way, and even hough he is heir source am no freed from my own responsibiliies. The reader of Wimber's books is forced o see his conflic beween Jesus and Saan as he primary framework by which he or she should inerpre he world, and a Saan whose primary means of aack is by possession. is his ha encourages he pursui of exorcism and healing. The Son appeared o desroy he devil's work (1 John 3:8), bu i is also rue ha he appeared so ha we could have fellowship wih have o depend on prayer and faih (Mk. 9:18b-19, 28f.) o perform an exorcism whereas Jesus relies on his own resources (9:25)' (209). 15 John Wimber wih Kevin Springer, Power Healing (London: Hodder & Soughon, 1986), 130. Wimber argues for his on he basis of Luke 22:31-32 where Jesus says, 'Simon, Simon, Saan has asked o sif you (humas) as whea. Bu (ego de) have prayed for you (sou), Simon, ha your faih may no fail. And when you have urned back, srenghen your brohers.' A number of commens should be made here: (1) Luke has Jesus using humas, so alhough Peer is o undergo some sor of 'esing' by Saan (perhaps calling o mind Job 1-2), Jesus does no mean ha Peer is being singled ou from he res of he disciples for special reamen from Saan; raher i will be he common experience of all he disciples o undergo his 'esing'. (2) Jesus goes on o say ha he has prayed specifically for Peer (Luke uses sou), and he use of ego de serves o highligh Jesus' superioriy o Saan and hus Peer's evenual success. Bu Peer is assured of his because Jesus inends for him o srenghen his brohers. Far from Saan singling ou Peer for some special 'esing', hen, i is Jesus who singles him ou as he one disciple who will srenghen he ohers. On his, see Peer T. O'Brien, 'Prayer in Luke-Acs', TynB 24 (1973), 111-27 (esp. 115-16). (3) Earlier in he narraive Luke has saed ha 'Saan enered Judas' (22:3). Alhough Luke is willing o refer o Saan 'enering' Judas here, he does no refer o Saan's reamen of Peer and he oher disciples in his way. We migh conclude ha whereas Luke seems o infer ha Judas is possessed, he does no allow his readers o draw he same conclusion-from Jesus' words o Peer and he oher disciples. Look Back in Wonder? 29 he Faher hrough he winess of he aposles (1 John 1:2-3). Saan's bale wih God and his elec is an imporan heme in he New Tesamen bu i is no he principal one. 2. How far should we imiae Jesus and he aposles? The endency o seek o imiae he aposles and he early church is illusraed by Greig and Springer in heir apologia of Wimber and he Vineyard movemen, The Kingdom and he Power.16 n one of heir appendices hey sae ha alhough 'evangelism wihou signs and wonders is no subsandard', noneheless 'i is biblically abnormal o ignore or resis he way Jesus, he aposles, and he Early Church laiy evangelized by preaching accompanied wih he use of spiriual gifs and healing'.17 Such commens we believe assume oo much on he basis of oo lile: (a) Because Jesus' minisry occurs before his work on he cross his necessarily disinguishes his minisry and ha of he disciples from any minisry which occurs afer he cross. We mus carefully delineae he form of 'evangelism' he was engaged in, and we may well conclude ha he wo forms of minisry, hough similar in some respecs, are significanly differen in boh funcion and purpose. (b) n he Acs of he Aposles i seems ha he funcion of he maerial is o demonsrae hrough he accouns of he winesses (specifically Peer and Paul - no all he aposles and cerainly no he 'Early Church laiy'!) ha such esimony is propelled o 'he ends of he earh'; ha hrough he giving of he Spiri a new age is ushered in, one ha was anicipaed in saiah 44:3-5, Jeremiah 31:29-34, Ezekiel 11:19-20,36:25-27, and Joel2, and which is now 'for all flesh'. n shor, Luke is concerned o show how Jesus fulfils he Old Tesamen's hope of he propheic Spiri and he prophecy of John he Bapis (Luke 3:16; Acs 1:5). Thus Carson suggess ha 'he way Luke ells he sory, Acs provides no a paradigm for individual Chrisian experience, bu he accoun of he gospel's ouward movemen, geographically, racially, and above all heologically',18 This does no mean ha Luke provides us simply wih a descripion, bu ha in he firs place he is no giving us prescripion. 16 Gary S. Greig and Kevin N. Springer (eds.), The Kingdom and he Power (Venura: Regal Books, 1993). 17 'Power Evangelism and he New Tesamen Evidence', in Greig and Springer (eds.), The Kingdom and he Power, 386-87. 18 D.A. Carson, Showing he Spiri: A Theological Exposiion of 1 Corinhians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 150.
30 DavidGibb (c) We migh well agree ha conemporary evangelism will occur wih he use of 'spiriual gifs', bu wha leads Greig and Springer o conclude ha he Sovereign God will always dispense only hose more 'dramaic' gifs of healing and casing ou demons? Moreover, hen we mus consider he naure and purpose of he gospels hemselves. The wriers are no a all shy a seing ou heir agendas (cf. Ma. 1:1; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30-31), and hey seek o force heir readers o decide how hey will respond o Jesus. n oher words, he gospels are primarily abou how we mus reac and respond o Jesus' minisry. n his sense, Jesus is being held up as he one in whom we should rus and believe. As God's Son he suffers and dies for us; his unique 'posiion' and funcion 'disance' him from us. The fac ha 'he Word became flesh' necessarily means ha a paricular hisory becomes significan. A one level, once we accep ha God has come in he flesh o a paricular place and a a paricular ime we necessarily elevae ha place and ime and make i our reference poin. f he New Tesamen's claim is ha a one sage in space-ime hisory God revealed himself o us, hen hose evens are epochmaking, hey are disinc, hey are foundaional. n his respec, he gospels' presenaion of Jesus, he 'once-for-all' naure of he evens ha hey refer o, and he very fac ha he gospels were wrien a all poin o a Jesus who is no primarily o be imiaed, bu o be confessed as 'Chris, he Son of God' (e.g. Mark 1:1). The aposles, likewise, are differen from us. is no ha hey are more special, bu ha he hisorical posiion hey held in relaion o he Chris-even necessarily disinguishes and disances hem from us. Funcionally we are differen because hey were called by Jesus o carry on his minisry boh during his lifeime and afer in a way ha he res of Chrisendom is no. They are referred o as 'winesses' and hey had he responsibiliy of safeguarding he gospel and Jesus' eaching before any of i was wrien down. They lived a a differen sage from us in God's revelaion o humaniy, for hey winessed Jesus' minisry and demonsraed heir sharing in i o he various 'ousiders' (Ma. 10). They are he ones on whom he Spiri fell firs (Acs 2) and who were given he mission of winessing o hese evens beyond he racial boundaries of Judaism: aking he gospel o he ends of he earh. n all hese respecs hey are differen from us. Does his mean, hen, ha he gospels do no invie us o imiae Chris? hink no. is cerainly clear ha here are imes when Jesus expecs all his disciples (no jus he Twelve) o follow his example. For insance, Mark records Jesus eaching his disciples ha he wiu'suffer Look Back in Wonder? 31 many hings, and be rejeced by he elders and he chief priess, and he scribes, and be killed, and afer hree days rise again' (8:31), and wo verses laer he ells his disciples ha if a man wans o follow him, 'le him deny himself and ake up his cross and follow me.' n his insance, Jesus' disciples imiae heir maser in suffering and dying, bu Mark does no say ha hey oo will rise again hree days afer heir deahs, and nor does he claim ha heir deahs will achieve he same purpose ha Jesus' deah does, since he is 'he Chris' (8:29). Similarly, laer in Mark (10:42-45), when, afer a disagreemen, Jesus insrucs his disciples on he imporance of servanhood here are clear signs of coninuiy and disconinuiy in he imiaion of Jesus. Whils he idea of service links he behaviour of he disciples wih ha of Jesus (10:44-45), only Jesus gives his life 'as a ransom for many'.19 Hence he gospels a cerain poins expec and invie heir readers o imiae Jesus, bu where hey do we mus be careful o delimi hem so ha we avoid inappropriae or unwarraned conclusions. Thus, on occasions Jesus does encourage his disciples o imiae him, bu where such inviaions are made we mus be careful o recognise he parameers which limi hem. Any aemp, hen, o find coninuiies beween he minisry of he conemporary church and he minisry of Jesus and he aposles mus recognise hese fundamenal disconinuiies. Our role, hough imporan, is fundamenally differen from ha of Jesus and he aposles; alhough we winess o Chris hrough our own relaionship o him (subjecive) we also winess o he aposles' esimony (objecive and hisorically paricular) abou Jesus which has been recorded for us in auhoriaive documens. 3. Wha should we make of he commission in Mahew 10? One of he chief exs ha Wimber appeals o is he commission of he Twelve in Mahew 10. He reminds us of he commission in Mahew 28:18-20 where Jesus ells his disciples o each new disciples o 'obey everyhing have commanded you'. Wimber asks, Wha had he commanded hem? And he comes up wih he commission of Mahew 10: o preach ha he kingdom of heaven is near, o heal he sick, o raise he dead, o cleanse hose wih leprosy and o drive ou demons. 2o 19 See Ernes Bes, The Tempaion and he Passion: The Markan Soeriology, SNTSMS 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press, 1990 2nd edn.), 155. 20 John Wimber, 'Learning To Miniser Like Jesus', in Signs and Wanders and Church Growh Par (Anaheim: Vineyard Minisries nernaional, 1985).
32 DavidGibb Wimber esablishes a link beween hese wo exs simply on he basis ha Jesus, in Mahew 28:18-20, insrucs his disciples o each new disciples 'all' of his commands, and ha in chaper 10 he sends he Twelve ou wih cerain 'insrucions'. Bu i is naive o sugges ha such links exis simply because he earlier ex included some of Jesus' commands o he disciples. 21 On he same basis we migh appeal o Jesus' 'commands' o his wo disciples o go ahead of him o Behphage o fech he donkey and col before his enry ino Jerusalem (Ma. 21:1-3). f we are o follow Wimber's logic hen we should rea such a command in he same sense ha he expecs Chrisians o rea oher commands of Jesus. Bu, no surprisingly, we do no find him insrucing people o visi Jerusalem o re-enac his paricular inciden, presumably because he recognises ha he primary funcion of some exs (a leas) is o describe wha ook place a a paricular ime, and no o encourage imiaion.22 Wimber is hus able o decide which commands are normaive and which are descripive. Bu on wha basis does he do his? migh be argued ha because Wimber has a cerain agenda (o encourage he conemporary church o recover a miraculous minisry) his undersanding of how hese wo exs relae o each oher deermines his reamen of hem. n his desire o encourage he minisry of exorcism and healing, and because he genuinely believes ha hey are crucial o he church's mission, he concludes ha hese wo passages are linked despie here being no menion of such a minisry in Mahew 28:18-20. 23 Such 21 Jon Ruhven, On he Cessaion of he Charismaa: The Proesan Polemic on Posbiblical Miracles, JPTS 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 118, conends ha 'Jesus' charismaic mission (summarized in Acs 2:22; 10:38) coninues in he commissions o his disciples (M. 10; Lk. 9 and 10 and M. 28:19-20, cf. 24:14) "unil he end of he age"'. Ruhven akes issue wih Colin Brown's asserion ha because he commissions in Luke 9 and 10 were specific, brief and limied o he Jews a ha ime, he commands o heal and exorcise demons have no applicaion o he conemporary reader, by claiming ha his is no he paern ha emerges from Acs. Bu alhough miracles were a feaure of he winess of he early church, heir associaion in Acs is mos ofen wih he aposles. See Colin Brown, 'The Oher Half of he Gospel? (The Role of Miracles in he Conemporary Church)', Chrisianiy Today 33 (21 April 1989), 29. 22 This comparison migh seem a lile unfair; afer all Jesus' commands o his disciples in Mahew 10 almos cerainly seem o form par of he background o his laer command o hem in Mahew 28:18-20, whereas he insrucions Jesus gives o he wo o go o Behphage seem o fi he caegory of a 'one-off command ha does no poin o any oher similar command. However, he quesion here is no so much' are here links?' - for clearly here are - bu 'wha are he links, and on wha basis do we decide ha links exis?', i.e. i is imporan o discover by wha crieria Wimber or anyone else migh conclude ha hese wo exs are linked and wha exacly hose links are. 23 Since he days of he Bapis pioneer missionary William Carey (see his famous An Enquiry ino he Obligaions of Chrisians o Use Means for he Conversion of he Heahens Look Back in Wonder? 33 commens migh seem faceious, bu hey raise imporan issues of inerpreaion and conemporary applicaion. 24 Furhermore, alhough i is rue ha he early Chrisians came o see in he miracles of Jesus evidence ha he reign of God had a leas begun among hem, and despie heir on-going proclamaion of he arrival of ha kingdom of God, i seems clear ha he commission of Mahew 10 and is parallels (Luke 9 and 10) was no o be inerpreed as a basis for he church o heal all he sick, or raise all he dead, or cleanse all he lepers, or cas ou all he unclean spiris. f he command o raise he dead had been seen as a universal mandae hen he early Chrisians significanly failed in his regard since none of hem are around oday! And if hey had succeeded hen such a consisen record of healing and raising he dead would hardly have gone unnoiced in he ancien world; we would surely have clear indicaions from boh Chrisian and pagan sources of such miracles if hey had occurred. This failure of he early Chrisians would have produced enough 'signs' o have convinced many ha Chrisianiy was no beer han mos firscenury religious culs. 4. Wha is he place of signs and wonders in he New Tesamen? is quie remarkable ha even a he ime of he New Tesamen he miracles ha we have recorded were 'limied' o he aposles and a small group of hose who were recognised by he aposles. The Acs of he Aposles cerainly records miracles performed hrough he early Chrisians, bu miracles and more specifically 'signs and wonders' (as a [1792], convenienly reprined in Timohy George, Faihful Winess: The Life and Mission of William Carey [Leiceser: VP, 1991]), hese verses have inspired he modem missionary movemen (see R.C. Bassham, Mission Theology 1948-1975, Years of Worldwide Creaive Tension: Ecumenical, Evangelical, and Roman Caholic [Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1979]). Wimber himself (as he former founding head of he Deparmen of Church Growh a he Charles E. Fuller nsiue of Evangelism and Church Growh in Pasadena, and as a former adjunc Professor a he School of World Missions - nsiue of Church Growh a Fuller Theological Seminary) would no be unaware of he hisorical imporance ha evangelical churches (and ohers) have aribued o Mahew 28:18-20 in his regard. This migh explain his moivaion in marrying 'he Grea Commission' wih he commission of Mahew 10, for if Wimber could persuade he same consiuency ha he one ex assumes he oher hen he would see a significan change in approaches o evangelism along he lines he espouses. 24 Again, i is likely ha Wimber would no hold o he belief ha all of Jesus' commands should be adhered o oday. Clearly some of Jesus' commands were emporary and paricular o a cerain hisorical and redempive conex. Bu his is precisely our poin: i is naive o use Mahew 28:20 as a 'proof-ex' for claiming a mandae o engage in a conemporary charismaic healing and deliverance minisry.
34 David Gibb linguisic caegory a leas) are frequenly linked o he aposles and hose closely associaed wih hem. 25 n Acs semeia ('signs') occurs eleven imes o refer o miracles, including nine occasions were i occurs wih eraa ('wonders'). The firs wo occurrences of semeia kai eraa ('signs and wonders') come in Peer's sermon, he firs in ciing Joel 2:28-32 wih he promise of he Spiri of prophecy (2:19, acually eraa kai semeia) and he second in describing God's acs amongs he people hrough Jesus (2:22). On his occasion, semeia kai eraa is used o describe, on he one hand, wha he Son has done hrough he Spiri, Le. he work ha he has done hrough he Spiri's minisry of propheic endowmen, resuling in Peer being able o inerpre he Scripures and he church being able o speak 'he word of God boldly'; and, on he oher hand, wha God has done hrough Jesus, i.e. he work ha he has done on earh hrough Jesus' minisry, his deah and resurrecion, resuling in his ulimae vindicaion. n boh cases he 'resuls' are seen o res on he Chris-even, such ha he use of semeia, as in he Old Tesamen (see furher below), is linked o a significan redempive-hisorical ac. Of he remaining nine occurrences of semeia, here are wo clear references o he work done by he aposles (2:43; 5:12) and a possible hird (4:30), wo references o he work of Paul wih his associae Barnabas (14:3; 15:12), wo references o he work of Philip in Samaria (8:6, 13), one reference o he work done by Sephen (6:8) and one reference o he Exodus even in Sephen's speech o he Sanhedrin (7:36). This is no o sugges ha miracles did no occur hrough oher Chrisians, or o imply ha miracles should no be expeced in he conemporary church; i is simply o place he pos-resurrecion, pos Penecos 'signs and wonders' in heir conex. Righly undersood, he focus is no so much on he aposles and heir associaes as models, hough undoubedly in many respecs hey are, bu on he message of he Chris-even hey uniquely esify o and pass on. n so far as he 'signs and wonders' hey perform bear winess o his climax of salvaion-hisory hey remain peculiar o he aposles and hose associaed wih hem. We have already noed ha he phrase semeia kai eraa, in Acs a leas, is limied o describing some of he aciviy of he aposles, bu we 25 For more on his, see John Woodhouse, 'Signs and wonders in he Bible', in Rober Doyle (ed.), Signs & Wonders and Evangelica/s (Randburg: Fabel, 1987),30-35. Look Back in Wonder? 35 should also noe ha alhough he erm ofen refers o works of God, i is also used by he gospel wriers o denoe he work of false prophes. John Brigh's commens are insrucive: n he language of he Synopic Gospels, a leas, he miracles of Chris are never spoken of as 'signs and wonders' (semeia kai eraa), Le., self-auhenicaing exhibiions of divine power designed o prove he claims of Jesus in he eyes of he people. ndeed, such 'signs' (Le., marvels) were precisely he sor of hing Chris refused o perform (e.g., Mark 8:11-12; Ma. 12:38-40). False messiahs are he ones who show off wih 'signs and wonders' (Mark 13:22; Ma. 24:24), and for Jesus o have done likewise would have been, from ha poin of view a leas, he fla disproof of his claim o be he rue Messiah. On he conrary, his miracles are 'mighy works' ('powers,' dunameis) of he kingdom of God. 26 seems also ha 'signs and wonders' should no, sricly speaking, be simply equaed wih 'miracles'. 'Signs and wonders' (or some varian) in he Old Tesamen usually denoes hose miraculous redempive acs of God, in paricular he Exodus (e.g., Exod. 3:20; 7:3; 8:23; 10:1; 11:9, 10; 15:11; Num. 14:22; Deu. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 29:3; Josh. 3:5; 24:17; Neh. 9:10; Ps. 105:27; 135:9; Jer. 32:21). n his respec, he 'signs and wonders' in he New Tesamen serve o remind srael of similar imes in heir hisory when God revealed himself: noably he Exodus and he giving of he law a Sinai. Ye, ogeher wih Old Tesamen prophecies, hey signify no jus a new sage of revelaion bu he climax of i. n oher words, he miracles serve o show boh he commonaliy and coninuiy of Jesus wih srael's epoch of revelaion. They demonsrae ha in Jesus he Old Tesamen hope which God's previous revelaion anicipaed has been fulfilled. These signs and wonders idenify Jesus as srael's 'Anoined One' (Luke 4:18-21; Acs 10:38) and as such hey are unique, peculiar and greaer because hey usher in he coming kingdom of God. Even in John's gospel- 'he Gospel of signs' - where revelaion is bound up wih significan miracles, i is perhaps surprising he exen o which signs are porrayed negaively. For insance, i is no sufficien for Jesus o cleanse he emple, for he Jews here demand a sign (2:18); 26 John Brigh, The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concep and s Meaningfor he Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953),218.
36 DavidGibb alhough 'many people saw he signs he was doing and believed in his name' (2:23),27 neverheless Jesus perceives heir faih o be fauly (2:23-25);28 Nicodemus recognises ha 'no-one can perform he signs you are doing if God were no wih him', bu Jesus has o rebuke 'srael's eacher' because he does no undersand (3:1-15). n his respec, 7:3-5 is helpful. Here Jesus' brohers believe ha he could perform miracles, ye John ells us hey' did no believe in him'. n oher words, he brohers had 'faih' of some sor bu because i was misplaced i was no auhenic. Similarly, he crowd who come o seek Jesus afer his feeding of he 5,000 do so no because hey 'saw signs' bu because hey ae 27 Here we modify he NV ex which, for some reason, prefers o ranslae (or inerpre!) semeia as 'miraculous signs', which raher begs he quesion! 28 Wayne Grudem, 'Should Chrisians Expec Miracles Today? Objecions and Answers from he Bible', in Greig and Springer (eds.), The Kingdom and he Power, 92, 94, 108, n.59, n.63, akes issue wih D.A. Carson's asserion (in 'The Purpose of Signs and Wonders in he New Tesamen', in Michael Sco Horon [ed.], Power Religion: The Selling Ou of he Evangelical Church? [Chicago: Moody, 1992], 101), ha his is an example of 'spurious faih'. Grudem believes ha his is a saemen abou posiive, auhenic bu uninformed faih. However, hree poins should be noed here: (1) These verses come hard on he heels of 2:22 where we are old ha (despie heir belief in 2:11) i was only afer Jesus was raised from he dead ha he disciples came o undersand he significance of his eaching wih regard o he desrucion of he emple = his body (2:19-20) and believed he Scripure and his word. This evenual and persisen faih of he disciples serves as a conras o he faih of hose who believe on he basis of he Signs. (2) is difficul o see how one can view Jesus' aiude as being anyhing oher han cauious, for we are old ha 'he did no rus himself o hem because he knew all men' (2:24-25). Alhough 'many believed in his name' (polloi episeusan eis o onoma auou, 2:23), Jesus does no reurn he complimen (auos de esous ouk episeuen auon auois, 2:24)! The parallel is sriking and leads o he conclusion ha such faih in Jesus is inadequae. (3) These verses prepare us for he Nicodemus narraive and, as such, heir meaning becomes clearer in he ligh of he following verses. We are old ha Jesus knew all men (anhropou, 2:25) and ha he knew wha was in a man (anhropo, 2:25), and he opening words of he Nicodemus narraive (en de anhropos, 3:1), indicae ha Nicodemus was one of he polloi in 2:23. Equally, Nicodemus approaches Jesus on he basis of (a) he signs (3:2), which poins back o he polloi again of 2:23 who saw he signs, and (b) his knowledge of Jesus (oidamen hoi apo heou eleluhas didaskalos, 3:2) reminds us of Jesus' knowledge (auos gar eginosken i en en o anhropo, 2:25), and is in fac somehing which Jesus picks up in his rebuke of Nicodemus as 'srael's eacher' (00 oidamen laloumen kai 00 heiirakamen maruroumen, 3:10-11). Tha Nicodemus is rebuked by Jesus is eviden from his language' bu becomes clearer sill wih he words kai en marurian hemiin ou lambanee (3:11). See Mark W.G. Sibbe, John, Readings: A New Biblical Commenary [Sheffield: JSOT, 1993], 49-57. n he ligh of hese consideraions, boh he immediae conex and he surrounding verses, we conclude ha Carson is correc o undersand he faih of he polloi in 2:23-25 as spurious. f & r r Look Back in Wonder? 37 heir fill of he loaves (6:26), and such fauly undersanding persiss even when Jesus poins his ou (cf. 6:30).29 Carson commens: n he naure of he case, herefore, signs by hemselves canno guaranee such faih... John 11:40-47 nealy preserves he ambiguiy: alhough many saw he sign-miracle, only hose who believed really saw he sign-glory of God.3o 'Signs and wonders' in he New Tesamen, hen, are by no means a panacea for unbelief or a 'los key' ha, if recovered, will auomaically unlock he door o dramaic growh amongs churches. Signs may have led some o auhenic belief, bu for many hey resuled in spurious faih; even in he New Tesamen hey are performed primarily by Jesus and he aposles, no by all believers; and hey serve o demonsrae he coninuiy beween he Old Tesamen revelaion and God's final self-disclosure in his Son (Heb. 1:1-2). 5. Wha happens when God does no heal? Wimber claims ha God gives gifs o he church o 'equip he sains', bu Paul insiss ha alhough he mos helpful gifs are o be sough for he good of he church, i is he Lord who sovereignly dispenses his 'grace gifs' as he sees fi (1 Cor. 12:4-11). On he one hand Wimber claims ha i is God's will o heal and ha we mus be obedien, bu on he oher he explains ha God ofen does no ge his way in he world, ha his will is regularly hwared because of us. However, as Packer so nealy poins ou: My God is no frusraed by any failure on man's par (as Wimber suggess). hink ha is he Bible's view of God: He is a sovereign God... God works ou all hings according o his own will (Ephesians 1:11). God does whaever he pleases (Psalm 135). And if you are going o lose Sigh of ha aspec of he maer, well hen, your docrine of God is ou of shape.3 29 Overall, his feaure is quie sriking, for ou of he 17 occurrences of semeion in John, 12 are eiher used negaively or prove o be ineffecive in he ensuing verses: 2:18, 23; 3:2; 4:48; 6:2, 14 (cf. 15), 26, 30; 9:16 (cf. 41); 11:47 (cf. 53); 12:18 (cf. 37), 37. The remaining five are eiher neural or posiive: 2:11; 4:54; 7:31; 10:41; 20:30 (cf. 31). 30 D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereigny and Human Responsibiliy: Biblical Perspecives in Tension (London: Marshall, Morgan & Sco, 1981), 177. 31 J.. Packer, 'Signs and Wonders: nerview', Touchsone (January 1986), 7, cied in David M. Lewis, 'An Hisorian's Assessmen', in James R. Coggins and Paul G. Hieber
38 DavidGibb A his poin Wimber does no speak clearly, for he seems o claim ha he church can only do wha God is doing. Even where here is faih, if God is no doing anyhing hen nohing will occur. Ye equally he claims ha faih as a grain of musard seed will move mounains and hus he church should make miracles occur by sepping ou and aking risks. is his ambiguiy ha leads one o ask, Who is in conrol of Wimber's world? f i is God's will ha all should be healed, hen why are no all healed? A he same ime, if i is God's will o heal all, why do we need o be promped by he Spiri o pray for some and no for ohers? Here Wimber is close o emulaing he firs-cenury Jewish healer, miracle-worker and eacher, Hanina ben Dosa of whom i is said,... when he prayed for he sick he used o say: This one will live and his one will die. They said o him: How do you know? He replied: f my prayer is fluen in my mouh, know ha he [he sick person] is favoured; if no, know ha [his disease] is faal (mber. 5:5).32 This is foreign o he New Tesamen's eaching on boh prayer and faih. Jesus encouraged his disciples o pray for God's will o be done, and augh hem ha heir prayers should be characerised by he concerns of he kingdom of God (Ma. 6:9-15). The episles show lile concern for prayers o be offered for he sick (wih he noable excepion of James 5:15 where he sick person seems o be dying, he promise ambiguous and limied by he eaching of 4:15-16), and nowhere encourage believers o perform signs and wonders. They do, however, encourage growh in spiriual illuminaion o undersand God's purposes beer (Eph. 1:17-23), in progress in godliness (Phil. 1:9-11), in perseverance (2 Thess. 1:11-12), and in he proclamaion of gospel ruh (Philm. 6). Miracles, hen, of healing or oherwise, will only happen in accordance wih he will of God, someimes where faih ha i will happen exiss and someimes where i does no. For faih does no seem o depend on is subjec so much as is objec. And in he gospels he objec of faih is Jesus, for only he can bring abou God's purposes for (eds.), Wonders and he Word: An Examinaion of ssues Raised by John Wimber and he Vineyard Movemen (Winnipeg: Kindred Press, 1989), 58. 32 For a full sudy of Hanina Ben Dosa, see Geza Vennes, 'Hanina Ben Dosa', Journal ofjewish Sudies 23 (1972), 28-50. r Look Back in Wonder? 39 good. And i is only as we lay hold of he one who has made promises o us or who has commanded us o ac in cerain ways ha we can be assured our prayers will be answered. Ouside of his we are no longer dealing wih faih bu wih presumpion. 6. s here a place for a heology of suffering? Whils healing is expeced o be a par of he church's minisry in he New Tesamen (Jas. 5:15), Chrisians suffer no jus from persecuion bu from illness as well. So Paul has o pray hree imes for his 'horn in he flesh' o be removed, and acceps God's decision o humble him hrough i (2 Cor. 12:7-10). is precisely because hey are ill ha Paul is able o preach he Gospel in Galaia (Gal. 4:13), and Trophimus has o be lef behind by Paul in Mileus (2 Tim. 4:20). Paul seems o suffer from poor eyesigh (Gal. 4:15; 6:11) and even prescribes wine for Timohy's frequen somach complains insead of somehing more 'spiriual', and ha afer he has jus insruced Timohy on he 'laying on of hands' (1 Tim. 5:23)! n oher words, if in he New Tesamen church aposles and heir associaes suffered from physical illness and here is no indicaion ha hese illnesses were healed or were expeced o be healed, is i no possible ha Wimber and ohers in he healing movemen have exaggeraed he exen o which he church should be aken up wih his pracice oday? Any heology of healing, if i is o be robus, mus surely encompass a heology of suffering. Bu as far as evangelism and healing are concerned his seems o be almos absen from Wimber's framework. Sin may cause suffering; he devil may cause suffering; bu here is lile room for wha migh be called 'he redempive or sancifying value of suffering'.33 Wimber seems unable o accep ha hrough pain, illness or persecuion believers may maure and become more humble and obedien han hey migh oherwise have been. f am sick hen, or ohers, mus pray for God's healing: ha is he only response Wimber can offer. No one can doub Wimber's enhusiasm for he minisry of prayer for he sick, bu wha lies behind his reicence for encouraging prayer for he dead o be raised?34 Why will Wimber appeal o he commission 33 Packer, 'Signs and Wonders', 7. 34 Alhough Wimber includes a brief chaper on raising he dead i is quie differen from he res of his maerial. He recalls one inciden a lengh and explains why wesern Chrisians find i difficul o believe ha God will raise he dead. Curiously, in conras o his oher chapers, Wimber does no explicily encourage or discourage he pracice
40 DavidGibb of Mahew 10:6-8 for he former bu convenienly under-play ha par which explicily encourages he disciples o raise he dead? One canno help bu feel ha sheer realism and no a lile pragmaism lies behind his srange inconsisency. f he Vineyard movemen embarked on encouraging such a minisry how long could i survive? 7. s oo much promised? Equally, we migh well ask why i is ha he sors of healing he New Tesamen describes are very rarely seen oday, even amongs hose who pu such an emphasis on i. There is much rheoric bu, unlike Jesus' healings which Wimber and ohers aemp o imiae, here is a noable absence of organic healings. ndeed if here was jus one well:: documened and medically convincing case i would be hard o quell he ineres which would ineviably be aroused. Dr Peer May has recognised his problem: f someone in Briain could heal ADS insananeously and compleely... he crush would be enormous. The congesion a Heahrow from muliudes flying in from Africa and he USA would be headline news. Bu hey canno... Why is i ha so many of he repored healings seem o be a a purely rivial and subjecive level, such as backache, while clef palaes or proven secondary cancers such as David Wason's remain uncured?35 f he progress of he kingdom of God depended on he success of he minisry of healing hen we would righly wonder wheher God was as powerful as we migh have hough. Bu we need no reach his conclusion, for as we have argued, he minisry of healing was never inended o produce he resuls ha Wimber expecs. One canno help hinking ha healing is more imporan o Wimber and his followers han i is o God. Wimber promises much bu no even he can deliver, and alhough he successfully raises expecaions he sad ruh is hey are rarely saisfied. Look Back in Wonder? 41 8. Does an ineres in healing spring from biblical or culural expecaions? According o he gospels Jesus' minisry was conspicuous because of his auhoriaive eaching and dramaic miracles which, for hose who had eyes o see, auhenicaed his person and mission. Bu i is also noiceable ha he people o whom Jesus minisered were ofen he poor, he oppressed and hose who were marginalised by heir sociey. By conras Jesus challenged, denounced and rebuked he religious elie of his day. Jesus' minisry was aimed a hose who knew heir helpless sae, heir need for deliverance and who were herefore more likely o humble hemselves before God. n ha sense he came o he los, he sick, and he broken-heared, and i was as he healed hem ha hey came o see heir hope for finding peace and securiy wih God depended on him. Those who were rich, proud and conen had far more o lose and were less likely o embrace Jesus' couner-culural message. Such a sraegy challenges he values and prioriies of any church in is evangelism and mission. As Nigel Wrigh commens: The offering of healing by Jesus o he sick who were also poor and poliically oppressed signifies somehing in he way ha a similar offer o wealhy, self-indulgen and economically powerful weserners does no... The issue is no only does he church heal, bu whom is he church healing? Puing i blunly, he world is unlikely o be impressed if we only heal each oher. When we heal he ADS sufferers and he marginalised, i may have somehing o alk abou. 36 n so far as Chrisians have joined Wimber in his ques for healing we should ask o wha exen conemporary churches reflec he world's preoccupaion wih healh and is fear of deah. Are he values ha we aach o good healh a sign ha we have forgoen how grea is our eernal hope? Why is i ha remaining in his world seemingly 'a all coss' is more appealing han being wih he Lord? The repor issued by Fuller Theological Seminary afer i cancelled Wimber's 'The Miraculous and Church Growh (MC51O)' course a he School of World Mission nealy summed up one of he problems ha underlies (alhough he inclusion of his chaper surely mus indicae ha he does expec i o happen). See Wimber, Power Evangelism, 182-85. 35 Peer May, 'Focusing on he Eernal', in John Goldingay (ed.), Signs, Wonders & Healing, When Chrisians Disagree (Leiceser: VP, 1989),42. 36 Nigel Wrigh,, Asking he forbidden quesions', Renewal 153 (February 1989), 11.
42 DavidGibb he healing movemen by criicising he 'narcissisic assumpion ha healh is he highes of all goods'. 37 V. CONCLUDNG REMARKS Whils we would disance ourselves from he viriolic aacks and personal criicisms ha Wimber has someimes experienced from hose who disagree wih his eachings, we mus no ignore he fac ha a he hear of his views lies a differen undersanding of fundamenal Chrisian ruhs o ha which evangelicals have radiionally held. His eaching affecs such subjecs as he purpose of divine revelaion, divine sovereigny, and he role and funcion of auhenic Chrisian winess. Wimber is he innovaor. He has openly challenged churches o improve on heir evangelisic enerprises by adoping his mehodology. One may admire his courage and his commimen o his 'mission', bu crucial issues are a sake here and Chrisians should no allow hem o be eroded wihou a figh. THE BLLY GRAHAM GLOBAL MSSON SERMONS: THE POWER OF BELEF MARKGREENE. THE SCOPE OF THE ESSAY Billy Graham is almos cerainly he world's mos famous preacher and undoubedly he mos effecive evangelis of he pos-war period. Alhough much has been wrien abou his life,l his conribuion o he uniy of he church, global and loca,2 lile has been wrien, in Briain a leas, ha analyses or even commens on his mehods of sermon preparaion or delivery. The major books on preaching and evangelisic preaching hardly menion him - Burick, Craddock, Lloyd-Jones, Loscalzo, So are all almos silen. 3 Similarly, The Handbook of Conemporary Preaching includes no work abou or by he evangelis in is exensive bibliography.4 Rober Williams (RW), Direcor of nernaional Minisries a he Billy Graham Evangelisic Associaion's (BGEA) Headquarers, has himself compleed an informal analysis of 140 of Graham's sermons bu is no aware of any published work on he subjec. s Have we really nohing o learn from DrGraham? The 1995 Global Mission (March 16-18) is no excepion o he analyical silence, wih commenary focusing on resuls raher han delivery.6 Here was an exraordinary challenge - echnological and homileical. Technological, in ha he logisics of independenly seing up saellie venues in over 180 counries and over 2,000 differen 37 Lewis B. Smedes (ed.), Minisry and he Miraculous: A Case Sudy a Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1987),58. 1 E.g. William Marin, A Prophe wih Honor: The Billy Graham Sory (New York: Quill, 1991). 2 See e.g., 1an Randall, 'Conservaive Consrucionis: The Early nfluence of Billy Graham in Briain', EvQ 67:4 (1995), 309-33. 3 David Burick, Homileic: Moves and Srucures (London: SCM, 1987); Fred B. Craddock, Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985); D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Preachers and Preaching (London: Hodder & Soughon, 1971); Craig A. Loscalzo, Evangelisic Preaching Tha Connecs: Guidance in Shaping Fresh and Appealing Sermons (Downers Grove: VP, 1995); John RW. So, Believe n Preaching (London: Hodder & Soughon, 1982). 4 Michael Dudui (ed.), The Handbook of Conemporary Preaching (Nashville: Broadman, 1992). 5 Srucured Telephone nerview, 4 December 1996. ' don' hink anyone has done any analyical work on him as a preacher: 6 Cf. e.g., Bapis Times (27 March 1995), wih he headline 'Mixed resuls...'