All #ourCOG News 5.0
1
Signs, Wonders, Warfare,
and Witness
The devil is a sly old
fox,
If I could catch him I would
put
him in a box.
I’d lock the door and throw
away
the
key,
For all those tricks he’s
played
on me.
I don’t remember when I first
sang
these words. It was
many years ago.
I think it was at a kids’
camp, although
it might have been in chil- dren’s church. I loved to
sing
this
song.
The
imagery
of the
fox,
the box,
the chase, and
my triumph
over the devil were all that mattered. In a
sense,
it was a Christianized version of
“Pop,
Goes the Weasel.” Just when the
monkey (me)
seemed to be about to eliminate the elu- sive weasel
(the sly
old
fox),
the weasel turned on the
monkey.
This little
song
reminded me to be careful lest the
“sly
old fox” turn on me, but it held out a bit more
hope
than the
monkey got.
I went on to finish the
song
with the
words,
” I’m
glad
I’m a Christian.
I’m
glad
I’m a Christian.
I’m
glad
I’m a Christian.
I’m
trusting
in the Lord.
This
song
was one of
my
earliest introductions to the
concept
of “spiritual
warfare.” It ranked
right up
there with a spiritualized version of David’s
triumph
over
Goliath,
or
Joseph’s escape
from
Potiphar’s wife,
and the flannel board
paper
dolls which we covered with the “whole armor of God.” To think I could catch the
“sly
old fox”
alone, was ridiculous! I had to
put my
trust in the Lord who one
day
would lock
up
the devil and
throw away
the
key-well,
at least for a
long, long
time
(Revelation 20:1-3).
Concepts
like
“signs
and
wonders,” “spiritual warfare,”
and “wit- nessing”
have
long
been
part
of the standard Pentecostal
vocabulary, and
rightfully
so. These
images
have
helped
us to focus on our
task, the fulfillment of the Great Commission. We were to
spend
our lives making disciples.
To do
that, we had to share our
faith. This
ability was
greatly enhanced,
now that we were
“baptized
in the
Spirit,”
and it enabled us to do
“greater
works” than even
Jesus
did.
“Signs
and won- ders” confirmed the truth of our
message,
and
they
set us
apart
from much of the Church
simply
because we believed that
they
were
possi- ble. But we were warned that not
everyone
would
believe,
and we could even count on setbacks. It was here that
“spiritual
warfare” came in,
because it was the devil’s task to frustrate God’s
ability
to use
us, and it was our task to fight back with all the
spiritual
ammunition that
1
2
we could muster. Sometimes that meant
running
to God and
“tarrying” for more
power.
Sometimes it meant
“pleading
the blood” for
protec- tion from the
enemy.
Sometimes it meant
facing
down the devil “in the name of Jesus” and
commanding
him to leave. On still other occasions we were told that this meant
praying
in a
tongue
which we didn’t understand for a purpose we didn’t
yet comprehend (Romans 8:26).
This worldview has much to commend it, but it can also
play
into the hands of the
“sly
old fox.” A
preoccupation
with
“signs
and wonders” or with
“spiritual
warfare” can detract us from the real task of carrying the
message
to the world of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. To
say
this is not to
deny
the
place
which
“signs
and wonders” or “spiritual
warfare”
may play
in the Christian life. It is
merely
toy observe the
propensity
of
well-meaning
Christians to turn a means into an end, to major in the minor
things
of
life,
to lift
up
these
good things at the
expense
of the best.
“Signs
and
wonders,”
it seems, are a double- edged
sword.
“Spiritual warfare,”
it
appears,
is
heady
stuff. Both of them revolve around that most
dangerous
of
substances-power,
and when
improperly
used
they
can detract from our real task of “witness.”
The earliest Pentecostals in this
century
were
relatively powerless people.
Cut off from the social,
economic, political, cultural,
and reli- gious power
structures around
them,
Pentecostals turned more inten- tionally
to God. As
they did, they experienced
God in
dynamic ways, and
they sought
to be full
participants
in the
power
of God. That was good,
but it was also
troubling
to the watchful
eye
of William J. Seymour, pastor
of the Azusa Street Mission.
“Keep your eyes
on Jesus,”
he warned his
readers,
“not on the manifestations ….”
[“The Baptism
with the
Holy Ghost,”
The
Apostolic
Faith 1:11
(October- January, 1908), 4]. Seymour
went on with his exhortation, “If
you keep your eyes
on manifestations and
signs you
are liable to
get
a counterfeit,
but what
you
want to seek is more
holiness,
more of God.” “Signs
and wonders” are a hollow substitute for the God who works them in our midst, and a
confusing
“sacrament” when it is not clear what the source of the
power
is.
That such
things
continued to sidetrack
many well-meaning
Pente- costal believers from the real task to which
they
were called is clear from the similar
warnings
voiced
nearly
half a century later
by Donald Gee.
“‘Signs
and wonders’ are
blessedly
and
truly Pentecostal,”
he observed
insightfully,
“but,
they
are
divinely
incidental. Their
purpose is to ‘Confirm THE WORD’
(Mark 16:20).” [“Towards Toronto,” Pentecost 40
(June, 1957), 17].
It does not take too much effort to
recognize
some of the
problems which have
emerged
within the Pentecostal tradition as a result of an over-emphasis
on
“signs
and wonders” or on
“spiritual
warfare.” These
problems
have since surfaced in the charismatic renewal, and appeared again
in the so-called “Third Wave” movement.
‘
‘
2
3
Among
these
problems
is the
tendency
to
spend
more time
studying the devil and the demonic realm than
they
warrant.
Identifying
and claiming
territories of
spiritual control, positing
hierarchical structures among
Satan’s hosts, and
asking
for demonic identities
may
be fasci- nating
exercises, but they
sap energy
and divert attention from the real task of evangelizing and
making disciples.
Goethe wrote that, “The
prospect
was neither instructive nor
pleas- ing,” following
his visit to the rim of the volcanic crater on Mt. Vesu- vius. Karl Barth drew from Goethe’s
Angst
and
applied
it to his own brief
study
of the demonic when he warned his
readers,
It has never been good for anyone … to look too frequently or lengthily
or seriously or systematically at demons …. It does not make the
on the demons if we do so, and there is the immi-
nent danger in so doing we ourselves might become just a little more
slightest impression
than a little demonic.
[Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 3.3 §5 1 .3] The further one
peers
over the
edge
of the crater and into the darkness below,
it seems, the
greater
the chance of
falling
into the
abyss.
I have seen it happen. I have watched while
prayers
intended for God were somehow transformed midsentence into exhortations
against demons, leaving congregations
confused and frustrated. To whom were
they praying?
I have seen it when so-called “deliverance minis- tries” have convinced Christians that
they
must
regurgitate
into conve- niently
available
paper
or
plastic bags
to rid themselves of demons. I have observed it as one man
literally
held a
congregation hostage because he had convinced
many
of them that
only
he could “name” and “bind” the various
powers, thereby keeping
the devil at
bay long enough
for him to get his
prayer
heard
by
God. I have been told of one Pentecostal
congregation
which was so involved in a so-called “deliv- erance” and “exorcism”
ministry
that its members wore T-shirts with the nick-name “The Demon Chasers”
printed upon
it. I have observed the fear in the
eyes
and faces of insecure Christians who wondered whether
they
were
really
safe in the hands of
God,
while
they
were manipulated through
“demonic”
exploitation
in the form of “altar calls”
designed
to scare them into the
Kingdom by raising
the
spectre of demon
possession
if
they
didn’t
respond.
I also heard it
recently, when a woman told
me,
with
great anxiety,
that she sat
cowering
in her seat, “pleading
the blood” and
“speaking
in
tongues”
as a form of pro- tection from “the
enemy,”
while another Christian woman
theologian addressed the audience in which this woman sat. She
simply
did not believe that she was safe when she heard ideas which disturbed her. In a
sense, this
preoccupation
with the demonic is a
preoccupation with
power. Confronting
the
“enemy,” “binding
the
strong
man” and “casting
out demons” are all pictures which raise the
imagery
of power. The
idea of
“signs
and wonders” also connotes
power. Unfortunately, the
picture
that
many see,
is the encounter between two
equally
bal-
3
4
anced
powers.
The
overemphasis to embrace a dualistic
understanding
devil is aided
by
demons.
and
they strated
up
the Pentecostal
Movement,
us,
and torment the demonic.
tricked
me,” nations for human
failure.
on the demonic tends to move
many
of
reality.
We are
simply players
a
powerful
God and
Pharaoh’s
been without it. and
they
can
oppress
us,
possess
by
for our own
problems.
in a cosmic battle,
they believe, caught
between
an apparently equally
powerful
devil. God is aided
by angels
while the
Their
tendency
is to view this battle in much the same
way
as when Moses and Aaron first confronted
magicians (Exodus
7:8-12).
Moses and Aaron threw down their rods
became
serpents,
but the
magicians,
at least
initially,
demon-
similar results.
The issue of power is
important
to a people such as those who make
who have
traditionally
Demons have
power,
it is
reasoned,
us at will. We become
pawns,
at times, overcome
This
idea,
however contributes to a dangerous
tendency not to take
personal responsibility
“The devil
or “the devil made me do it” are two
examples
of
expla-
And
many
are those who have been deceived
by
their own
inability
swim
against
the current.
Indeed,
I knew of one woman
who, because
not choose between two
differently
that she was
possessed by
the
“spirit
of indecision.”
Power is also a confusing item in the hands of the immature and the
power gives way
to
triumphalistic
attitudes.
don’t. This results in a
hierarchy
she could believed
unbalanced. Sometimes We have
it-you
Church. On still other occasions, incantations.
Often,
Pentecostal
19:13-16
Sceva, attempted to use Jesus’ to realize
ship
or
unwillingness
to
pay
a
price,
or
colored toothbrushes
of
power
in the power
is associated with
magical Christians
appeal
to the “name of
In Acts seven sons of a man named
Jesus Christ” as
though
it were a
magical
incantation like “Hocus pocus” [a popular
derivation from the words of institution uttered
by the
priest
in the Latin
mass,
“Hoc est
corpus meum,”
as the bread was thought
to become the
Body
of
Christ]
or “abracadabra.”
a
group
of Jewish exorcists,
name in just this
way. They
soon came
that the use of that name demanded a commitment to Jesus which
they
had not made. The use of Christ’s name
requires
a relation-
which enables Christ to stand in
authority
when
appeal
is made to Him. To treat this trust in a cavalier manner or to grant it mere
magical status is to violate the
relationship
and undermine its true intent. To be
sure,
at times Pentecostals are in need of demonstrations of power
which enable them to proclaim the
message
of salvation effec-
with the
prophets
of Ba’al on Mt. Carmel was not
merely
a
“power encounter,”
nor was it a face off between two equally powerful
foes. It was evidence of the truth of the word
Elijah
tively. Elijah’s
contest
brought
to Israel
(1 Kings 18:17-40).
Yahweh is still God. But
power The
“sly
old fox” is still the
“sly
is
dangerous,
even to Pentecostals.
a lack of
humility,
a propensity toward
pride
and selfish-
and
outright
ambition
involving inappropriate
uses of power
may
old fox” and ness,
4
5
lead Pentecostals
just
as it has led
others,
into
problems
which
apart from Christ are
impossible
to overcome.
Jesus
provided
the ultimate
sign,
his own death and resurrection (John 2 :18-22),
and he didn’t trust himself to those who
merely sought signs.
Paul did not boast in
“signs
and wonders,”
though
he
clearly performed
them
(2
Corinthians
12:12).
His
sufferings spoke
more loudly,
he believed, than did his miracles
(2
Corinthians
11:23-30). “Signs
and wonders” and
“spiritual
warfare”
properly
understood can provide
a powerful
impetus
to the witness of the Word. But
separated from the One who is God’s ultimate Word to
humanity,
Jesus
Christ, they yield magic,
and
circus,
and hocus
pocus.
In this issue of Pneuma our authors have been asked to address these complex
issues. Toward that end, Thomas Pratt has
provided
an over- view of some recent discussions on the
subject. People
are
currently choosing
sides on these issues, he contends, without
listening
to the legitimate
concerns which their
opponents
voice. Until
they
can hear each other own their concerns in
mutuality,
the effectiveness of their witness will be of limited value. and
Robert Guelich looks at the New Testament data on
“spiritual
war- fare” then
analyzes
one of the
leading popular
treatments of the
subject in
light
of the New Testament evidence. As
you
read this article
you may
come to the conclusion that “Jesus we
know,”
and “Paul we know,”
but
you may
ask “Who is Peretti?” Does he
accurately repre- sent the
Gospel,
or does he contribute to confusion in the Church? But you might
also ask whether we have
really
understood Jesus and
Paul, or whether it is time to take another look. The observations which Pro- fessor Guelich makes and the
questions
he raises are
worthy
of further reflection
by
all concerned
parties.
Finally,
James
Bradley
looks at the
ways
in which
many
of the earli- est Christians viewed the miraculous. Professor
Bradley’s
article focuses
upon
the Church of the first three centuries where he observes that
alongside
the
miraculous, suffering, martyrdom and
the trans- formed
life played equally significant apologetic
roles in communicat- ing
the
Gospel.
In the rarified
atmosphere
of
“signs
and
wonders,”
and in the strato- sphere
of
“spiritual
warfare” it is well to be reminded that we must keep
our feet
firmly planted
on the Rock in order to communicate the Gospel effectively.
The need for
properly
balanced discernment has never been more
pronounced
than it is at this
particular
time. It is important
to contemplate and then to respond to that
reality
with all the integrity
which our commitments are
capable
of
delivering.
Without this balance we will move to one or another extreme
position, thereby, effectively curtailing
the effectiveness of our witness.
Cecil M.
Robeck, Jr. Editor
5
Comments