Return to "Concerns-Complaints-Compliments"
Not all letters will be positive. Some people are just simply opposed to revival. I was hesitant to include this letter, but I concluded that if I am going to publish positive
comments, honesty dictates that I should also include criticisms. This critic is a respected Christian leader and educator. Out of fairness, I will not include his name.
I realize that my posture regarding his comments is harsh. But I do not apologize for my bluntness. Too much is at stake to equivocate. If you're looking for marshmallow mentality, you are visiting the wrong site.
Click here to buy WIND Vol.1 on Amazon
Recently I received some interesting negative comments. A reader of WIND wrote that "Our national problems, possibly even the economic chaos, may be our own responsibility compounded by the judgment of a grieved God. But even in the midst of plagues of judgment, God's people still found a harbor of safety in Goshen, when they themselves or their fathers brought about their slavery in Egypt."
While I agree with his comment (of which this was only one) that God will provide a refuge for His people, I object strongly to the writer's fatalistic approach. "Why," I would ask, "should we be content to see our country sink into oblivion, and our children into something akin to slavery, or possibly worse, simply because we do not wish to use the tools God has given us?" That, in essence, is what this critic is suggesting.
He states that the Egyptian period of slavery was brought about by the action (or lack of it) of God's people. I do not understand why it is acceptable to this critic for God's people to wander away from God's best, and end up in captivity, while he (this critic) admits that it was totally within their power to prevent it. I also question why he is so against revival in America.
He defends his view (In another part of his letter) when he writes that the view "that my words, my works, my faith, my prayers essentially control all outcomes . . . suggests that we can bend God backward over a promise we peeled off God's book and force his hand to do what we deem to be best." The promise he is alluding to is 2 Chronicles 7:14. I question his logic here. First he states that God's people were trapped in slavery because of their actions, then he suggests that it might be wrong to seek God's face for revival (2 Chron. 7:14) because that would be bending God backward. That is just illogical.
In another part of his letter he alludes to the "Name it--Claim it" notion of hyper-faithism. I would assume that he regards the promise contained in the above-noted passage to fall into that category. Again, I strongly disagree. To characterize 2 Chronicles 7:14 as a "Name it--Claim it" passage does not meet even basic hermeneutic scrutiny. If it's okay to relegate this passage to that category, what's to stop this critic from doing the same to John 3:16? Or any other part of the Bible with which he takes issue?
Not only do I find this type of relativism unacceptable, I object to this critic positing the "Name it--Claim it" teaching on me. I strongly come out against the "Name it--Claim it" mentality throughout WIND. For this critic to allude to that erroneous philosophy (with regard to WIND) is totally unjustified. What he does is state an error that is not contained in the pages of WIND, and then attacks it as though it were.
All I can say is it is a very good thing that this critic was not wielding power during the founding of our country, or during the days of Charles Finney. It is this exact mindset that has effectively blocked revival in America for generations. If the Church in America is looking for a man to lead us through the dark-age oppression that most certainly lies ahead for us (in an unrevived America), then it should certainly heed what this man teaches.
However, if the Church wants revival and God-centeredness (and all the blessings that entails), then I suggest men like Cotton Mather and Charles Finney would serve as better role models. They believed 2 Chronicles 7:14 was the word of God, and acted on it. I strongly recommend reading WIND.
I also suggest reading my article on "Revivals in History," to get a better understanding of how best to regard history through God's eyes. Regarding the critic quoted above, I might revisit my thoughts regarding his criticisms after I have had longer to digest them.
The saddest part about it is that he is convinced that he is doing God's work by "protecting" Christians from the "fallacy" of revival. I would like him to re-read chapter 23 of WIND ("The Critics of Revival").
Finally, I would refer my critic to a word picture from page 22 of WIND:
The owner of the company had been out of town for a long time. The operation of the business certainly reflected it—production, profits and morale were all down.
"Boy, am I ready for the boss to come back!" exclaimed the office manager.
"Me too," chimed in the secretary, "I will be very glad to see him."
It was 2 p.m. on Friday, and all the machine operators, truck drivers and design engineers were sitting around the office chewing the fat, and commenting on how much each one of them missed the boss. Mostly, though, they just watched the time clock. No steam was coming out of the chimney, no product was flowing off the conveyor belt, no shavings were to be found beneath their drill presses. In general, nothing was happening!
All the tools that the boss had bought for them were neatly hung on the wall. All the capital that the boss had invested was dormant and declining.
"Boy, I sure hope the boss gets back soon," one worker finally said, ". . . I’ll bet he will be happy to see us!"
—The New Revivalist, 1994.