TRACING, EVOLVING, OR DISINTEGRATING?

If you were to try to 'trace' the 'manifestations' that you believe are definitely of the devil like most ardent anti-renewalists do, you might be tempted to say that the spiritual phenomenon of the Shakers jumped from the Quakers (so-named for their similar 'manifestations'). This would seem a good theory, especially since many have thought the Quakers more New Age than Christian because of their 'inner light' emphasis.You might also try to say that some sinister false prophecy spirit could have come from the French Camisards of late 1600's.

Fueled by those who wondered about their early connections, scholars and historians made detailed studies of the Shaker past. However, they were unable to show a direct connection between the Quakers or the French Prophets to the original leaders, the Wardley's, even though it has been long thought that the Shakers were a sect of the Quakers. It is said that Ann Lee heard the revivalist George Whitefield once while in England. However, even if that had any impact on her, it would be unfair to suggest Whitefield can be blamed for any counterfeit power. After all, the Shakers were "also influenced by the mysticism of Jacob Boehme and the spiritualism of Emanuel Swedenborg" in their early days, and this would be enough to prove a totally non-Christian source at their foundation. Indeed, no one 'movement' can really be blamed for the formation of the Shakers in England, since it appears that they coalesced them all into their own fashion.76

So, even if the Shakers got some of their revivalist ideas or 'power' from influences such as the Quakers or Camisards, or spiritualists, excessively dissecting their supposed predecessors for deficiencies would miss the point. The Shakers borrowed from anything that suited them while in England, and then formed their own unique mixture of beliefs. They are responsible for their own beliefs, and part of these beliefs definitely included exalting and following Ann Lee. Undeniably, it was Ann Lee's visions, personality, and charisma (including the reports or tales of spiritual power) that guided the Shakers throughout their development.

Ann Lee and those who followed her either did not know the standard or set the standard aside in order to follow a strange vision, wind and doctrine, and power. Their quest for 'sinless' purity and their simple acceptance of all spiritual experiences as being a good thing led them down the wrong path, however sincere they may have been in following Jesus. When challenged, the Shakers merely rallied defense mechanisms and remained naïve ('simple'), awed by the spiritual phenomenon that came their way.

Guilt by association can be a weak or unfair argument, depending on the circumstances. Many fellowships or movements don't necessarily end as they start anyhow, as the Bible demonstrates. In Galatians 3:1-4, Paul laments, "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now perfected by the flesh?" In Galatians 3:1 there is a strong suggestion that the Galatian church had become "bewitched," probably by a person. But if the Galatians had not first started out with the pure gospel, Paul would not have spent the epistle in disappointed rebuke over them in the first place. Clearly they had set aside some elementary principles of the Gospel in favor of their error.

Actually, there are many incidences of reproofs or rebukes from Apostles to the churches in the epistles, as well as the messages to the churches in the first few chapters of the book of Revelations, that clearly address something that started out right and then disintegrated. Can we presume to be in any less danger than they? Certainly, whatever has started out well can be infiltrated, adulterated, or taken over by various evil pressures set against the purity of the gospel. Therefore, it is not always necessary to speculate over connections in order to diagnose the here and now or prove it wrong. We only need know that the standard has been set aside for it to be pronounced sick or dead, regardless of how or when it got there.
 

A LITTLE LEAVEN

Demons do not really need to jump from movement to movement or person to person at all times in order to perpetuate something 'false' down through the line. I am well familiar with supernatural occult power and 'generational curses'. However, although it is wise to be aware of the demonic, excessive spiritual insecurity is different than prudence. Useless religious fear is generalized and vague, leaving us with more superstition than sound advice. You can tell when such superstition has occurred by how much it varies from the purely Biblical and how much it plays on emotion, even going so far as to lose any reasonable confidence that the Lord can keep us from the evil one.

Jesus Himself did not focus on the supernatural component as the beginning and end of all things. Yes, His opponents did take note of them long enough to accuse Him of holding a false 'devilish' power. However, when Jesus Himself addresses the false, you see him addressing hypocrisy (lies, pretending, double standards) and false teachings, which he urged his disciples to avoid as "leaven" (Matt. 16:6-11;Luke 12:1). Study the epistles, and you will see "leaven" used again as an analogy. This time, it is in reference to spiritual pride, and the malice and wickedness of a certain false believer (1 Corinth 5:6-8), and as a particular false apostle or teacher (Galatians 5:6-9). Jesus addressed the false prophet or teacher in Matt. 7:13-27, and here we do not see him focusing exclusively on demonstrations of power as a measuring rod, by any means!

If anything 'transfers' for certain, it is the leaven, and leaven can exist with or without demonstrations of power—even 'true' spiritual gifts or power. Each time in the Scriptures, this 'leaven' is so dangerous that we believers (not just the elders) are instructed to avoid it or get rid of it, passionately. In the Gospels for instance, we do not see an apathetic Jesus. We see a Jesus who, by the inspiration of the Father, engaged in various strategies to counteract the leaven, including openly rebuking the hypocrites responsible for it. Likewise, the hypocrites also became passionate about their leaven. Instead of repenting of it, they were determined to keep it. They first concealed their words or works, then challenged either secretly or openly, then attempted to kill Jesus, and then finally succeeded. Jesus' death is proof enough that there was passion and commitment on both sides in the war between God's true Light and the darkness of religious impurity.

Truth, sincerity, and zeal for purity is called for, not apathy. The call to avoid leaven is for the sake of keeping it from entering in, while the task of getting rid of it is for those who already have it. However, getting rid of or avoiding this type of leaven is not the only time the analogy of leaven is used for spiritual things. We have another implied mandate. The Kingdom of God is also referred to as a "leaven" that works itself through everything (Matthew 13:33). This means, praise the Lord, that the analogy of the powerful 'leaven' works both ways.

When 'leaven' that is not of God enters, there may be a spiritual power to 'bewitch' (Galatians 3:1). Those who are 'bewitched' are unaware of the seriousness of the leaven they now accept. There are other reasons for this lack of awareness. For instance, the boasting that the Corinth church engaged in may have been because they presumed their spiritual gifts (power) made them spiritual. This was different than the pride of the Galatians, who nullified the power of the Cross because they were deceived into earning their righteousness through legalism. Regardless, both churches appeared to have an overall need for solid teaching, strong exhortation or rebuke, and instructions regarding false teachings and the apostles that spread them.

Did those on the 'outside' of the leavened situations of the Galatian and Corinth church have less right to remedy the situation than those on the 'inside'? No. Both the Galatians and the Corinth church disrespected the apostle Paul and did not recognize him. Yet he had the audacity to speak into their lives. Not only that, but he addressed his letters to the whole church, and not just the elders of the church. To the Galatians, the harshest rebuke to any church recorded in the epistles, he addressed his letter from other brothers besides himself. And so, who knows how many people were called into this very 'private' problem of these leavened churches!

This was not an elder to elder problem, and it was not kept secret. By openly addressing the entire fellowship in such an open way, he urged all believers therein to remedy the situation. He seemed confident that they were just as adequate in Christ as he was, once equipped with the knowledge of the pure gospel and with true wisdom. By including both himself and other brothers (perhaps just as 'unrecognized' as he), Paul did not respect their disrespect!

We can learn from the example of these two troubled churches. In principle, problems that are not appropriately addressed do not go away no matter where we are or who we are. For the modern Christian community, statements from public tapes or teachers, and testimonies from those involved become more and more difficult to deny. We not only have video or cassette tapes, but the Internet as well. As the problem becomes more blatant, it becomes evident that the work of God is crippled by 'leaven,' that is if we presume or trust that it was a work of God in the first place.

In any case, a loss of respect for the gospel itself can eventually occur. At this point, it may become evident that politically correct 'unity' at the price of truth and zeal for repentance was indeed a heavy cost to pay. The cost being, less interest from the unbeliever to the Kingdom due to nominal or 'fake' Christianity, as the message and power of the Cross is undercut. 'Power' and 'bless me' goose bumps should never be our standard to measure things by (unless you want to be a John Meacham) and should not be our excuse to overlook the "leaven."

Now that I have laid some groundwork that openly addressing something is not outlawed by Biblical precedence, I will go on to address some of the leavens in the 'renewal'. It is important to remember that not all have agreed with these errors, even within the 'renewal'. However, because there is a tendency for those who hold to error to maintain tightly controlled communication forums, those who have disagreed have often been afforded little chance to voice their concerns. Unfortunately, this has given the impression that everyone is swept away by any ridiculous notion, yet this is not true.
---------
Footnote #76  Ibid pp. 119

© Copyright 2000  by Teri Lee Earl All Rights Reserved