The basic teaching seems to have originated from South African independent evangelist Rodney Howard-Browne. It was basically transferred from his meetings via a Vineyard pastor to Toronto's Airport Vineyard. From there the teaching and activities including violent shaking, barking like dogs, roaring like lions, crying out, and falling (sometimes "sticking") to the floor became somewhat commonplace.

I have had quite a number of conversations with pastors and other leaders in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. A growing number have asked me to share my thinking on these events. This I will attempt to do. But I can only beg the reader to finish the entire article, for I think larger issues loom behind what is happening.

There are godly Christians the world over who think very differently about how the Holy Spirit wishes to manifest Himself in the local church. Evangelicals, fundamentalists, charismatics, traditional Pentecostals and other streams in the larger body of Christ all have somewhat unique views on this.

Some think the supernatural gifts (healing, miracles, speaking in tongues, etc.) ceased in the days of the first apostles. Other believers cannot find a scriptural basis for the cessation of such gifts. And there are those who consider signs and wonders the evidence that the Spirit is in a meeting--and if such things don't happen, they truly wonder if He's in attendance at all!

A few definitions are in order. I will not list every major stream in the Church (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), nor is it my desire to stereotype anyone. I do believe all traditions bring something needed by the rest of the Church. Evangelicals are known for their commitment to the Bible and its teachings, the message of the gospel, and missions.

Pentecostals (e.g., the Assemblies of God) are known for the same, yet with central emphasis on the "full" gospel, the baptism in the Holy Spirit. They believe it to be an experience separate from conversion, available to all Christians who ask for it in faith.

Charismatics are unique in that they come from two basic pools: Many remain in mainline Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, etc.) and various Catholic or other charismatic renewal movements. Others are linked together (e.g., Vineyard) or in independent fellowships.

Charismatics differ from Pentecostals in that most charismatics don't believe speaking in tongues must be the initial evidence of being Spirit filled. While some old-line Pentecostals hold to this as well, most think tongues is the "proof gift" manifested in the Christian upon becoming filled. Also, many charismatics believe in some form of exorcism for Christians--which very few Pentecostals in the U.S. would ever accept.

Finally, there are those evangelicals who, like most fundamentalists, take a fairly rigid dispensationalist view (such as C. I. Scofield). Dispensationalism has several streams, but for our discussion we will say it means "God doesn't do it quite like He did it back then.--"the concept that in various ages, God does things differently. If one is a strong dispensationalist one may not believe that the various supernatural experiences we read about in the Book of Acts or the letters of the New Testament are going to happen in present times.

As we consider these various positions, it becomes clear that our individual theological views and Christian experience as well as knowledge of history all greatly affect our opinions and practices. Think of this as a backdrop to our consideration of the Holy Spirit and His work.

Allow me to confess that I experienced being filled with the Holy Spirit in 1971. I also speak in tongues nearly every day and have experienced several so-called power or sign as well as functional or office gifts (depending on how you wish to refer to things like mercy, administration, helps, etc.).

Some Christians are uneasy about certain purported manifestations ascribed to the Spirit. So am I. Poor exegesis, pride, and personal opinion have caused many a believer to severely judge the Pentecostal/charismatic community. But many of these critics are married to a dead letter doctrinal, scribal, pharisaical existence. No wonder more and more of the mainline churches are adopting worship styles typical of charismatics.

I believe that I and the local church I belong to should attempt to place the same accent on the Holy Spirit that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament did. I also believe that the "Spirit-filled" churches must be careful to have a biblical basis for their theology about the Spirit lest they do themselves and the rest of the body of Christ a terrible disservice. Let me be specific. The Holy Spirit is first of all HOLY. He is the Spirit of Truth. When the delivery of a leader appears to be more for show than for genuine proclamation of biblical truth, it's time to take inventory.

While I am well aware that many Evangelicals stop with evangelism, it is also true that many charismatics seem caught in an endless loop of personal "blessing" experiences. While fundamentalists can be militant to the point of unChristianizing Pentecostals, perhaps some Pentecostals look down on mainline non-Spirit-filled Christians as immature babes in really moving in the Spirit. Again, it's time to grow in humility and balance.

We must remember that at the end of the Welsh revival and the American Great Awakening, as well as the other revivals and moves of the Spirit, the key leaders always published words of remorse and actually criticized the excesses of the people. Evan Roberts (Wales) and Jonathan Edwards (New England) are clear examples of this.

On one hand, the Bible never states that the baptism or anointing of the Holy Spirit ended with the apostles. On the other hand, much teaching by charismatics lists gifts supposedly from the Holy Spirit, that are nowhere to be found among the lists of actual gifts mentioned in the New Testament.

Some churches are so dry and without apparent emotional contact with God that it's a wonder anyone bothers to attend them. How many young people have given up for lack of interest on the basis of worship and liturgy that more resemble a funeral than a celebration of the immediacy of God's Spirit?

It also seems to me that too many in the various streams of Christianity care more about what a favorite Bible teacher, preacher, or seminary has to say above what the very Word of God does or doesn't say on the subject. So I suggest that we all take time to study the Word. If the Bereans were more noble of heart than the Thessalonicans because they "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether or not Paul's teaching" was solidly true, how much more ought we to be doing such cross-checks today?

I have met a number of leaders in the charismatic stream who are themselves concerned about the lack of solid biblical foundation for some of the "experiences" they are seeing in their own congregations.

One of the things that I think needs to be addressed in the charismatic camp is the accent of the Holy Spirit Himself. He points to Jesus. He reminds us of Jesus' words. He helps us to pray, witness, and do the work of evangelism and discipling. While signs and wonders certainly offer notice of God and His work in the world, evangelism and the making of disciples have been largely left in the dust by many in the Pentecostal/charismatic churches.

The pleasurable experiences of worship (the "presence," even physical feeling, of God's Spirit among the saints), laughter, falling down, and the like probably have their place--to some degree. But as a Dutch Pentecostal leader shared with me recently, "The people are moving from one experience to the next. They have no time for evangelism, discipling one another, for serving the poor, or reaching out to widows and orphans."

A U.S. Vineyard pastor asked me what I thought about the refreshing or even revival sweeping the world. I think "refreshing" is more accurate. My understanding of what happens historically in the church where revival hits is that the people witness and disciple more than ever. Acts 5:32 says that God gives His Spirit to those who obey Him. I replied to my Vineyard friend that if the Spirit was truly doing these things, we would see such enduring fruit in the lives of those affected by Him six months and six years down the road.

As for those who applaud my position on these things--remember that many in the non-Spirit-filled streams love the worship music and great enthusiasm that the Pentecostals and charismatics have brought to the Church at large, yet the same churches that "borrow" charismatic music and worship reject the idea of spiritual gifts as listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Of course, many Pentecostals list the nine power gifts as though those were all that the Word ever calls gifts in the New Testament. It ain't so--there are twenty-six or twenty-seven gifts actually called "gifts" in the New Testament letters. Context, context, context!

So, Rodney Howard-Browne, Toronto, or anywhere else you'd care to look--the Word comes first. Experiences are great, but far too many seek them ahead of and above Jesus Christ.

The accent of the New Testament is neither Pentecostal, charismatic, nor simply evangelical in the sense of witness sans discipleship. The Word is far more balanced than any one stream of the Church. Jesus tells us we will not see Him until we can say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord". If the lordship of Christ, a theology for suffering, and issues related to sanctification and holiness are not accented as they are in Scripture itself, how can we so automatically insist the Holy Spirit is truly moving, in the long-term sense, in that gathering of believers?

Some of the kindest, most genuine believers I have met are members of the Vineyard. More and more of their leaders are calling for balance and renewed commitment to the Bible. Genuine conversions and lasting fruit have been evident in Vineyard churches. Yet like all churches, there is the ongoing need for balance.

Recently, the leadership of the Association of Vineyard Churches (AVC; including John Wimber, Todd Hunter, and others) terminated formal relations between the AVC and the Toronto Airport Vineyard Christian Fellowship. They had circulated a policy paper to the Vineyard churches in 1994 recommending the accent be on clearly scriptural issues and off of some of the extremes they had noticed with regard to "the Blessing." If the policies of the AVC board weren't heeded by Toronto, it seemed sensible for them to continue outside of the Vineyard churches. Time will tell how such actions will affect the Blessing or other Vineyard churches. But here I would echo an old proverb: "Signs ought to follow the believer rather than the believer follow signs.

Frankly, my greatest concern is not with extrabiblical "manifestations." They will do far less damage than extrabiblical or false prophecies. If and when a given prophecy begins to be distributed (word of mouth, tapes, etc.) and accepted by a quantity of people, is it not even more important to judge it in the light of the Scriptures?

For example, a widely circulated prophecy (quoted in teaching as well as laced in later "words") is referred to as the "civil war" or "blue-gray" prophecy. In it, God supposedly confirms the Blessing and, by implication, the movement by actually stating He is sending division by it. Blue purportedly relates to "spiritual, freedom in the heavenlies" while gray relates to the "earth, cerebral, judgmental flesh." "Blues" move in the Spirit. "Grays" are ultimately apostate. God sending division in His Church on the basis of who does or does not believe in the Blessing? I have yet to read either affirmation or dis-affirmation by anyone in national leadership with regard to this prophetic utterance. Yet this particular "word" was given by one of the "Kansas City Prophets" some eleven years ago and has continued to surface in Toronto and elsewhere as an accepted amen to the blessing.

It is certainly easier to say "Thus saith God" than it is to produce actual, documentable miracles, healings, and the like. It is at this juncture that the general place of prophecy in the movement ought to be far more alarming to those of us who love our brothers and sisters in Vineyard churches. When immediate prophetic utterance is held as more exciting, even more relevant, than the Scriptures, we have serious trouble.

When a prophetic utterance is taped, transcribed, and quoted around a group of churches, is it not essential for biblical judgment on the prophecy to be made?

It would seem appropriate for local church leaders to critique such prophecies first. The national leadership must do the same if the "messasge from God" begins to travel. Perhaps I am unaware that such activity is in fact being practiced in the Association of Vineyard Churches, but the movement has generally had quite an emphasis on prophetic utterance. May the leaders appropriate all of 1 Corinthians 14 and judge.

I have attended a multitude of old-line Pentecostal meetings and so am not overly concerned about the antics and posturing that I think Rodney Howard-Browne affects. Please don't think I judge him harshly on a surface level. He just reminds me of many, many Spirit-filled preachers I have seen and heard over the years. He has a slightly different twist in his teaching. That's all. And lots of folks are looking for a spiritual buzz. No big deal. For some, such a "touch" seems meaningful, but let's face the fact that sooner or later another sort of buzz will appear. And either Rodney gets an even "fresher" word, annointing, etc., or they move on to someone else.

I do worry about the lack of biblical teaching, preaching, discipleship, holiness, and actual concern for widows, orphans, and biblical justice in such meetings. Certainly we all need times of refreshing in the Spirit. And they do happen. But I find it interesting that so many careers, books, tapes, and entire movements exist around so thin a cloud.

A solid brother who pastors in another country recently remarked that he routinely "uses" such "moves of God" (and he truly believes they are that) in order to fuel and motivate and even numerically grow his church. We ought to be concerned about such language. Is the Holy Spirit sovereign, or are we simply "employing" Him, with the real focus being some sort of "success"?

I love to feel the Spirit--the presence of God--as much as anyone. But feelings of God are not themselves God. If God is not central, something or someone else is. Selfish motives are not Christ-centered motives. They sometimes reveal actual idolatry. If we love the feeling of what we believe to be the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit, let us obey the clear Word (the Bible) all Christians are certain He has given us!

Jesus commanded us to "love the Lord your God with all your . . . mind." When the accent is on receiving nything -- including my teaching -- without biblical, critical thinking, watch out!

I also highly advise the reader to purchase a copy of James A. Beverley's excellent book, Holy Laughter and the Toronto Blessing. It is a most gracious and well-documented work on the issue. I have also been encouraged by Christian Research Institute's (CRI) various E-mail postings (CRI-Toronto Support Group Research Team). These two sources have been the least knee-jerk and yet have been objectively critical of some of the excesses of the Blessing.

I have, and will continue to have, a fair number of friends who serve in Vineyard pastorates as well as in the Assemblies of God (AOG) who enjoy Howard-Browne's approach (not all AOG churches have "received" him). I am convinced that many have been truly converted, healed, and biblically blessed in these fellowships.