Signs, Wonders, Warfare, And Witness

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