John Wimber changes his mind Karen Beilharz

As our beloved convenor Paul Grimmond has now left us, I shall be taking over the Saturday posts, where, in keeping with our usual practice, we present some Briefing ‘blasts from the past’. Because one of my other hats is Briefing staff editor and because we are currently working on our April issue, which is on the Holy Spirit, I thought it fitting that we look over what else The Briefing has had to say about the topic.

Our lead feature article in the April 2010 issue is a very lengthy but important essay by John Woodhouse, Principal of Moore College, on Cessationism and Continuationism. Broadly speaking, Cessationism is the view that the miraculous parts of the New Testament ceased with the New Testament era, while Continuationism is the view that those miraculous parts continued beyond the New Testament era.

John Wimber and Jack Deere are just two examples of those who subscribe to a continuationist viewpoint. So from Briefing #45, I present to you part of the discussion that took place between John Woodhouse, David Cook and Phillip Jensen, and John Wimber and his colleagues back in 1990—a discussion that illustrates John Wimber's position on healing and miracles:

Just prior to the Spiritual Warfare Conference in March, John Wimber met with three of Sydney's leading evangelicals. The discussions, which lasted just under three hours, were requested by some Sydney people who had reservations about the Signs and Wonders ministry. Present at the meeting with John Wimber were Jack Deere and Paul Cain from the Vineyard Ministries, Dan Armstrong from Kairos, and John Woodhouse, David Cook and Phillip Jensen from Sydney. Although the meeting was conducted privately at John Wimber's hotel it was agreed from the outset that what was said privately would be published openly later. Careful notes were made of the discussion.

We began the meeting by asking John Wimber if his public preaching and private views were the same. We explained that it was rumoured that there were differences.

Hurt by this accusation, John very generously and openly declared his views with the kind of humility, compassion and laid-back friendliness for which he is well known. Six areas of discussion ensued:

  • the use of money
  • the healing miracles
  • power evangelism
  • the sufficiency of the Scriptures
  • the concern for truth
  • the divisiveness of the Signs and Wonders ministry.

1. The use of money

We were assured by John that profits from the Australian conferences would not go to him personally, nor to his American organization, but were invested in the continued growth of the Vineyard International Ministry. We were promised that a full account of the books would be sent to us by Kairos Ministries, the local group responsible for financial arrangements.

2. The healing ministry

John seems persuaded that great miracles of healing are taking place by God's work in the world today. He rejects the idea that he is a healer; it is God who heals. He quickly and freely gives countless anecdotes of healing, and promises that documentation of the Vineyard's Ministry of healing will be forthcoming.

He admitted that not all diseases are equally responsive to healing. Blindness, for example, has a success rate of 3-8%, depending upon the cause of the blindness—blindness from disease having more healings than blindness from accidents or birth.

Three issues need to be dealt within assessing these claimed healings:

  1. the facts—whether genuine miraculous intervention by God is actually taking place
  2. the theological significance of whatever miracles take place
  3. how we handle the issue pastorally.
  1. The first issue was tackled by raising the possible healing of children with Down syndrome. This genetic disease cannot be caused or healed by psychosomatic ‘mind-over-body’ factors. It is an ideal test case disease, being relatively easy to diagnose genetically both before and after the ‘healing’.

    John Wimber claimed to have prayed over more than 200 children with Down syndrome. To his genuine disappointment, only one of the 200 have shown any sign of healing. This one child still has many of the symptoms of his problem (i.e. visual features), but has been able to reach “the lower end of the normal range” in educational attainments. John was careful to emphasize that it was the lower end, but within the normal range.

    The healing rate, then, for Down syndrome is 0.5%, and the healing that did take place was only partial (unlike Jesus' healings). Why this disease is so resistant, John has no idea. On further consultation with doctors working in this area, we have been assured that for a Down syndrome child to be in the lower end of the normal range of academic achievement is not unusual or remarkable, let alone miraculous. From a medical viewpoint, John Wimber's 0.5% success rate with Down syndrome is less than is achieved through the efforts of health professionals.

    The implication this has for other ‘healings’ of backaches and headaches seemed to escape John Wimber completely. We know that many illnesses are psychological or psychosomatic. We know of the placebo effect where a patient takes what he believes is a cure for his problem (but which is actually a sugar pill), and improves. The evidence so far suggests that John Wimber heals in the ‘sugar pill area’. The area where the New Testament speaks of healing and where he talks of healing seem to be wholly resistant to his ministry. That is, to put it bluntly, it is to be seriously doubted that any miraculous healings are taking place at all. (The failure so far to provide Christian doctors with cases to verify from the Sydney conference only contributes to the growing doubt over any genuine miracles. See Philip Selden's account on page 19.)

  2. The second issue is the theological significance of healing. Given the very low percentage of healings, we asked John Wimber if he considered that his healings were like Jesus' or the Apostles'. He quickly and rightly saw that they were quite radically different. We asked about the claims of his books and his previous teaching that the powerlessness of evangelicals lay in their failure to pray for and claim the Signs and Wonders of the Kingdom, seen in Jesus and the Apostles. He replied that thanks to the advice of Jack Deere, he had come to understand that the current miracles fit into the New Testament not at the point of Jesus and the Apostles and the coming of the Kingdom, but in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and the gifts of healing.

    This change of mind seriously compromises the stance of the previous Signs and Wonders conferences, Vineyard Ministries and John Wimber's books. He was asked if he would be explaining this change of mind to the Sydney conference, but he declined. (As it turned out, both views were expressed during the course of the week.)

  3. The third issue of healing is the pastoral consequences of the claims for miracles. John Wimber is very open about not being healed himself. He also said that he does not promise healing for everyone or blame lack of faith as the sole reason for lack of healing.

    However, when asked if he would be open with enquirers and tell them of the small probability of healing, he declined. He wants to encourage people to put their faith in God and call upon him for healing. He wants people to know that God can heal and wants to heal, and therefore to ask expectantly. He paralleled this to salvation/forgiveness. He said that we do not say to people that they only have a chance of being saved. We say that God can save and wants to save, and so we encourage people to put their faith in God and call for forgiveness. Such a confusion of categories is appalling.

Like a politician, John Wimber is not promising unequivocally that each person will be healed. But it would seem that his mixture of generalization and over-confidence results in all but the wary being misled.

Read the rest of the article online.

6 Comments »

Yes, I remember those articles. Very aggressive in their attitude from memory, though they had some interesting points.

Did the Briefing ever respond/link to the Vineyard response to the articles? A few different recollections and points of view emerge.

Karen Beilharz04/03/2010 06:12 AM

Hi Ali!

A simple search doesn’t reveal the answer easily; I’d have to hunt through the archives, which I don’t have time to do at present. Do you happen to have the link?

(P.S. Please use your full name for all future comments as per our comment policy. Many thanks!)

On page 2 of The Briefing #49, June 1990, the editors reported both the way the “Wimber” edition sold out, even the extra 1600 printed.

They also mentioned a number of people who wrote to express their disappointment, including quoting extracts from 3 who were critical of aspects of the critique.

Speaking personally, I was a 21 y.o. first year theological student at the time, from a little Anglican church with a charismatic influence in the youth group. I still love my time there and stay in touch with the people whenever I can.

We young adults had been introduced to Mr Wimber’s books, Power Healing and Power Evangelism, which I naively just swallowed without discernment.

The Briefing’s critique led me to attend one of Wimber’s public meetings at the Sydney Showground. Now trying to be more discerning, but still trying to be positive, I was sorry to say that although Wimber spoke warmly of Jesus and the kingdom, the message of the cross and the way of suffering (both for Christ and his followers) was completely sidelined. Not denied, but sidelined, and this on an occasion when people were invited to repent and trust in Christ.

The emphasis on so needing signs and wonders just did not feel like knowing “Christ and him crucified” as the power of God for salvation (1 Corinthians 1-2).

On such a central issue, I am still grateful years later for the men who spoke out in The Briefing in defence of the gospel.

Aggressive I would reject.

Plain-spoken I was agree with.

And in fact, if I recall correctly, it seems they modeled very clearly a personal and private effort at addressing the issues before doing anything public.

Hi Karen, apologies about the name. My bad. (Do people say that anymore?)

After writing the previous comment, I looked up the Vineyard response. Here’s a link to Jack Deere’s response to the Briefing. http://joshuatongol.com/images/stories/Josh/jack deere response.pdf (you can find it at some Vineyard websites as well). At the end Jack Deere notes that he contacted Phillip Jensen before publishing his response and includes Jensen’s reply.

Sandy, I have been involved in a Vineyard Church before, and I myself am critical of many aspects of the Vineyard movement. I am also not keen on Jack Deere’s involvement with certain parties after he left Vineyard. However, I think it is clear to see that much of the criticism found in the Briefing had more to do with acceptable differences in theological understanding than any heretical views reported by the Briefing articles.

For example, the shocking assertion that Jack Deere didn’t even know what the gospel was turns out to be Deere’s explanation that he was in the middle of working through the specifics of the “gospel of the Kingdom” spoken of in the gospels as opposed to the gospel presented elsewhere in the New Testament - a distinction acknowledged (and I would argue better understood) by many people today.

For all of the Vineyard’s faults, one of the things I admire (and causes me to take what comes from certain people involved seriously) is the willingness to accept where they stuff up - and that includes the evangelistic evening you attended as seen in Deere’s response. I think what this exchange shows is the way that churches (and not just the Vineyard) sidelined the gospel <i>often</i> while concentrating on other topics, instead of incorporating the gospel into everything a la Tim Keller (my favourite practioner in that sense).

Ramble ramble. I need to go to work. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Hmm, no more comments. I was hoping there would be some comment about the response from Jack Deere. One thing I found interesting was that at the beginning of the Briefing article linked above is the following sentence:

<i>The discussions, which lasted just under three hours, were requested by some Sydney people who had reservations about the Signs and Wonders ministry.</i>

But in Phillip Jensen’s response to Jack Deere’s article (included at the end of Deere’s response) Jensen asserts:

<i>The meeting at your hotel was arranged
on the instigation of some of your
Australian supporters, not on our initiative</i>.

This is not to criticise Phillip Jensen, but merely to illustrate a clear mistake (or clear lack of clarity) on the part of those who “reported (and reflected) only what we heard and observed”. I’m afraid the writers for that edition of the Briefing don’t come out looking the best from this exchange. But I would be interested in other people’s views…

I appreciate this article alot, as I had just listened to an old Dick Lucas audio series from St. Helens Church in London in which he spoke against John Wimber and his LACK of preaching of Christ Crucified.

I did not know who John Wimber was, and from the article and comments I can now see why Dick Lucas was not very impressed by Wimber.

I should say that as far as bible teachers go, Dick Lucas is my all-time favorite and has been most influential in my growth as a christian.

The problem Lucas asserted was that Wimber claimed to see all through the NT that it spoke of healing people to be the priority of christianity. Thge fact is, however, that all through the NT we in fact find the exact opposite. That we are called to take up the cross of Christ, and suffering is something much more likely to take place in the true believer’s life. Main reason being that are salvation is not completed until we have our resurrection bodies, and that simply has not happened yet.

Saying that we are all supposed to be healed makes many christians fearful that they are doing something wrong or that they “don’t have enough faith” when they don’t get healed or go through persecution or suffering, when in fact the NT says all through it that suffering and persectuion is normal for the believer.

I know I am not putting this in the best possible words, and thats not a surprise since I am no Dick Lucas or Don Carson. I wish I was as good a speaker as either of those two legends, but I am not.

So I just want to say your article has been very helpful for me in making Dick Lucas’s point. Reading what Wimber had to say perfectly completes the excellent teaching given by Dick Lucas.

Commenting rules

If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:

  1. Please use your FULL NAME (your real name, not an alias).
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Be godly.

Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.

If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.

Your Comment

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
You

Sponsors

Placeholder

Recent comments

RSS logo

Stephen Jackson on The Sola Panel is dead; long live the Sola Panel!

Sam Freney on The Sola Panel is dead; long live the Sola Panel!

Marty Foord on The Sola Panel is dead; long live the Sola Panel!

Dianne Howard on The Sola Panel is dead; long live the Sola Panel!

Mike Bull on Daniel 2-7, Harry Potter and Narnia

Current discussions

RSS logo

Recent posts

RSS logo RSS logo

The Sola Panel is dead; long live the Sola Panel! by Tony Payne (4 comments). Regular Sola Panel readers will no doubt have detected a little slowness and quietness over the past six weeks or so. … more

Kids’ culture watch spot: Facing fear by Gordon Cheng (3 comments). By popular demand (two people asked), here is my next script for a culture watch spot I did with the kids … more

Daniel 2-7, Harry Potter and Narnia by Gordon Cheng (1 comment). It's a Sunday as I write this, and I'm speaking on Daniel 2 and 7 later this morning at a friend's … more

A constituent on same-sex marriage by Sandy Grant (34 comments). Last year, the Australian Parliament agreed that its Members of Parliament (MPs) should seek the … more

A tribute to John Stott by Sandy Grant (2 comments). Friends, I'm not ashamed to say I shed a tear when I opened up my computer on Thursday morning to read … more

Talkin’ ’bout my generation (part 3): On giants’ shoulders by Scott Newling (26 comments). This is the third post in this series; you can read part one, and more

Bible reading with kids by Sandy Grant (0 comments). I was asked for recommendations for resources that would encourage parents to read the Bible with their kids, especially … more

Talkin’ ’bout my generation (part 2): Stepping aside (not out) so others can step up (not in) by Scott Newling (3 comments). This is the second post in this series; you can read the first post, Unassuming … more

One more sip of the coffee by Tony Payne (8 comments). Sandy Grant is a man of integrity. Back in the early days of Sola Panel, I wrote a post … more

Talkin’ ’bout my generation (part 1): Unassuming generations by Scott Newling (30 comments). There is a model of ‘intergenerational theological decline’ that has been doing the rounds of late, and perhaps you … more

Tony Payne

Tony Payne

Paul is one of the Staff Editors at Matthias Media. He is married to Cathy and has three fantastic kids. He loves student ministry, reading, writing music and playing the saxophone, and is looking forward to meeting Jesus face to face.

Sola Panellists



Some other sites
we like  (Why these?)

Ministry partners