John Wimber changes his mind: Phillip Jensen

© Matthias Media 1990
This article was first published in The Briefing, no. 45/46, 24 April 1990, pp. 3-6. It is reproduced here with permission. For more information about The Briefing, visit www.thebriefing.com.au.

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:

a. the facts—whether genuine miraculous intervention by God is actually taking place
b. the theological significance of whatever miracles take place
c. how we handle the issue pastorally.
a. 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.)

b. 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.)

c. 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.

3. Power evangelism

One of the most contentious parts of John Wimber's speaking and writing has been his distinction between evangelism and power evangelism, with the resulting distinction between Christian conversion (inferior and superior).

When this matter was raised, John Wimber expressed dissatisfaction with his teaching both in Canberra (where he spoke of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ evangelism) and in his book. He explained that his book was not written by him, but came from tapes and notes of his seminars. He had not read the manuscript in detail or critically before its publication.

When asked to publicly repudiate this false distinction (between natural and supernatural evangelism), to withdraw his erroneous book and to desist from talking of power evangelism, he equivocated. The book is wrong and “needs re-writing” and he was “wrong” in his address at Canberra, but somehow this is not to be taken as a serious problem.

He agreed that the book on power evangelism was imbalanced, lacking as it does any real exposition of the gospel or evangelism. However, this was due to the manner of its composition and plain oversight.

4. Sufficiency of Scriptures

This topic was more difficult to discuss because of the need for precise terminology to avoid misunderstandings.

John Wimber was keen to stand in the Evangelical tradition, upholding the inspiration and authority of the infallible and inerrant Scripture which is sufficient for all matters of the Christian life. However, this was because he had not understood the implications of his ‘words of knowledge’, which go well beyond Scripture and play an essential part in his Christian living. John's adviser, Jack Deere, assured him and us that he did not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture.

Thus, the ministry of gifts is used to add significantly to the Scripture as the authoritative voice of God for Christian living.

5. Truth

No-one claiming to be a Christian can be unconcerned about truth. All of us must vote for it, along with motherhood, prayer, the Lord's supper and apple pie.

John Wimber's teaching on ‘The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit’ proposes that the Pentecostal movement at the turn of the century and the Charismatic movement of the 1960s were truly movements of the Holy Spirit. However, John Wimber thinks that some of the central teachings of these two movements (concerning baptism in the Spirit and the place of tongues) were wrong. So the movements which taught error were inspired by the Spirit of truth!

This kind of confusion of truth and error is reflected in his books when opponents of evangelical faith are portrayed as having conversions or being great saints and advocates of signs and wonders. This is particularly so with his ready acceptance of Roman Catholics.

When the matter was raised with John, he refused to countenance criticism of charismatics. He accepted that healing in the name of Mary was wrong. He pleaded ignorance of some of his Roman Catholic examples in his books. He didn't know much about them; in fact he did not even know who they were or that he had cited them.

6. Unity

The discussion of truth led naturally to the issue of unity. John Wimber sees the ‘third wave’ as a unifying force for Christians. Those outside it see it as divisive. Each can blame the other for the divisions.

It was suggested that the ‘third wave’ was not so much uniting Christians as re-aligning them on the basis of common experience instead of truth. This was denied by John; he wanted to say that truth was important.

When challenged about our unity in the cross, he again denied that he had been distracted from the cross, or that he allowed the signs and wonders ministry to be less than cross-centred. The Vineyard songbook was cited, where 52 out of 53 songs fail to mention the cross! John agreed that this was awful. He has tried to correct this, but his writers have very little or no theological training. (Those present at the evangelistic rally held on the Thursday night of the conference may have noticed the striking absence of the cross or repentance in the preaching.)

Discussion ranged widely and freely over these topics for almost three hours. The meeting concluded with an invitation to cancel the Spiritual Warfare Conference and to go home to America.



Summarizing such a meeting is very difficult. On all appearances, John was trying to answer the questions of his critics honestly and openly to satisfy us and to gain our fellowship, goodwill and acceptance. The concluding invitation to cancel the conference was an obvious disappointment to him. He did not seem to expect our continued dissatisfaction with his answers.

However, his lack of theological understanding and education makes him a most dangerous friend. He is like the ‘loaded dog’ of Henry Lawson's story. It is his friends who are most likely to be damaged by his errors.

None of us has to be right 100% of the time in order to teach. But the teacher is judged with greater strictness for the damage that he can do. We teachers must be clear on the basics, ready to admit error, quick to correct and withdraw misleading ideas, and willing to take responsibility for our faults. We must work hard to be accurate and to be accurately understood.

From the outset of our discussions, John said that God had told him not to read anything critical of his ministry because it would discourage and embitter him. He has followed this advice, and relies on his friends and co-workers to screen all critical material.

John Wimber has changed his mind on cardinal points of his teachings, yet he will not come clean publicly and denounce his former ideas. Rather, he continues to express himself in a confusing mixture of old errors, and new and contradictory insights. The truth that he does teach only further confuses Christian people into following his thoughtless theology.

In encouraging people to get in touch with the ‘supernatural’, he misrepresents the effects. In seeking unity, he welcomes and promotes the enemies of the gospel. In emphasizing extra-biblical phenomena, he undermines the centrality of the cross, the power of the word of God, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the unity of our common commitment to the truth of the gospel.

He maybe compassionate, loving, genuine and sincere, but so was the loaded dog!

Phillip Jensen | Briefing #45 | April 1990 talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Healing: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 89-97). It is reproduced here with permission.

There has been a good deal of publicity given recently to healings reported among Christian people. These have often been linked with the worldwide ‘charismatic’ movement. It is said that just as Jesus and his disciples worked miracles, and miracles were reported in the first centuries of the church’s life, so the same power for miraculous healing is available today. It is sometimes alleged that the church’s inexperience of the miraculous has prejudiced the proper understanding of the Bible, but now Christians are realizing the enormous potential of their faith, and reading the Bible aright.

Influential theologians have maintained, indeed, that miracles ceased after the New Testament period. Augustine was one (fourth century). John Calvin (sixteenth century) was another. Calvin’s argument was that the purpose of Biblical miracles was to attest the validity of the message; they are linked, therefore, with the revealing word of God. Since that word has now been spoken, miracles are no longer necessary.

It was certainly not through lack of experience that Calvin took this line. On the contrary, he knew of all too many miracles—the spurious wonders used to bolster up the unbiblical and sometimes superstitious theology of the opponents of Protestantism. The real problem was not lack of the miraculous but the abundance of it. This remains the problem.

The Roman Catholic Church has always endorsed the possibility of contemporary miraculous healing. The histories of the saints were filled with such tales. Over five hundred miracles were associated with Becket and his shrine, for example. Images, relics, shrines, holy water, all had reputations as healing agents. Nor did all Protestants reject the notion.

To take one example, George Fox, the Quaker leader, was credited with a hundred and fifty cures. But it was not only the Quakers who made these claims—other sects did too. Even more interestingly the King of England was said to be able to heal the disease of scrofula (called the ‘King’s Evil’) by touch. Hence, for example, Charles II touched 90,000 sufferers over the years, and did so in the context of a piece of ritual conducted by his Anglican chaplain. Many claimed to have been cured.

Claims for miracles, especially healing miracles, were common in the nineteenth century—we have only to think of Lourdes and Mary Baker Eddy. They continue to this day. There is thus nothing especially new about this phenomenon.

One thing is clear, that there does not need to be any Christian content to the situation. Some healers are orthodox Christians, some are heterodox, others are spiritualist, others have no religious faith, others have led immoral lives. Claims have been made and believed on behalf of all such groups, and the claims are of equal impressiveness.

It is true that Christians must rejoice when God heals the bodies and minds of men, and especially when he gives them a new heart in regeneration. However, they realize that wholeness is God’s ultimate, not his immediate, purpose. Without a doubt God’s aim is to create a new heaven and a new earth, to dwell himself among men, to wipe away every tear from their eyes and to put an end to death and mourning and pain (Rev. 21:1-4). In that time God’s people will have ‘spiritual bodies’, that is, bodies ruled by the Holy Spirit.

Since the resurrection of Jesus the last days have set in; the world to come and the old age are overlapping. Christians, for example, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but we still groan inwardly as we wait for God to make us his sons and set our whole body free. We have been saved, though only in hope (Rom. 8:18, 23, 24). We have much, but we are not yet perfect for we still sin (1 John 1:8), and we still groan. Christians still wear glasses and undergo the ageing process at the same rate as others. Wholeness is God’s ultimate purpose; it is not with us yet.

This may be seen by the fact that not every disease is cured. Not one of the early Christians escaped old age, sickness and death. Paul observed the process of decay at work in his own body, but did not check its progress by a healing miracle. On the contrary, he fixed his gaze on the eternal and declared that death would be preferable to life since he would then be with the Lord (2 Cor. 4:16-5:10).

It is worth noting some words of Dr. D. Treloar at this point, speaking of degenerative diseases:

These diseases start at birth, at which time we start both to live and to commence dying. During childhood and adolescence they are masked by the physical and functional development of the individual. ‘Middle age’ is the euphemism applied to the time at which they commence to become apparent and ‘old age’ to the time when they are unmistakably so. NO ONE HAS EVER DIED OF ‘OLD AGE’, nor, for that matter, of ‘NATURAL CAUSES’. People do die, IN old age OF degenerative diseases. Normally they are those of the heart, circulation, brain and kidneys. The treatment of these diseases is difficult, unspectacular and usually palliative. Because of their slow progression, their common incidence and the common acceptance of ‘wearing out’ as a general principle, the very nature of these diseases is usually overlooked.1

The Holy Spirit is certainly at work within us, but as a guarantee of our future life with God, not of present healing (2 Cor. 5:5).

We can understand, then, why it was that a man like Paul, who did work miracles by the power of God, did not always do so when confronted with disease. He reminds the Galatians that it was a bodily illness that originally led to him bringing them the gospel, ‘and you resisted any temptation to show scorn or disgust at the state of my poor body’ (4:14 NEB). When Timothy is afflicted by frequent ailments he suggests a medical remedy, ‘use a little wine …’ (1 Tim. 5:23).

It may be that Paul suffered from chronic illness. The word translated ‘weakness; in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 is the same as that rendered ‘sickness’ in James 5:14. At any rate, Paul’s fervent prayer in respect to this disability, that it may be removed from him, was not granted. Whether or not we understand Paul to be unique at this point, it is the testimony of people who exercise a ministry in the area of healing that there are occasions when, despite the offering of faithful and persistent prayer, no cure is granted.

We also hear of Epaphroditus who was dangerously ill (Phil 2:26, 27) and Trophimus, who was so sick that Paul left him behind (2 Tim. 4:20); there does not appear to be any question of a miraculous healing.

Thus we must be very careful of statements which assure us that God’s will is perfect soundness of body (or ‘wholeness’) for every Christian. Such sentiments are only helpful if they apply to that day when Jesus returns, for that is when they will be true for all. However, this is not to deny that there is healing, nor that God can if he so pleases work quite independently of natural means to cure anyone.

In fact, Christians have always believed that God can heal people, and prayed for the sick privately and in church. Doubtless many have been cured as a result of these prayers. Certainly, too, Christians have not been bold enough in seeking God’s favour at a time of sickness, and have shown lack of faith.

But the fact of healing does not necessarily indicate a miraculous intervention by God for two main reasons.

First, the devil can do signs and wonders. This is the teaching of the Bible at several points. For example, the false prophet of Deuteronomy 13:1-5 is capable of miracles, and Jesus himself warns us, ‘False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect’ (Mark 13:22). Paul says, ‘The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved’ (2 Thess. 2:9, 10). Thus a person’s ministry can never be recommended to us on the grounds that ‘it works’. So does the devil’s! We must always ask, ‘Is it true?’, and the only measuring stick is the word of God.

This is a vital point. It is natural to conclude that a healer’s ministry is authenticated by the miraculous. Yet miraculous cures are produced in the ministries of spiritualists and agnostics as well as Christians of all descriptions and they can quite possibly be the devil’s work to lead men astray. It may even be said that the presence of the miraculous is a warning sign for us to listen all the more carefully to the accompanying message, testing what we hear against the Bible.

Second, due notice must be taken of the ease with which mistakes are made. In 1956 the British Medical Association gave a list of six factors which help to account for magical ‘cures’: (a) mistaken diagnosis; (b) mistaken prognosis; (c) alleviation of the illness; (d) remission; (e) spontaneous cure; (f) simultaneous use of other remedies.2 We need to remember particularly the evidence, as yet not fully fathomed, that our minds have a big influence on our bodies. Certain types of disease are very susceptible to treatment of the mind—or the increase of ‘faith’.

Naturally, we rejoice when any good thing befalls us, explicable or not. But when it comes to knowing what God says, we should read the Bible. Failure to observe this can lead to situations of personal torment as does failure to observe the Bible’s teaching on the conditional nature of prayer.

There are magnificent promises in the in the scripture to do with prayer. Take James 5:15, where we read, ‘… the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up’; and again, ‘… whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you will receive it, and you will’ (Mark 11:24). These are encouragements to faith in God, for this is a necessity in prayer.

But of course we must realize that God does not give us the things which are contrary to his will. If I prayed that the ocean would dry up, then it is hardly likely that God would grant my prayer, even though I evacuated my mind of any doubt that he would act. Jesus exemplified this principle in Gethsemane: ‘Remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt’ (Mark 14:36). Many of our prayers, unlike his, are malicious or foolish or ignorant, and the loving God does not heed them. Note the clear teaching of 1 John 5:14, 15: ‘And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.’

It is interesting also to hear Paul’s comment on prayer in Romans 8:26, 27: ‘Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words. And he who searches the hearts of men knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.’

Thus we cannot force God’s hand by the intensity of our prayer for a particular object; we may indeed well doubt that it is God’s will for us to be healed, for example, for in our ignorance we do not know his plans for us. He may want to make us perfectly whole by allowing us to succumb to disease and take us to heaven. What we ought not to doubt is God’s fatherly care and protection for us whatever the outcome. Here is rest indeed and about this Jesus says, ‘Doubt not.’

In fact, to criticize those who remain unhealed as men of small faith is to make nonsense of the commitment of those numerous Christians who have suffered for long years but have been shining lights to those around them. These are heroes and heroines of faith—who dares accuse them of faithlessness?

Concerning the promise of healing in James 5:14-16 there are several observations to make.

First, there is no one who takes it on face value, because this would mean that Christians would never need die, and also because of considerations like Paul’s thorn.

Second, this provision is not to be classed with the Lord’s miracles or the apostles’. Those had the quality of immediacy and directness, whereas the arrangements suggested here are more akin to that which was open to any devout Jew with the Old Testament in hand (e.g., Psalm 41).

Third, the language is ambiguous, since both the word ‘healed’ and the word ‘raise’ can refer to an earthly experience or a post-death experience. It may be that James has in mind here the ultimate salvation (or healing—the word is the same) assuredly available to the Christian, whatever the outcome of his present disease. That is to say, we may read the passage like this:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save [heal] the sick man [i.e., either save him from the disease, or eternally], and the Lord will raise him up [i.e., either from his bed or on the last Day]; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven [in either case]. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed [or saved eternally].

This is not to suggest that James had one or other of these readings in mind—rather that he had both. This accounts for his perfect confidence in the future of the sick person.

Fourth, the ‘prayer of faith’ spoken of reminds us of the conditional nature of prayer—God’s will for individuals has yet to be seen. It would be unbearably cruel to torment a patient with the exhortation to have more or better faith if all the time it was the Lord’s will to perfect him in heaven. There is no justification whatever for combining the words ‘prayer of faith’ exclusively with the passage that speaks of belief in prayer in Mark 11:24. Further, the unwillingness to submit to illness under God can have deleterious effects on the person’s family and character. This impatience to be ‘whole’ does not constitute real faith.

Fifth, perfection of our bodily and spiritual prowess is not promised or envisaged by God before the return of Jesus. Our present position in the fallen world needs to be taken into account.

There is, therefore, a way of thinking about healing which is dangerous for the children of God.

First, it assures men that God’s will is for their cure, or their ‘wholeness’, but it misses the Biblical emphasis that suffering is the lot of the Christian, and that our hope lies in the coming of Jesus. Sickness and sin and all kinds of imperfection characterize this present age and individuals have no promise that they will escape this. Sometimes God does cure; sometimes he does not.

Second, it teaches that faith in prayer is not so much fixed on God but on the thing which is prayed for. Thus, if you believe sufficiently strongly in a particular request, then it will be granted, even if God does not approve. This pernicious thinking leads people into great torment; when God does not answer a prayer in the positive, the fault must be their own, for not believing hard enough! This time, let us summon up enough ‘faith’ for it to work… The result can be mental torture and self-scrutiny, not faith in God.

Third, it commends itself to people on the grounds that ‘it works’, while forgetting that false prophets and teachers will do the same. In so doing attention is distracted from the central question: ‘Is it true?’ The great danger then is that men and women will wander off into the delusive fog of mystical experience, ignoring the light of the Bible, perhaps finding health for the body, but losing the very things which made for health of the soul.

---

1. Reproduced by permission from a paper presented to the Diocese of Sydney Commission of Enquiry into the Charismatic Movement by D. Treloar.
2. Diving Healing and Co-operation between Doctors and Clergy (B.M.A., 1956), p. 10. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.