More Pensacola/Edwards Fabrications
I’m going to be releasing an article on the Pensacola “Outpouring” (so-called) in an upcoming addition of the Christian Research Institute Journal. I just finished that article. And in that article I address one of the fabrications that is now coming out of Pensacola with regards to my book “Counterfeit Revival”. Now there are many fabrications that have come out and I’ve identified those fabrications.
Fabrications such as “the senate is now ablaze with the power of the gospel. The congressmen have been here, they’re weeping under the power of God.” I deal with that and separate fact from fiction.
Or this statement coming out of Pensacola “crime in the city of Pensacola has dropped of significantly. The driving force behind the declining crime wave is the revival.” I document statistically that that is a fabrication and it is easy to show as a fabrication. In fact, crime has actually gone up in the city of Pensacola including forcible sex, assault, drug possession, etc.
Other fabrications such as the idea that there is no formal or informal relationship between Toronto and Pensacola and the spirit and thrust of the meetings are very different.
But, perhaps the most significant fabrication that I’m concerned with at this point, is the fabrication made by a gentleman named Michael Brown who says that “Hanegraaff misused Edwards material to suit his own purposes.” He’s saying that “in “Counterfeit Revival” I (Hank Hanegraaff) do not fairly represent Jonathan Edwards.” And he points out that he himself “has consulted scholars working under Yale University’s “The Works Of Jonathan Edwards” a project that they have “who have lent their academic credibility to his critique of my book “Counterfeit Revival”.”
Now that’s his fabrication. The facts are that (a) man who leads (another) project, his name is Dr. Bowman, he is the coordinator for the STEP Publications “The Edwards Project” which is releasing the complete works of Jonathan Edwards on CD-ROM, was concerned enough about this fabrication coming out of Pensacola and Michael Brown’s lack of scholarship and (his) fabrication to release the following statement:
“Having just finished Hanegraaff’s “Counterfeit Revival” I do not see any inaccuracy in his review of Edward’s “Distinguishing Marks” treatise. Overall, I felt that Hanegraaff’s analysis was right on. Edwards did not condone excesses but felt that they could be present in true revival. Edwards realized that the remorse that the repentant individual feels when they realize what they have been saved from can occasionally lead to emotional outbursts. The bizarre and drunken behavior in the counterfeit revival movement has nothing to do with repentance. What concerns me most about this issue is that mainstream Christianity does not seem to seriously and forceful condemn this movement.”
So again, far from this project leader saying that I have not dealt with Edwards fairly, it is the people in Brownsville who are not dealing with Edwards accurately. And as I have said consistently, not only in my book but in the radio broadcast and in public speaking engagements, anyone who tries to contend that Jonathan Edwards would support what’s going on in the counterfeit revival, particularly in Pensacola, must surely have kissed a final farewell to their minds. How in the world could they use him as an apologist for what’s going on when he was a secessionist. Now they don’t tell you that. They presume that their listeners are Biblically illiterate and historically illiterate and they’ll never know that difference anyway. The truth is that Michael Brown, under the guise of academic credibility, not only grossly misrepresents Jonathan Edwards, but in the process he appeals to unnamed scholars. In other words, he’s trying to bolster his credibility. He says, “I talked to Yale scholars, they stand with me on this issue.” Michael Bowman again says:
“Since I am not aware that any of these scholars at Yale are true believers, and thus do not truly believe in true revival, I’m not sure that they would be the one that I would go to in the first place.”
Now, obviously much more could be said, but unmasking all of the fabrications of spin-doctors like Michael Brown would be an endless project. They continue to seduce unsuspecting subjects through fabrications, fantasies, and frauds ... anybody just needs to read the material to get an idea. And even it you were predisposed to agree with his position, which is indefensible, and there have been whole articles demonstrating that, but even if you were predisposed to follow that position I think that even an ardent supporter of Pensacola would be put off by his sarcasm, by his arrogance, by his speaking down as though he has all the facts, and other people are benighted and arrogant, and ignorant. His attitude does not speak of one who has been touched by revival. If you look at 1 Cor. 13, love is patient, love is kind, love doesn’t envy, love does not boast, love it not proud, love is not rude or self-seeking.
I think that this dialog, while carried on with passion, ought not be carried on by speaking to others in a condescending sense, and continuously pointing to an individual and saying “I am the greatest scholar in the annals of recorded history. Why, I walk around, I don’t read English, I just read Hebrew.” I think we ought to be modest about our particular credentials, recognizing that all of us, from great to small, ought to realize that we are insignificant in the whole scheme of things and God has given us minds to be able to analyze the Word of God. That is not the province of just theologians and scholars. Today we have the priesthood of all believers. We had men who had written great portions of the Bible who had no academic credentials whatsoever — great men in church history without academic credentials, who were able to rightly divide the Word of Truth. So, we ought not to be proud and puffed up, we ought to be modest and we ought to simply deal with the issues, not in a condescending way, but in a way that brings glory to God and would not preclude communication, but would enhance communication.
Hank Hanegraaff
“Bible Answer Man” Radio Program
Transcript of a portion of 8/7/97 show
