There is a lot of misinformation in the Christian Post article "Fraudulent revival history? Why charismatics need to study John Collins’ work"
There is a lot of misinformation in the Christian Post article "Fraudulent revival history? Why charismatics need to study John Collins’ work"
1. It cites scandals and rightly calls out those who admitted to inappropriate behavior, but several of the targets denied any wrongdoing and none was ever proven. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"
2. It cites John Collins of The Gospel Coalition as some sort of source for the anti-Charismatic meanderings. TGC has never met a Pentecostal or Charismatic minister they liked and frequently spreads gossip and bears false witness against them.
3. I attended BSSM for all 3 years and attended Bethel Redding as a church member for 5 years. We never were told to pick up William Braham's "mantle." Maybe the writer had a teacher who did, but Braham, along with Jack Coe, were taught as cautionary tales to Pentecostal ministries. Sure, their early work was praised, but it was brought back to how they veered off the straight and narrow.
4. The article also says we should not ignore Calvinist's "concern" about the Pentecostal movement. Err... what? Calvinists teach false doctrine. While I agree that accountability is never a bad thing, why should we look to those who frequent engage in bearing false witness against Pentecostals and Charismatics for that accountability? We should find accountability, but not from those sources.
5. Back to William Braham, the article seems to be obsessed over his influence. I have been a lifelong Pentecostal. He has never been a huge influence on the Revival movement. It is such an odd accusation.
6. Here we go, the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, is the big boogie man of the Calvinists and others who are hypercritical of Pentecostals or Charismatics. Critics who attack NAR, which is a very small faction of the Pentecostal movement. Critics' favorite thing to do is attack the NAR label and try to slap it on any Christian who believes that God still does miracles. Many Pentecostal ministers have denied they are a part of the movement, but don't tell that to a critic. They will slap it on so fast without doing a sliver of research. Most don't even know what NAR is or even why they should denounce it. I, myself, am not a NAR, but watch me be accused because I noted how poorly researched this article is.
7. The article seems to think that Pentecostals and Charismatics have to perfect or it is immediately false. Sometimes God uses imperfect people, such as the Apostle Paul, to do great things. Of course, no such perfection is expected from the concerned Calvinists.
8. To clear something up, as I stated earlier, I am not opposed to more accountability nor do I think all of the examples of "fraudulent revival" are off. It is the broad stroke of the article, demanding more accountability for Pentecostals and Charismatics, but not for those who are "concerned" about it.
9. The article calls hesitation about accusations "clannish" and praises Calvinists who attacked Pentecostals and Charismatics for accusing them PRIOR to the events. Again, what happened to "innocent before proving guilty."
10. The odd hatred for Pentecostals and Charismatics does nothing to help the church in America. If Calvinists, Reformers, or just other non-Revivalist denominations built bridges with these movements, instead of bearing false witness, we could have a true revival in the nation.
Just because John Collins makes these accusations, does not make them so, nor does it mean we should read them, except to debunk it.
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/fraudulent-revival-why-we-need-to-study-john-collins-work.html
