[Jonathan] Edwards’ analysis of the correlation between physical responses and lasting inner change also remains pertinent. Some showed strong reactions and enjoyed lasting change; some, strong reactions and no significant change; some, no reactions, and no change; and some, no reactions and lasting change. Edwards’ observations invite two conclusions. Firstly, the revival phenomena are neutral in themselves, neither proving nor disproving an authentic work of God. Secondly, the phenomena neither guarantee nor preclude significant inner change. In short, while revival phenomena were initially endorsed by Edwards with some enthusiasm, his later conclusions suggest that the church is wise to move beyond ecstatic spirituality as soon as pastorally appropriate. Such eruptions may be spontaneous and authentic, but placed centre stage they tend to generate inauthentic conformity, exhaustion, disillusion and unreality.
Even when genuine, such phenomena matter little and are of no lasting consequence. Ecstatic spirituality is a so-what spirituality, deserving neither the hysterical denunciations of Chauncy nor the hype of its indiscriminate devotees. Edwards scrupulously sought to distance himself from both polarities.
[Rob Warner, 'Ecstatic Spirituality and Entrepreneurial Revivalism: Reflections on the "Toronto Blessing"' in Walker and Aune (eds.), On Revival: A Critical Examination (Paternoster 2003), p226]
Well, I think there are some “manifestations” that clearly disprove an authentic work of God. For example, gratuitous physical violence.
One Response
I think that a true test of a phenomena is the existance of fruit of the Spirit