The Blog of Hobbes

[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.

The Spirit of God works by inspiration upon and within the humanity that has been bestowed upon us. Such inspiration embraces the conscious and unconscious realms of the human person and produces effects. In the unconscious or psychic realm these effects may take unusual and dramatic forms as energies are unlocked. Because these are essentially human experiences, they are always potentially to be induced or evoked by other forms of inspiration, supremely by other human beings or groups. There is no particular need to resort to the category of the demonic at this point (although I would not want absolutely to exclude it) and it is usually unhelpful and high-blown to do so, just as it is to assess all unusual phenomena as being necessarily inspired by God. There is something much more human going on. However, humanly to induce such phenomena, intentionally or otherwise, is spiritually unhelpful, since it pushes people into their own subjectivity rather than into God and ultimately leads to spiritual emptiness.

[Nigel Wright, 'Does Revival Quicken or Deaden the Church?' in Walker and Aune (eds.), On Revival: A Critical Examination (Paternoster 2003), p130]

I think we should go further than Wright. Surely it is dangerous and harmful to humanly induce human phenmona while giving the impression that it is the Spirit who is causing such manifestations?