Thirty years ago, something significant happened in the life of the church around the World. Reports started coming through of something spectacular happening at the Airport Vineyard Church in Toronto, a possible move of the Holy Spirit accompanied by both spectacular and weird phenomenon. At the one end of the spectrum people were reported to be collapsing backwards when prayed, something that was already happening in some charismatic circles and also evidence of great emotional outpouring in tears. At the other end, there were reports of outbursts of uncontrolled hysterical laughter, of people barking like dogs and even of experiencing full on labour contractions.
Nightly meetings started to happen at the church and people travelled from near and far in hope of catching the fire. There was a belief that it could be passed on through laying on of hands and taken back, indeed many other churches began to experience the same things though in the main, not at the same level of intensity.
Whatever was going on polarised The Church. At one extreme were those who insisted that this was a great move of God, a prophesied fourth wave of the 20th Century following on from the Pentecostal movement, charismatic renewal and the John Wimber influenced “Third Wave”. We were told that to question this was to risk blaspheming the Holy Spirit. At the other end of the spectrum were those who not only insisted that the whole thing was down to human manipulation and mass hysteria but rather to out and out demonic activity.
As a student at the time in a city where a number of churches experienced the Toronto Blessing, I got a ring side view of what was happening. Now, thirty years on I think we might be ina position to look back and reflect. I also think this is important to do because there are those who look back nostalgically and wish that those days could be recovered whilst there are others who are alarmed at such notions. It is also right to look back now because one of the big arguments at the time was that you should assess things on their fruit. I believe that fruit is best assessed with the benefit of time.
It’s also worth reminding ourselves of how we attempted to address issues and questions at the time. I think that one of the crucial points made was with reference to the arguments made by Jonathan Edwards in defence of the Great Awakening. Edwards argued that we should not judge a move of God by outward manifestations. This I helpful but it is important that we recognise both sides of the equation. Edwards point was that physical manifestations neither prove that something is of God, nor that it isn’t.
This helps us to appreciate a couple of things. First, that we are all built different in terms of our physical and emotional frame. This means that we will all respond differently to something happening including a form of spiritual experience. Some people will find that their emotions are so overwhelmed that it works out in a physical response. Some of us will continue to feel physically and emotionally in control. Our current situation might also affect our response, some of us will respond to events in tears, some of us in laughter depending on what those events mean to us and the other emotions they stir up.
The other issue raised at the time concerned the roots of the movement. Some of those who were leading lights in 1994 had a questionable history when it came to their theology. For example, there was an unhelpful, Biblically illiterate attempt to distinguish “Rhema” words from “Logos” words. However, there were plenty of others involved without those issues. It is perhaps fair to say that the roots were mixed. Indeed, that is not unusual in historical movements. There were both people with solidly reformed credentials and those with Arminian roots in the Great Awakening. If Welsey had problems with predestination, whilst Whitfield’s approach to the slave trade betrayed an ethical weakness in his theology. It’s particularly important to note this because at the time, the Great Awakening was often used as a reference point both by supporters and sceptics of the Toronto Blessing alike. I think both sides assumed a tidiness to the history of the Wesley’s Whitfield and Edwards and that famous revival when the historical record suggests a greater degree of messiness and complexity.
When it comes to the fruit, I remember the testimonies of many people at the time that their experience of the Blessing led to a genuinely deeper affection for the Lord and for his Word. I believe that to be true. There was some not so good fruit as well with churches and even denominations experiencing division but is tat any more or less true with other historical movements?
The important question now is whether or not we have seen longer term fruit. Did those experiences lead to lasting change in individuals? Note, I don’t think that this means that something is any more or less God at work if not but there are reasonable questions about what we did with what happened. The Great Awakening led to lasting change in individuals, churches and communities. Other revivals such as the last Welsh Revival seem to have had little long term impact. I’m not sure that Toronto had a significant impact and my own assessment would be that it more closely mimics that Welsh experience. That may be a warning to those who like many Welsh Christians look back nostalgically and long for a repeat. Meanwhile, we might argue that other events and movements of the late 20th Century may have had a greater impact than we might think. I believe that the longer term impact of the Billy Graham campaigns has been underestimated.
My view in the aftermath of Toronto was that there were genuine things that showed God at work. However, I argued back then that there was, what we might call a “MacDonaldisation” of Revival. We saw the phenomenon packaged up for transfer and replication. I continue to hold that assessment. Toronto offered us the good, the bad and the ugly. That is perhaps the reality throughout all church history.
Faithroots 