Blowin’ In the Wind Too
uring my stint in Bible school, The Life of Alexander Dowie was required reading. At one time in history, Dowie was the preeminent Holy Ghost preacher in the United States, but his ministry ended in shatters. Dowie, an Australian, came to the United States preaching divine healing based on Acts 10.38 and other scriptures. The miracles that occurred in his ministry were remarkable and it wasn’t long before he was preaching before crowds of tens of thousands. With such success, he thought it was God’s will that he create a Christian city called “Zion.” The construction of the city and his self-designation as the “Last Apostle” are what contributed to his downfall.
Many of my classmates didn’t like the book because it was “negative” (I believe that a lot of that stemmed from a wrong-headed view of “positive confession”). I thought the book was one of the best tools that the school could have put in my hands. In Dowie, Gordon Lindsey, the founder of Christ for the Nations, does a wonderful examination of the highlights and crucial mistakes of one of the first modern-day healing preachers. The lessons that Lindsey draws from the life of Dowie appear just as relevant today as they were in 1951.
With the political winds blowing across the country, we see many preachers endorsing political candidates and even preachers running for office (I’m thinking of the last decade, not just this election). Dowie attempted to run for political office and lost miserably. This is what Lindsey writes:
The man of God really has no place in the politics of this world. While reformation in government is sadly needed and to be prayed for and encouraged, yet, the man who has a true calling from God has a higher work to do. His is a calling to a ministry which strikes at a more vital spot in the lives of men - that is, their hearts. Not reformation, which is good as far as it goes, but transformation by the grace of God. Never will politics succeed in regenerating the world. Only the grace of God can do this work, and then only for those who will permit such to take place within their hearts. (Gordon Lindsey, The Life of Alexander Dowie at 54).
Many “prosperity” preachers have been in the news lately with reports of extravagant living. Dowie experienced great wealth due to the collection plates from his followers and used the money to fund various ventures. Lindsey writes:
Many a man who has felt that he had the call of the ministry upon him, has thought that if only the money were available, he would do mighty things. Yet more often than we would like to believe, money becomes a snare and a delusion to the minister. A windfall is apt to cause the inexperienced to squander it in a fashion as to do more harm than good. Money has power, but it can only be used successfully for God, by those who have learned to be the master of money, not money the master of them. Given a liberal sum, the inexperienced will generally set about a series of visionary schemes, that have no origin in the Divine Will. Time after time, men have made a shipwreck of their spiritual life, while engaged in such schemes. Yet, with men such as George Muller [sic], whose life was fully consecrated to God, over seven million dollars flowed in to make possible an undertaking which stands out in the Christian world as a shining example of wise stewardship. (Gordon Lindsey, The Life of Alexander Dowie, at 58).
But with the prosperity that came to him in America, eventually the simplicity of his life was altered. He came to the conclusion, and apparently Mrs. Dowie abetted his proposals, that it would be to his advantage to build a costly executive mansion in which he could enterain important personages. This large edifice when finished was elaborately appointed with expensive furnishings.
But the common people of Zion, who lived in their humble dwellings, furnished with the barest of necessities, and who eked out a meager living on ten or fifteen dollars a week, could hardly look upon this imposing structure of several stories without feeling the great contrast, and wondering if there had not been an extravagance. Gradually, Dr. Dowie was losing the sympathetic contact and understanding with his people which had been so marked while he was at Chicago.
All these things were warning signals, for history has shown that when a man of God begins living in a manner that his neighbors feel is extravagant, his spiritual influence begins to decline. (Gordon Lindsey, The Life of Alexander Dowie, at 202)
In the Pentecostal camp of the Body of Christ, we often hear of “new revelations” or that God is somehow doing a “new thing.” Very often these new revelations or new things don’t have anything to do with the Plan of Redemption or the saving of a man’s soul. Very often they do have to do with some elevated status of the preacher. The point of decline of Dowie’s ministry was when he got away from orthodoxy and proclaimed himself to be the “Last Apostle.” This is what Lindsey writes about “specialized” teachings:
The great practical doctrines of the Bible are well established by the Scriptures and require no subtle arguments to sustain them, and their benefits can easily be demonstrated. On the other hand, there are doctrines which because of their nature are to some extent involved in mystery - which are better to be believed rather than to become the subject for un-Christian disputations or profitless speculation. Yet often it has been that men have gotten their attention fixed on some minor doctrinal detail, and have magnified it, enlarged it, added to it until the position finally held becomes a wholly distorted truth. How sad it is to see a man with abilities which, no doubt, could be greatly used of God, lose interest in the great evangelical truths, the salvation of lost souls, and become obsessed with a “hobby horse” that immobilizes his talents for God, and reduces his value to God and humanity to that of a cipher! (Gordon Lindsey, The Life of Alexander Dowie, at 206-07)
It is interesting to note that Gordon Lindsey also acted as William Branham’s campaign manager.
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.
Tom Humes
Peter,
What’s your take on Kenneth Copeland? Ross
Ross, thanks for the question.
As with any preacher, I’m more concerned with teachings and doctrine than I am with lifestyle (although I do believe Gordon Lindsey’s observation about extravagance is true). Kenneth Copeland is usually spoken of in the same breath as other “Word of Faith” preachers, such as Kenneth Hagin, E.W. Kenyon, and Charles Price, but frankly, I do not see where his teachings are consistent with theirs. In fact, I don’t have any Copeland books or tapes on my shelf (I might have a couple in storage) and it has been probably over fifteen years since I attended one of his meetings.
Just some off-hand observations:
He preaches that the human body is an “earth suit” that can be trained to know the difference between good and evil. That teaching comes from a misconstruction of Hebrews. The N.T. demonstrates that the body has sin in it and the Christian must continually keep his body and its lusts in subjection (Hagin taught this). Copeland’s teaching in this area has ripple effects throughout the rest of the Word and our understanding of mankind.
He preaches about an intrinsic type of “word power” that goes well beyond the meaning and context of what is set out in Kenyon’s, Hagin’s, and Price’s books and what I see in the N.T.
He preaches about the requirement and benefits of tithing and how tithing activates spiritual laws. This teaching has become a bedrock teaching with all kinds of preachers characterized as “Word of Faith.” As I’ve written elsewhere, the N.T. doesn’t require tithing and giving is shown to be an expression of faith and not a mandatory requirement. He preaches Abraham as a prototype believer instead of the representative/conduit figure that I believe the Word shows him to be (this may be why most WOF preachers these days tend to concentrate in the O.T. instead of the N.T.).
He has rightfully preached that Jesus had to become sin as part of His work of redemption and it is to his credit that he has not retreated from this teaching. In the last sermon that I heard him preach on the subject, however, he preached that Jesus was “Yahweh” and that “Yahweh” was in hell. This particular line stems from the teachings of a NY-based pastor and I believe that it goes far beyond the Word and very much distorts the redemption narrative as set out in Ephesians and Colossians.
He has preached that faith is a force, which appears to be an original teaching that is not consistent with the Kenyons or Hagins, and little support, if any, in the Word.
Early on with the blog I received an email from a critic who was angry that I, as a supposed WOF preacher, was not towing the Word of Faith line on certain doctrines. As shown with a few of Copeland’s teachings, I believe that there are great doctrinal differences between many of today’s WOF preachers and the orthodox WOF preachers of yesteryear.
Peter, Dowie’s motives were misplaced…and ultramisplaced when he died thinking he was Elijah….granted, a poor example of the wise use of money. The alternative is Muller, as cited by Lindsey and I have read that Kathryn Kuhlman had “so much money” that she appointed a “committee” to deal with the abundant, money issue. One can start out on track with money and seemingly do well, then fall into a ditch, as Judas did. It appears Kenneth Hagin lived a life of frugality, as I heard him, personally, say many years ago…his salary was in the six figures.
In a recent Benny Hinn Ministries letter, he states his yearly compensation is set by his Board of Directors comprised of independent businessmen and ministry leaders outside of his family and that he is never a part of their decision when it comes to compensation. Either way, money can still “own you,” whether you live with little or live with a lot.
AmeriKan,
I don’t know if you read Lindsey’s biography of Dowie, but Lindsey’s purpose was to show how a well-meaning, anointed preacher could fall off of the tracks because of money-mindedness.
As a lawyer, I’m familiar with compensation committees and how they operate in today’s ministry/corporate environment. As many of the committees are comprised of relatives or yes-men, the Dowie danger is still present. ORU’s reported financial woes are one example.
Greetings Peter,
I have also made the observation that many Preachers like proclaiming the Gospel largely from the Old Testament. They seem to reject Old Testament legalism until it comes to finance/tithing, then the theological landscape seems to change. I know Hagin Sr. believed in tithing.
I believe that tithing is an example from which we can benefit, but are not tied to. Actually I don’t believe that any believer should limit their giving to ten percent, but rather give as God leads.
I believe that these WOF preachers should receive as God leads, regardless of how much or how little. Just as I believe how much I give is between me and God, I likewise believe how much Preachers keep is between them and God. I don’t invite them into my finances and I don’t invite myself into theirs.
Further, many times these guys are given love gifts, like expensive cars, from congregational members. I really have no problem with this, but the Government sure seems to get their nose out of joint over it.
I always remember that a Preacher being rich doesn’t make me poor, but giving into their ministries has blessed millions, or they wouldn’t continue to send them the green.
I don’t see how anyone can go wrong if they simply give as the Lord leads.
I will withhold all judgment on the ORU thing until the Hagee concludes his investigation. I do think there are dishonest people who are deliberately doing everything they can to change the direction of ORU from Oral’s vision. There are also other dishonest people doing the same thing within Hagin’s ministry.
…and I still don’t want the Government to be involved in Church finances.
David
P.S. Have you read an article entitled Diaprax in the Contemporary Church? You can find it here. Please let me know what you think. http://www.agp-internet.com/special/cgm/00000097b50c5a001/00000097b5117f921.htm
David, thanks for the comment.
If you go back to the early days of Lake, Kenyon, and Hagin, you see that they increasingly came into the light of the Pauline revelation. In Kenyon’s biography, for example, it shows how he increasingly found the light in the shadow of various doctrines that aren’t even around today.
If you follow Hagin’s ministry closely, you’ll see that he was not infallible (he would have been the first one to tell you that). For instance, he used to pray that the people received a “hundredfold” on their giving and then he said that the Lord corrected him on that. In another example, he used to not take up offerings in his farm churches because the congregation couldn’t afford it. He later changed his mind on the subject.
We get into trouble when we decide that since a minister is dead-on scripturally in a number of areas that we dare not examine questionable areas in light of the text. I have the greatest respect for Hagin, Sr.’s ministry as well as Lake’s and Kenyon’s, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t missed the mark in an area or two.
As I note in this post, the trouble with tithing is that it is anathema to the new creation.
What did God tell Hagin regarding the “hundredfold” on their giving.
Help! I’m not catching you use of the word anthema here.
“Definitions of Anathema on the Web: (Gr.: a curse, suspension). The spiritual suspension with which the church may expel a person from her community for various reasons, especially..”
One teaching which I consider in error is pleading the blood, but in this case I seem to be in the minority among Word of Faith types.
David,
You can read Hagin’s account of it in his book, The Midas Touch. I was at Rhema when he first discussed it.
I’m using anathema in a more secular form. Basically, tithing isn’t just not found in the New Testament, it is antithetical to the New Testament.
As I’ve written previously, there are many tenets in the current Word of Faith movement that run counter to what I see in the text. Pleading the blood is one of them. Honoring Israel is yet another.
Peter,
I agree with you about Isreal if you objection concerns being a respector of persons.
I don’t have Hagin’s book the Midas touch. I think I did at one time, but if I did I can’t recall much about it.
I also agree with you about tithing. David
Question and seeking help on: positive confession/speaking and praying the Word of God
I appreciate your courage to look at the Word and
question some of our assumptions, which I don’t
mean as a personal criticism of any preacher.
By the way, I’m new here…I may have missed it…
have you covered the teaching about speaking the
Word of God and/or positive confession? I am
still confused about it. There does seem to be some
truth to it, as I know Jesus did speak the Word in
the New Testament. I have felt guilty at times when
having to discuss a problem with others involved……..
or when expressing feelings. I realize that those
who teach speaking the Word do NOT usually
mean that we never say anything “negative”….
to say that would be to misrepresent most of them.
Can you instruct me on this issue? I would appreciate
hearing your opinion. How far should we go
about speaking the Word, or speaking into
existence the things we want? I would appreciate
input on this subject as I am sincerely wanting
to know the truth. I realize this is a controversial
area within the body of Christ, and I’m seeking
for the truth about it, not whatever I want to hear
or already believe. Thank you.
Oceanwaves,
You might take a look at my series on Mark 11.22-23. I’ve written several pieces on the meaning of those verses. Also, I do plan to write a series on what’s called positive confession and that will probably come in the next month or so.