Tuesday, May 17, 2011

SMITH WIGGLESWORTH, EVER INCREASING FAITH (BOOK REPORT 2)

(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)



GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT

Smith Wigglesworth, Ever Increasing Faith (1924; Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1972), 176 pp.

Here are eighteen messages given by Smith Wigglesworth (b. 1859) himself. The content resembles what W. Hacking, his friend and biographer, has said concerning Wigglesworth’s doctrines, methods, and claims. But by the mouth of these two witnesses we are not compelled to believe the claims because the doctrines and methods by which the claims are said to have come to pass do not line up with the rule of Scripture.

Wigglesworth gives God the glory for the wonders he says happened in his ministry. And he includes testimonies in confirmation of some of these wonders that were allegedly done. Sometimes names are even given. But Wigglesworth’s beliefs and practices dissuade me from believing any of this very readily. Here, then, from my long list of things that are questionable, even objectionable and unbiblical: (1) His demonology. Because Jesus rebuked a fever, does this mean for sure that a demon was involved? (p. 65.) Does a drunkard have to have a ‘drink demon’? (p. 108.) Are broken homes the fault of demons? (p. 163.) Are we to blame them for something as common as cancer? “When I see a cancer I always know it is an evil spirit” (p. 86.) Even a stiff knee is a demon! (p. 161.) Isn’t this going too far? How can we believe the cure when the diagnosis is incredible? (2) His Spirit Baptism.After much seeking, he received this, finally, at the hands of a woman (p. 112.) There is no precedent for this in Scripture. Yet Wigglesworth confidently asserts that his doctrine has “the backing of the Scriptures” (p. 113.) We are bound to suspect the works that proceed from such a ‘baptism.’ In the Foreword we read that this ‘baptism’ was a major turning point in Wigglesworth’s life. In fact, this event was the catalyst to his world-wide ministry. We don’t judge the genuineness of something like a ‘baptism’ merely on account of its effects, like joy and praise, because feelings, exultations, and even works and wonders may arise from counterfeit causes. We judge the ‘baptism’ according to how it measures up to the Bible’s presentation of it. And this one just doesn’t measure up. The only safe thing to do is to doubt any ministry that springs from an unbiblical source. The gross errors that follow from this ‘baptism’ testify to its illegitimacy. Tongues, the evidence of Spirit-Baptism, according to Wigglesworth, is also the evidence Jesus desires ministers to have (p. 114.) This is to make Jesus a liar, for there is no evidence of Jesus wishing any such thing. False doctrine often leads to blasphemy of this kind. Wigglesworth’s religion is wrapped up in ‘manifestations.’ Speaking in tongues is equated with living in the Spirit (p. 96.) To live a holy life one must speak in tongues! To justify his own excess in this area, he says that Paul “must have been speaking in tongues both day and night” (p. 172.) (3) His Methods. The method (among the many that are unorthodox) that dissuades me most from believing the declared results is repetitive prayer. If Jesus ever condemned anything at all, it was this. Not only does Wigglesworth imagine that repeating the word ‘Jesus’ over and over again will do a wonder, but he thinks this formula to be best worked out by whispering (which innovation he copied from some other ‘healer,’ p. 28.) All of this is to treat the Lord like an impersonal force to be actuated by a mantra. Can there be authentic “power in the name of Jesus” by the repetitive method? (pp. 32, 34.) Scripture teaches, and therefore I dogmatically assert, that there cannot. Ever Increasing Faith has caused me to wonder if I could have been wrong in my positive assessment of Bevington and the healings wrought through him. But here is a difference. When he felt the victory coming, Bevington would end up whispering something like ‘glory, glory, glory’ But this is not the same as using a repetition to cause a cure. That may seem like a measly difference. In fact, it is a major difference. Wigglesworth used repetition as a method; Bevington’s repetition was an exclamation. One is meant to cause; the other is caused. One is a sin; the other is praise.

Are we obliged to believe that the sick were healed through handkerchiefs prayed over by this man? (p. 63, 64.) I feel obliged to disbelieve. Do I feel ‘judgmental’ for doubting that thousands were healed and hundreds were saved during his ‘revivals’ in Scandinavia? (p. 35.) Not in the least. If I had insufficient reason so far for disbelieving and for judging as I have, my judgment would be negative and skeptical just on account of this ‘faith healer’s’ character flaws. (1) His impudence. Does God really rejoice when we approach him like this?—: “You have promised it, Lord. Now do it. (emphasis his, p. 81.) Because of who God is, we should not dare to believe that answers to prayer happen by orders like this. We should doubt the claims of a man who speaks like this to God and who advises others to do the same. Furthermore, the order here is on the basis of a sweeping promise by God to heal, which promise God never gave. (2) His pride. “As I got into the carriage again [after praying and being filled by the Lord], one of them cried out, ‘You convince me of sin.’ Within three minutes everyone in the [railroad] car was crying to God for salvation” (p. 99.) Although he prefaces this story with a denial of glory to himself and a disavowal of boasting, something’s not right. Would a man so holy as to convict sinners of sin by his mere appearance not also be so humble as to never mention the incident? The apostle Paul was moved by the Holy Ghost to mention his transport to heaven. But even when so moved, he could not bear to say plainly that this happened to him. Holiness is too humble to blow the trumpet. Smith Wigglesworth is not reluctant enough. I have read enough religious history to know (not to boast!) that men who project holiness are too humble to mention the effects. Like Moses when he pulled the veil over his face, they pull the veil over these kinds of stories. If there is any truth in this story, my guess is that the man on the train said what he said mockingly and that the others chimed in with pretended cries for mercy. There is this story in our own day of some man being convinced of sin during a round of golf just by the presence of Billy Graham. I doubt that Mr. Graham ever mentioned it. Such a thing is told by others. Or, if mentioned by the Subject, such a story would be surrounded by teaching so brilliant as to make us comfortable believing the narrative. That is not the case in this book.

Wigglesworth endorses fundamental doctrines like hell and the deity of Jesus Christ (p. 120.) One time, at least, he allows teaching on salvation to eclipse his emphasis on healing (p. 90.) He encourages the reading and memorization of the word (p. 102.) There is a story or two well told. This is all good. But his aim in these messages is toward ‘manifestations’ (p. 126.) And this is nothing else than the spirit of that adulterous generation chided by Jesus for seeking after signs.

              
Content: C (Messages full of stories that are ‘hard to believe.’)
     Style: B (Hackneyed but tolerable.)
    Tone: C (Positive thinking gone wild.)

Grading Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it; share it.
                        B: an average book: let it go.
                        C: read only if you have to.

Monday, May 2, 2011

W. HACKING, SMITH WIGGLESWORTH REMEMBERED (BOOK REPORT 1)

(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)

 

GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT



W. Hacking, Smith Wigglesworth Remembered (1972; Tulsa, Oklahoma: Harrison House, 1981), 107 pp.


Smith Wigglesworth is alleged by some to have been a great evangelist/healer. I say alleged because I believe, by what Hacking haplessly reveals, that he was neither. The following note in the Foreword by Harold Womersley will help to set our bearings: “I knew Brother Wigglesworth first in 1918 when he visited our Assembly in Halifax.” W. Hacking, the biographer, also knew him personally. 

Many positive things are said by Mr. Hacking about Wigglesworth. He says that in spite of rumors to the contrary Wigglesworth was generous with his money. He says that sometimes he refused payment for his services and once even paid convention costs out of his own pocket (p. 67.) Maybe these things are true. But what about these rumors of avarice? His fondness for fine clothes and his remarks thereupon (p. 18) should at least make us wonder. And the bottles of anointing oil that he sold by the hundreds should cause us to hear these rumors even more (p. 38.) The sale of anointing oil by an evangelist ‘for a nominal sum’ sounds like the sale of ‘snake oil’ by a conniving carpetbagger. Given what we know about practices like this, it would be foolish to just believe the man is legitimate. And the fact that W. Hacking feels he has to continually apologize for the beastly conduct of his Subject should make us fairly easy with a negative appraisal of that Subject. Many found Mr. Wigglesworth ‘unapproachable’ (p. 53)—‘rough’ (p. 56)—and even ‘crude’ (p. 33.) You can tell that Hacking knows these charges are substantiated just by the way he presents them. But we need not rely on subjective feelings that a certain tone communicates in order to judge the Subject’s character. Facts are given. “Because of the unfortunate idea that Brother Wigglesworth might deal with them roughly or make a show of them, some people were afraid to come forward for healing in his meetings” (p. 57.) What is meant exactly? Here’s how he dealt with a brother who came forward complaining of stomach pain. “Wigglesworth said, ‘Close your eyes.’ Then he commanded, ‘In the name of Jesus, come out of him!’ He struck the man in the stomach, sending him halfway across the front of the hall” (p. 57.) I admit that men tend to exaggerate incidents like this. But Hacking, in his run-up to this character-building story, calls it ‘a rather amusing incident.’ And now we know something of Hacking’s character! This Wigglesworth, could he have been any better than the rude, charismatic buffoons of today who are living high on the hog off the proceeds of sick people? Jokers like Wigglesworth insult, plunder, and assault. 

But did he not do wonders? ‘Much could be said,’ Hacking tells us, about cancers disappearing and the dead raised up (pp. 37, 38.) Yes, much! But nothing is. There is not one ‘healing’ in here that may be tracked by a Berean so it can be judged (though we suspect that someone has labored in some other book to show something.) It’s not Hacking’s purpose to deal at length with Smith Wigglesworth’s healing ministry (p. 38.) But a man who knew him so personally, in a book called Smith Wigglesworth Remembered, should he not like to deal at some length about the dead that were raised up by the instrumentality of the man he loves so much to tell us about? If a friend of ours were used by the Holy Spirit to raise people from the dead, would we, like the disciples, not only mention it, but also give details, names, and dates? Hacking doesn’t even tell us whether or not the ‘anointed handkerchief’ his hero sent to him worked on his ‘affected part’ (p. 58.) I guess it would be foolish to doubt that it did. No testimony necessary.

The usual suspects in a pseudo-Pentecostal ministry are precisely what we find in this project of Wigglesworth’s. A character of dubious virtue goes about starting up meetings or getting in wherever he can, stirring people up into an emotional, uncritical fever, and then claiming that he’s done great deeds. Ailments that are said to be healed are usually nameless, vague complaints, or else cancers that are not documented. Besides the suspiciousness of his character and the boasted, unproven claims, there is the unorthodoxy of the services. The vain repetition that is condemned by Jesus is used by men like this to emotionalize the crowd (pp. 17, 28, 29, 35.) This convinces everyone that something must be going on. Add to this the loud confusion of many ‘tongues’ all at once, also contrary to Scripture, and you can imagine the effect in such meetings. People worked into a frenzy will believe and go along with almost anything. “Nearly everybody did [speak in tongues], and the effect was phenomenal” (p. 34.) What good did this do, though? We are not told. What is important is that phenomena happened.

What inevitably ties in with this is a disregard for doctrine. “Do not preach too long” (p. 17.) That’s Wigglesworth’s advice. No, it’s better to have your preaching interrupted by a sister (p. 22.) Or to break into tongues in the middle of your message! (p. 29.) And is that something to be proud of, to have refused to read anything other than the Bible? (p. 19.) Not if you disdain to study it. It is well said that ‘he had no homiletics’! (p. 73.) No sermon preparation for him. Just presume on the Holy Ghost (p. 99.) Besides the usual misinterpretations we expect from men like this, like the opinion that it’s always Jesus’ will to heal (p. 79), the one that surprised me most is the practice of speaking one’s wish into reality, the so-called ‘word of faith,’ not exactly called that here (pp. 58, 59, 77.) “You will have to voice many things in order to bring them into being” (p. 81.) I didn’t know that kind of magic went this far back.

Selfish interpretation of Scripture always ends in defeat. Brother Wigglesworth didn’t make it to the rapture (p. 69.) As his death approached he continued to misapply Scripture by adopting verses to suit his wishes, even grabbing onto Genesis 6.3 in some pathetic attempt to live to 120! (p. 71.) “When you read a scripture that doesn’t fit into the atmosphere…pass it on to others that are there, that are in accord with the atmosphere that you find yourself in” (p. 91.) A fine way to treat the word of God! Just ask around until you find an interpretation that suits the mood!

Finally, what to make of this W. Hacking? Attributing wonders to God that he might not have done, is that not as risky as saying (as certain New Testament Jews did) that he didn’t do the wonders that he did do? Will not both of these groups, the deniers and the liars, be condemned for misrepresenting God? Mr. Hacking even goes so far as to state that Wigglesworth, I guess not just Jesus, or maybe not Jesus at all, was the living embodiment of Hebrews. 4. 12-13! (p. 106.)


Content: C (Empty of substance and full of blasphemy.)
     Style: B (Nothing out of the ordinary.)
     Tone: C (Romantic to a fault.)
                       
Grading Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it; share it.
                         B: an average book: let it go.
                         C: read only if you have to.