Word Of Faith Movement: Is It Metaphyisical? (Part One)

Word Of Faith Movement: Is It Metaphyisical?

Part 1

By Troy J. Edwards

In 1988, an ORU student named D.R. McConnell published a thesis on the Word of Faith movement that would shock the Christian world (or at least the Christians in America). The title of this book was A Different Gospel. Supposedly, this book revealed the shocking "truth" concerning the origin of the teachings of Essek William Kenyon. This book supposedly revealed that Kenyon's teachings were not influenced by divine revelation or Evangelical Christianity, but by Christian Science and other Metaphysical influences.

The premise of the book was this: First prove that E.W. Kenyon had metaphysical and cultic influences in his writings and teachings. Then show that well known Faith teacher, Kenneth Hagin Sr., whom so many believed was the father of the modern day faith movement, to have plagiarized Kenyon's writings. If you can do that then you have made Kenyon the true father of the modern day faith movement. By making Kenyon the true father of the modern day faith movement, you can then prove that the whole movement is cultic and heretical.

This book was a great weapon in the hands of those who already had a bone to pick with the modern day faith teachers. Now they had research and scholarship on their side. This book was considered to be THE book to reference if one desired to receive accurate information on this movement. That is, until Hendrik Hanegraaf came out with his landmark book, Christianity In Crisis. Now those who opposed this movement had two weapons in their hands to confront those smart aleck, cocky Word of Faith people.

Kenyon's Defenders

There has been very little defense against the charges made against Kenyon. William DeArteaga was one of the first to attempt a defense of Kenyon in his book, Quenching The Spirit (See our review). Although DeArteaga made a valiant effort, he still believed, along with Kenyon's critics, that Kenyon's theology had some metaphyisical influences[1].

Later, men such as Geir Lie, Dale H. Simmons, and Joe McIntyre decided to do further research. Their research was found to absolve E.W. Kenyon from all of the charges made against him. McConnell and others have attempted to use Kenyon's attendance at Emerson College of Oratory (1892-1893) in Boston to prove that Kenyon was metaphyisically influenced.

Geir Lie, in his essay, E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder Or Evangelical Minister, vindicates Kenyon against the charges above: "In this context it is interesting to point out that according to Kenyon it was not there that he "saw" divine healing. The school year does not seem to have altered his understanding of Jesus substitionary atonement. Neither does it seem to have added knowledge with regard to the Christian faith." [2]

According to research done by Joe McIntyre, Kenyon's alleged influence at the Emerson school, Ralph Waldo Trine, did not become an exponent of metaphyisical influences until 1894. McIntyre is quoting from the college's own historical records. Kenyon had already left the school at that time. Also according to McIntyre, Trine's metaphyisical influence did not reach national prominence until 1896. Kenyon was already ordained as a Free Will Baptist minister at that time.[3]

If the accusations of metaphyisical influences were not enogh, Kenyon is also accused of having been influenced by Universalist teaching. Yet, Kenyon's own words seem to dispute such a claim:

Those who teach a universal salvation have only grasped the legal side of righteousness. Every child in Israel had a legal right to all the benefits of the Covenant, but it did not become theirs personally until they were individually circumcised. Eternal life becomes ours the moment we personally take Jesus Christ as Saviour and confess Him as the Lord of our Life.[4]

I would rather believe Kenyon's own written words over those of someone who makes unfounded accusations against him posthumously.

Kenyon's True Theological Influences

Both Geir Lie and Joe McIntyre have traced Kenyon's main circle of friends among such well known Pentecostalists as William Durham, Aimee Semple McPherson, John G. Lake, F.F. Bosworth, and George B. Studd.

It seems to be difficult for people to believe that God will give a man new insight into the Word of God that is not necessarily been taught in the last several centuries. Some actaully believe that no one has received anymore light since John Calvin and Martin Luthor and the Reformation. It seems that all of our teaching must have some human influences. Many just don't seem to believe that the Holy Spirit still reveals things in His written Word that has not been taught since the early church. This is a form of cessationism. It's quite a shame that because McConnell and others saw that Kenyon's writings were unique and therefore, attempted to paint a picture of heresy and cultism.

Nonetheless, Joe McIntyre lists a number of Kenyon's human theological influences. Among them are the major evangelical ministers of his time such as A.J. Gordon, A.T. Pierson, C.H. Spurgeon, R.A. Torrey, A.B. Simpson, Andrew Murray, F.B. Meyer, A.C. Dixon, D.L. Moody, and G. Campbell Morgan. McIntyre provides documented proof that these men had a major influence on Kenyon's theology.

McIntyre also shows how Kenyon's theology had influences from Holiness teachers such as Phoebe Palmer, Daniel Steel, George D. Watson, Hannah Whitall Smith, and Samuel Logan Brengle. Since I own copies of books by Ms. Palmer (Faith and it's Effects, The Way To Holiness, Entire Devotion to God, and Incidental Illustrations) and by Hannah W. Smith (God Of All Comfort, The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life, God's Love For You), I can affirm personally that much of what these women have taught sound quite a bit like modern day faith teaching. These women used such words as "confessing" and "claiming". They taught that one must "believe before they receive." These writings date back many years before New Thought or Christian Science came on the scene.

Since I have read the writings of many of the above mentioned classic preachers, I can affirm how difficult it would be to be grounded in their teachings and then mix them with New Thought teachings. There may be alleged similarities, but we know that Satan has never come up with an original idea. Satan is a copycat and a perverter. He will take something godly and twist it. Let us not be surprised when we find some similarities in the teachings of the Higher-Life/Holiness advocates and the metaphysical cults. Dale Simmons points out:

While New Thought claimed that the universe is governed by spiritual impersonal laws and that each and everyone can tap into these in order to obtain the desired result, Higher Life advocates searched for promises in Scripture which they claimed by faith as their own. What the two movements had in common was a spoken confession that what they had sought for was not to be manifested some time in the future, but belonged to them in the here and now. Faith was based on knowledge--impersonal laws/principles within New Thought and God's promises within Higher Life. For both groups faith was an act of the will where one often would have to act against opposing feelings or the testimony of the senses. Even Higher Life could refer to spiritual laws, though meaning that God had put Himself under obligation under His own promises and that they consequently would be fulfilled with a 100 per cent certainty (as a law) if one dared to actively believe them. Therefore the positive confession of God's promises was a means to conquer personal doubt (faith's opposite) while among New Thought advocates one's confession gave direction to faith filled thoughts which again was the basis for the creative ability which lies dormant within all human beings.[5]

CRI Book Reviewer Refutes McConnell's Metaphysical Accusation

Surprisingly, the differences in Faith theology and metaphysical teaching was pointed out in a book review by a CRI staff member named Brian Onken. In a review of D.R. McConnll's book, Onken writes:

In his analysis of these concerns, however, McConnell falls short. He does so by trying to prove that the "faith" movement is, in some sense, metaphysical thought masquerading in evangelical garb.

Because of certain similarities between metaphysical teachings and the "faith" message, McConnell argues that they share the same doctrines. In doing so he ignores critical differences between the two, and fails to address much of what is distinctively "faith" teaching.

This is seen, for example, in his comments on the "faith" teaching regarding faith. He states that the "laws and formulas [regarding faith in the "faith" gospel] can only be understood in the light of the doctrine of God in the metaphysical cults." But the premises of these two schools of thought are different. For the metaphysical cults God is an impersonal principle. For the "faith" teachers God is a personal being who operates by faith. Even if we grant that the effects of such ideas are similar, the root cause is quite different. [6]

Although Onken agrees with much of what McConnell says, we certainly appreciate him for his honesty in this area. Hanegraaf must not have read this review when he wrote Christianity In Crisis.

Another surprising book review can be found at CRI. Curtis I. Crenshaw, a member of the Reformed Church wrote a book against the faith movement titled Man as God: The Word of Faith Movement. Paul Carden, the CRI reviewer makes this assessment:

A distinctively "Reformed" analysis, packed with quotes and footnotes. At its best when refuting the biblical proof-texts most often used by Faith teachers; at its weakest when relating Faith teachings to the Mind Science cults and the New Age movement. [7]

Even a CRI reviewer can see the theological bias in Mr. Crenshaw's book, even if he does agree with the Scriptural refutation. It is also noteworthy to find that this CRI reviwer found the Faith movement link to the mind science cults weak.. If a CRI reviwer can see this weakness, why can't others?

We all know that a three dollar bill cannot be counterfeited because there are none in existence. Satan is a counterfeiter and not a creator. He takes what God has established and perverts it. After he has done that, he tempts Christians to reject the genuine article because they have been exposed to the perverted one.

This has been Satan's plan in his attempts to destroy what is known as the modern faith movement. He has used the metaphyisical cults to copy and pervert sound, Biblical Christian principles of faith, causing good Christians to shun the truth. This has caused division in the body of Christ and defeat for many of God's people. Exactly the things that the devil has desired to accomplish.

Bruce Barron, who also wrote a book which criticizes the faith movement has refuted McConnell's false Metaphysical accusations:

In general, it is unfair to equate faith teaching with Christian Science, since faith teaching shows much more respect for biblical authority and the person of Jesus than do the ingenious but indefensible interpretations of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy[8]

If critics such as Bruce Barron and the more honest CRI book reviewers do not see the connection between the faith movement and the metaphysical cults, then what seems to be the problem with the other various heresy hunters who attack Word-Faith teachers? The problem is that they are regurgitating the works of D.R. McConnell with no respect to the various and varied differences in Word-Faith teaching and the false erroneous teaching of the metaphysical cults.

Defense Within The Faith Camp

An unknown faith teacher named Michael Bruno wrote a book titled Christianity in Power. This book is a thorough refutation of Hanegraaf's popular book, Christianity in Crisis. There is a statement that Bruno makes in this book that gives us even more insight into this perverted way of satan in attacking God's servants with the comparison method:

Mr. Hanegraaf repeatedly tries to associate the doctrine of faith with the metaphysical cults by taking principles associated with faith such as confessing the word and then parallels it with a cult that teaches a similar precept. The deception is obvious. Mormons emphasize family values. A Christian who emphasizes family values is not cultic as a Mormon. In Exodus Seven the magicians produced exactly the same signs as Moses. He did not doubt that God spoke to him because the Magicians of Pharoah engaged in cultic activity and it parallelled the moving of God.[9]

The problem seems to be that the critics of the faith movement seem to give more credit to the devil than he deserves. They seem to think that satan comes up with all of these original ideas. It's as though God does not have one original idea and satan has them all. Satan can do more than copy what God has done and pervert it as shown with in the plagues in Exodus. Satan did not have any original ideas. The magicians copied what God did through Moses. Even then, satan could only go so far.

Faith Teachers Explain The Differences Between Their Teachings And Those Of The Metaphyisical Cults

The major difference between Word-Faith teaching as first introduced by Kenyon and the pioneers before him and the metaphyisical cults is this: Metaphyisical cults deny the reality of something, Word-Faith affirms the physical reality but accepts God's Word as the truth above the Physical reality. God's Word is the final answer which has authority over the physical circumstance. Kenyon himself said:

Mrs. Eddy, copying Hagel, boldly declares that God is not a person, and that Satan is not a person. So, their being no God and no devil, there could be no sin. If there were no sin, there could be no judgement because of sin. If there were no sin and no fear of judgement, there would be no sin consciousness.Our declaration that the tide does not rise, does not stop it from rising. The philosopher's declaration that God is not, does not stop God from being. God is. Satan is. Sin is. But God has dealt with the sin problem in His Son.[10]

So we can see that Kenyon never denied the reality of anything. He simply believed the truth of the Bible over the problem. You can see that he totally despised Christian Science.

Kenyon's teachings influenced many of the Word of Faith teacher. Although I believe that Kenneth Hagin Sr. may have been inspired by Kenyon's writings and preached some of his sermons (which were later transcribed into book form), I do not agree with his critics that Kenyon was his main influence. Reading the writings of many Higher-Life, Holiness, and Pentecostal pioneers can show that Kenyon's doctrine was not unique. Kenyon's style of presentation was different, but not his doctrine. However, this is a subject for another essay.

Kenneth Hagin, having been aware of the metaphysical cults and some of the similarities between true Biblical faith and the lies of the metaphysicians, attempted to clear up any misunderstanding between his teaching and their's:

We need to walk by faith and not by sight [Hagin is quoting 2 Cor. 5:7]. Some have misunderstood this teaching, thinking I tell people to deny all symptoms and go on as if they weren't even there. They think I am teaching Christian Science. However, this is not Christian Science; this is Christian sense. We do not deny pains and other symptoms, for they are very real. Instead, we look beyond them to God's promises. [11]

It is to be noted that Hagin's book was published in 1985 before the accusations of the Word-Faith critics were published. Considering the fact that this book contains a seies of messages transcribed from Hagin's tapes (Hagin never really wrote the books), we can be sure that he addressed this issue long before the book publishing this quote. Hagin makes another statement in this same book differentiating his teaching from that of Christian Science:

God's healing is spiritual healing. If medical science heals, it heals through the physical. Christian science heals through the mind. But when God heals, He heals through the spirit.[12]

Once again we can see that Hagin has made attempts to clarify the differences between his teaching and that of the cults. It makes you wonder if the critics truly read his books or if they simply perused his writings looking for statements that would sound heretical and cultic. James Spencer wisely calls this tactic, Heresy Hunting.

I am sure that Hagin was not the only modern day faith teacher to explain the differences between this type of teaching and that of the cults. However, we will only quote from one more source. Dr. Frederick K.C. Price, the pastor of Crenshaw Christian Center in California has also suffered false accusations and misunderstandings from the critics of the faith movement. However, in his book, How Faith Works, Dr. Price took the time to explain the differences between Bible faith and the teaching of cults such as Christian Science.

Dr. Price relates in his book about a battle he had with a tumor on his chest. He went though surgery to have it removed but some of it had already spread and started growing back. He decided this time to stand on the Bible and trust God for his healing. Dr. Price began quoting Matthew 8:17 and 1 Peter 2:24 to himself.. He went through some trials as the tumor seemingly got worse. Nevertheless, Dr. Price continued declaring God's Word. Eventually his faith was rewarded (Heb. 11:6). During the testimony, which is in much more detail in his book than what I have related, Dr. Price said this:

I never went around saying I didn't hurt when in fact I did hurt. If you do that you're getting over into the realm of Christian Science and the mind science religions. You're saying the thing doesn't exist. I've never said it wasn't there. I never said the thing wasn't hurting. I didn't say anything about it at all. I ignored it. I only talked about what I believed. And I said, "I believe that I am well. I believe that I am healed." I did believe because the Word of the Lord said to believe that I receive and I'd have it.[13]

This book was first written in 1976, long before the accusations that have been leveled against the faith teachers. I personally believe that the critics of faith teaching were on an agenda, one which was not from God.

Conclusion Thus Far

In conclusion, I would like to leave you with a quote from the famous Baptist hero of two centuries ago, that prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon:

If God has spoken to us in the Scriptures and revealed a truth that has no analogy in nature, that is not supported by the judgement of learned men, and to which our own experience seems to be in contradiction, still God must be believed. The fact that God has said it should weigh the scales of our understanding. Surely you are not going to set the evidence of your eyes against the declaration of God who cannot lie. I am determined that if my senses contradict God, I would rather deny every one of them than believe that God could lie. [14]

Ironically, Spurgeon's writings are praised by Hanegraaf and many other "apologist" who criticizes Word-Faith. CRI even sells some of his books. Do you think that they learned anything from this great man?

To be continued....

Notes

DeArteaga, William Quenching The Spirit (Orlando, FL: Creation House, 1992, 1996) p. 212. DeArteaga says about Kenyon's writings: "Its inspiration was largely from the Holiness and Higher-Life literature and the Faith-Cure movement, which were reaching their climax during his young adulthood. He was also influenced in his theolgical development through his contact with the New Thought literature and personalities." Although DeArteaga is attempting to defend Kenyon, he falls short of doing a good job with this statement. Such a statement does not help Kenyon's case. The premise of a good argument is to attempt to seperate Kenyon from any metaphysical influences. Who will regard Kenyon's literature as Evangelical if it is tainted with cultic influences?
Lie, Geir E.W. Kenyon: Cult Founder Or Evangelical Minister (from the internet. Click here for a link to his essay). Although Geir Lie puts up a good defense for Kenyon, do not look for a defense of the modern faith movement from him or else you will be severely disappointed (or extremely happy depending on what side of this coin you are on).
McIntyre, Joe E.W. Kenyon: The True Story (Orlando, FL: Creation House, 1997) pp. 17-19
Kenyon, E.W. What Happened From The Cross to The Throne (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1969).
Simmons, Dale H. The Postbellum Pursuit of Peace, Power, and Plenty (as quoted in Geir Lie's essay in note 2 above).
Onken, Brian Christian Research Journal Book Reviews, 1989. Review of D.R. McConnell's book, A Different Gospel. This review can still be found on the CRI website.
Carden, Paul Christian Research Journal Book Reviews, 1994. Book Reviews" (a column from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1994, page 46). Review of Curtis I Crenshaw's book, Man as God: The Word of Faith Movement This review can still be found on the CRI website.
Barron, Bruce The Health and Wealth Gospel (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1987), p. 110. As quoted in an essay by Derek Vreeland, titled, Reconstructing Word of Faith Theology. This article can be found at the ORU website. Click here to download this essay.
Bruno, Michael Christianity In Power (Slippery Rock, PA: Abba Ministries, 1994), p. 26
Kenyon, Essek W Two Kinds Of Righteousness (Lynnwood, WA: Kenyon Gospel Publishing Society, 1965), p. 9
Hagin Sr, Kenneth E. New Threshholds of Faith (Tulsa, OK: Rhema Bible Church, 1985), p. 8
Ibid., p. 24
Price, Frederick K.C. How Faith Works (Tulsa, OK: Harrison House, 1976), p. 62
Spurgeon, Charles The Triumph Of Faith in a Believer's Life (Lynnwood, WA: Emerald Books, 1994) pp. 80-81

E-mail: victoryword@yahoo.com

Back to Home

Go forward to Part Two

Go forward to Part Three

Go to the Links page