The Word of Faith People: What Can They Teach the Rest of the Church?

After the passing of Kathryn Khulman, in order to learn very much about healing and power evangelism, one had to listen to a stream of teaching known as "Word of Faith". That was, of course, before the class in Sign's and Wonders at Fuller School of Missions began to make the church world sit up and take a second look. Perhaps there were a few more sources then - perhaps even systematic teaching taught by others - but the most obvious place to look for it was at the feet of people like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland (the famous "Copelan-hagin" duo); and others, whose teaching varied, maybe some, but not a lot.

Some of the "other sources" whose teaching may have varied more, were really the same source in that they had their roots in the healing movement of the 1950s. T. L. Osborn, Oral Roberts, Gordon Lindsay and Kenneth Hagin were all survivors of the "big-top tent-meeting" era. Though some didn't have tents themselves, they generally all taught from a common platform of "healing as part of the atonement."

Nor did the doctrine of healing begin with them. The turn of the century saw the ministry of John Alexander Dowie. Though his perception of himself as being "Elijah" rather soured the healing message towards his latter end, it was restored by others, such as Marie Woodworth Etter, Smith Wigglesworth as well as two of Dowie's own pupils, F. F. Bosworth and John G. Lake. Also of this generation was E. W. Kenyon, with the systematic theology that has been imported wholesale into the Word of Faith movement. One could, of course name others, such as A. B. Simpson, who understood healing as proceeding from the atonement, and thus to be received in the same way as salvation, but imparted it to a totally different audience (New Yorkers and New Englanders as opposed to Bible Belters of the West and Mid-west United States).

Many of the above, though their teachings sound similar, they attest that the message of healing was imparted directly through the Holy Spirit from scripture, rather than from other teachers.

For Kenneth Hagin, it actually started from a verse of scripture (Mark 11:24) suddenly illuminated to him from the pages of his "grandmother's Methodist Bible", as a "Baptist boy on the bed of affliction."fn The result was, he was healed of an incurable blood disease that was about to end his young life. Later on, in his adult ministry, came the call from Jesus Himself in a vision to "Teach my people faith"fn. Thus, "Word of Faith" eventually became the banner of the mass movement that exists today.

For many of us, myself included, Word of Faith was the only chance we had to learn the technical details on how to begin developing and exercising faith for miracles. Had some of us waited a few years, we could have learned, instead, at the feet of C. Peter Wagner and John Wimber, but not having a choice then, we who had a stomach for the more Pentecostal style presentation, clung to the words of Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price and a host of others whom we could readily receive from, simply at the turn of the radio dial.

For me, it was my first experience actually seeing my own faith work. Before, I just couldn't conceive of miracles actually happening to me.

Those were the days when Kenneth Copeland was somewhat new to the radio waves. I had begun sharing a townhouse with a couple of others who were intent on developing their spiritual lives. It was close to a big Charismatic church with a theological school attached. Every day, we were visited by our new friends, some of whom were also excited about the new possibilities opened up by the "faith message".

I was a Charismatic by then, but I was a bit slow to wholeheartedly embrace the new healing doctrine. I wasn't sure, for one thing, if Jesus's atonement at the cross actually included healing, or if Isaiah's reference to healing in chapter 53 wasn't figurative. About that time, I read a book by Smith Wigglesworth. I noted that Matthew 8:17 refers to the passage in Isaiah 53 as indicating just that - healing through Jesus's "bearing our sickness, and carrying our diseases".

Then, at an early morning prayer meeting, my nose dripping like a faucet; one of my "faith" friends, Thomas Calhoun, said, "Now, Bob, don't you leave here without your healing!"

Something about how he said it sparked faith in my spirit. I said, "Okay," and by the time I left that house, I was healed.

Gradually, through more seminars, tapes and books, and seeing it work on a few more occasions, I was a confirmed "faith" man.

Apart from experiences gained in this way, my childhood upbringing was in a missionary family with WEC mission in Thailand. WEC (Worldwide Evangelisation Crusade) is an interdenominational mission founded by C. T. Studd during the same era that J. Hudson Taylor founded CIM (now OMF). Both missions emphasise faith. In fact, missionaries going out to the field with WEC aren't allowed to solicit funds, but must live by faith.

My parents had a translation and publication ministry. Their first project was a periodical testimony leaflet called Soon. On many occasions, I witnessed as just the right amount of money would come in, just in time to make the deadline. Often it was from some elderly sister in the Lord in Ireland or America. Now and then, it was so we could eat.

In those days, we didn't have a car. It took all the faith my parents had just to get the leaflets off the presses and food onto our table.

At the age of thirteen, I was left in America, my mother's homeland, to get an education. Looking back, I can see it wasn't simply a convenient move on their part (as some would say, to get me "out of their hair"). They released me by faith. I believe it was that faith that saw me through for many years.

Sometime later, my dad began listening to tapes by Charismatics such as Kenneth Hagin. He decided to start practising what he heard, and soon, he was driving a second hand pick-up truck.

About that time is when I returned to Thailand, having been filled to the brim with the uncompromising Word of Faith message. I noticed that my parents accepted the "faith message" for the most part, except for a margin of "compromise". It verged on being "C. T. Studd" type of faith instead of "Kenneth Hagin" faith. Maybe, they thought, it was God's will for some to be sick sometimes.

Definitely not!

Also, they'd pray many times for the same thing.

No! I'd say. The prayer of faith, you pray only once! After that, you're praying in doubt!

As you can see, I had a lot to teach my parents, if only they'd humble themselves and listen. My faith knew no compromise.

However, in retrospect, my dad's faith actually bore more fruit. At this writing, he is a healthy 75 year old man who, though retired, spends only the warmer half of the year in his home in Northern Ireland, but the cooler half in Thailand, teaching Bible School. God may use sickness to teach some people, but not him!

But was he compromising?

the logical dilemma

Rick Joyner has quoted Paul Cain as saying that it is a grave mistake to take a partially revealed truth and carry it on to its logical conclusion.

I believe the Word of Faith teaching is on the right track, and has a lot to teach the rest of the Body of Christ, except for the logical dilemma.

Ever since the second or third century of Church history, the Church has been the victim of Greek style logic. Paul said in his first letter to the Corinthians (1:22) that "The Jews request a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom." Though Paul stated that the Cross of Christ is a stumbling block to both, the New Testament shows us that signs are at least more on track than human wisdom. It's signs and wonders that attest to the truth of the Gospel, not human wisdom. It's just that the Jews got the cart before the horse, in expecting a sign before they would have faith. The signs follow those who believe.

It's us Greeks with our wisdom learned from Plato and Aristotle who have done untold damage to the gospel message.

In Greek logic, everything could be reduced to something like a mathematical formula. Anyone who has studied geometry can understand the pattern: given this factor and that factor, therefore this is so.

Where we have applied geometric thinking in the Word of Faith teaching could be expressed in the following formula:

Where        A = a spiritual state of being, and 
             B = a physical state of being:
Given:       A parallels B
And:         B infers C   -
Therefore:   A infers C

This pattern is especially invoked in regard to our sonship. There is a recognisable parallel between being a son of God, and a son of our earthly father. Therefore, according to the logic, whatever is true of our sonship to our earthly father must also be true regarding our heavenly father.

Of all parallels drawn from scripture, this is probably the most applicable and far-reaching one. After all, God did place parents on the earth so as to provide us an example of our Heavenly Father's love. Jesus used the parallel when teaching on praying with faith. "If your son asks you for bread..." It certainly is a parallel that is suited to learning to have faith in our Heavenly Father.

But is everything that can be said of the earthly father-son relationship applicable to our relationship with our Heavenly Father? One application that certainly isn't so is expressed by the bumper sticker, "God doesn't have grandchildren."

But an earthly father will eventually have grandchildren. If geometric logic applies, then, eventually God must also have grandchildren, right? Will we one day create worlds and rule over them as gods? If our creations rebel against us, will we send our only begotten sons to die for them?

Fortunately no one in the Word of Faith movement has carried it quite that far. Some who used to teach that we are little gods have even backed off from that assertion, although I know of one faith teacher here locally who, insisting on the above logic, still teaches it.

To bring the point closer to home, the father-son parallel is still used to infer: just as we, as earthly fathers would never put diseases on our children, nor allow disease to infect them if it was in our power to prevent it; then, God is never but never the author of sickness - or, for that matter, tribulation, or famine, or natural disasters (sic. "acts of God").

Mind you, I'm not asserting that He necessarily is the author of all these things, but if we put things more in perspective, we may be more free to see God's hand in more of the things that happen to us that our faith has failed to prevent.

The same father-son argument has also been used to outlaw corporeal punishment in many parts of the world. "Would a truly loving father really stoop to inflicting pain on his child's backside?" In the absence of numerous verses in Proverbs, that would be a valid argument, given the strictly logical application. So, to what extent should we apply logical deduction to points of faith?

laboratory or battlefield?

Logic isn't all bad of course. It is quite applicable in some of the sciences. In a controlled laboratory situation many logical conclusions can be made.

Word of Faith, it can be said, is the result of conclusions made inside a laboratory. As a result, many useful facts regarding faith have come to light.

However, where we must use faith in our daily lives, is not in a laboratory, but on a battlefield, where hardly any of the factors can be kept under control - particularly if one is on the front line. Sickness may be due to many other factors apart from simple lack of faith in God's word. Failure to be healed may be due to spiritual warfare (as I believe was the case in my mothers death), lack of unity in the Body of Christ, absence of apostolic or prophetic ministry, among numerous other things.

I believe most Word of Faith teachers would agree with me at this point.

In a laboratory situation, two plus two always equals four. In real life, we may bring two from one source, and another two from another, and suddenly realise that instead of four, we have five and a half!

How?

Two more blew in the window, and the one was borrowed for some other purpose, and then a half sort of appeared out of nowhere.

Perhaps we can illustrate this point more clearly if we look at the whole area of prosperity in light of "the Joseph principle".

the Joseph principle

The whole question of prosperity has been clouded, I believe, by several factors:

1. An over-emotional response on the part of those holding the more traditional view.

2. An over enthusiastic zeal - sometimes verging on greed - on the part of some of the proponents, which only serves to further put off those in category 1, above.

3. Hypocrisy on the part of some (who oppose the prosperity message, but are, themselves quite well off).

4. Lack of understanding of cultural contextualisation (no, Kenneth Copeland doesn't believe that g-string clad churchmen of Irian Jaya ought to fly around in Leer jets).

5. Failure to place relationship rather than giving to get as the primary motive for giving (but now we're getting into one of my pet doctrines).

If we step back and look at the whole picture, I believe we can see two things:

1. Living ones life based on godly principles is naturally conducive to a life of health and prosperity - especially when we become aware of principles we can put to practice in our lives, such as tithing, and believing God for more of our needs to be met.

2. We are also living in a world where Satan is the "god" (II Cor 4:4), and actively opposes all who will live godly lives. Often this acts as a force against our health and prosperity.

In seeing these two factors together, we can catch a glimpse of the "Joseph principle". Joseph was faithful to live a godly life no matter what situation he found himself in. Even though Satan opposed him by having him sold as a slave to Egypt, thrown into prison on a false accusation, and then forgotten by those who promised to help him out, he remained faithful to God.

However, in all these situations, Joseph prospered and rose to the top. As a slave, he became the head of the whole workforce in the household. When he was thrown into prison for refusing to compromise, he soon rose to be in favour with the jailer, and was made head of all the prisoners. Eventually, in God's time, he was elevated to be second only to Pharaoh over the world super-power of that day.

I can clearly see that healing and prosperity are God's will for our lives. But are they God's top priority? Are there other factors more important to God's plan that must be worked out in our lives? We can see that there were some priorities that had to be worked out in Jeseph's life.

By finding out God's top priorities, such as love, godly character, unity in the Body of Christ and and so forth; and working to make them more real in our lives, and in the lives of others; we may very well find ourselves on our way to seeing divine health and prosperity overtaking us without our constantly resorting to positive confessions and rebuking the devil (although that does have its place as well).

what we've learned

Once these questions are squarely faced, we are left, I believe, with some solid principles, which, we can definitely say, the teachers of the Word of Faith stream of teaching are either the originators or the carriers. In other words, we owe them for passing them on to us (I'm speaking for myself, but also, I believe, for a large portion of the Body of Christ). Some of these include:

The process of developing practical faith;

The difference between logos and rhema;

The need to watch our tongue;

Not to accept all circumstances as necessarily being God's will;

A default method of ministering healing (unless God guides us differently);

How to impart the baptism of the Holy Spirit during seasons when revival doesn't seem to be happening spontaneously;

How to receive healing for oneself (as opposed to having someone else lay hands on us for healing);

That a relationship does exist between sacrificial giving and material blessing;

Dynamics regarding the five-fold ministry (apostle, prophet, evangelist...etc.);

The tangible power of the resurrection available to us;

And finally, what we could term, "applied Calvinism": meaning the fact that we have been declared righteous in Christ; therefore every spiritual blessing applies to us.

It's not my purpose here to expand on all of these points. There are plenty of books available from Harrison House, and Kenneth Hagin Ministries that do so just wonderfully. Part of the reason for this article, after all, is to point the rest of the Body of Christ towards what they have to offer.

The other reason is to point my brothers and sisters in the Word of Faith stream to what the rest of the Church has to offer. The rest of this article, therefore, is directed to those in the Word of Faith stream:

Why change paddles in mid-stream when you're away out ahead of the crowd?

So far, the paddle we have been using has proven to be a very good one. The fact that we often find ourselves away out ahead of the crowd attests to the fact that it is indeed a better paddle than that used by many others.

Unfortunately, the saying is also true, that the good is often the enemy of the best.

The object of the game isn't to be away out ahead of the rest of the crowd. The race that Paul and the writer of Hebrews talks about isn't against other believers, but with one's own flesh in fully attaining to one's calling. Each one has a different calling, and there are enough prizes to go around! We're one body!

I used to be of the attitude that the Word of Faith churches were God's cutting edge, and those who refused the message were rightfully away behind, "eating our dust". That was until I realised that God isn't finished with the "other" churches yet.

What I came to realise is that there are many people who sincerely love the Lord in all the churches, who truly desire to live their lives according to the word of God. Many of them haven't accepted the Word of Faith message. Many of them aren't even Charismatics! (This is also an exhortation to Pentecostal/Charismatics in general, as to our attitude towards Evangelicals and Fundamentalists) Which is more important - their sincere love of the Lord, and their desire to follow him closely; or the accuracy of what they believe?

My heart told me it's their love.

So which one ought to be our criteria for seeking fellowship?

It's the bond of love and peace that unites us, according to Colossians 3:14 & 15, I Peter 4:8 and Ephesians 4:3.

I began to realise that to insist on accuracy in the minor points of doctrine as being the criteria for fellowship - which, really, the distinctives of the Word of Faith stream are, in retrospect - is to give ourselves over to a sectarian spirit.

When Cindy Jacobs was in Kuala Lumpur in 1994, she told us how the Lord dealt with her about her sectarian attitude. That's when I realised that I must repent of mine.

She told of how she was invited to be on the intercessory prayer team during the Consultation on World Evangelism when it was held in Minilla. She understood that she would be with prayer warriors from all kinds of churches, including non-Charismatic, and non-Pentecostal. She wondered how she was going to cope with the boredom of having to restrain her prayer language and sit through what she thought would be a mediocre week of quiet prayer meetings. As it turned out, those from the conservative churches, likewise wondered how they would cope for a whole week with a bunch of Pentecostal tongue-talkers. She described how, on the first day of the meetings, she and her Pentecostal-Charismatic prayer warriors stood on one side of the meeting room eyeing the other crowd, who were eyeing them back. Both sides were thinking to themselves, "Do I have to spend all week with those people?"

They were all in for a surprise! Though the conservatives didn't "convert", Cindy Jacobs said it was the most powerful set of prayer meetings she ever attended.

But if they love the Lord so much, why haven't they accepted what is obviously a revelation from God?

Often, because the message came to them through the words and actions of an immature Word of Faith or Charismatic believer - one whose words said the right things, but their actions proved that they hadn't fully learned the lesson themselves. The messenger talked about faith, but showed very little love.

But if they truly love God, wouldn't they humble themselves and be willing to receive truth from one less mature than themselves? After all, Jesus said, "Unless you become as a child..."

Maybe. But I'll speak for myself:

My spiritual upbringing was in an environment that was conducive to accepting revelations from God as they came "hot off the press". I did not have to swim upstream, as it were, to embrace the rock of truth. I was not surrounded by fellow church members who opposed my hunger for more of God when it meant going against the status quo. And, I had not have a lot of "humble pie" to eat, as some do if they are to "cross over" to the "side of the truth". If I did, I doubt greatly that I'd be where I am now. It's only by God's mercy, not by my brave gallantry, that I stand where I do.

Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, turn around, and say to one in such a situation that his or her love for God is deficient because he won't believe as I do.

And yet, their sincere love for God has led them to valuable lessons in God's word that we, in the Word of Faith and Charismatic streams have yet to receive. Those lessons are there for us, too, but only when we humble ourselves and allow them - yes, the "religious, stuck in the mud traditionalists" - to teach us! God doesn't come to us on our terms. We come to God on His terms, and that means fully accepting our brothers and sisters of other persuasions, as being truly one body and one faith with ourselves.

We need to repent of having indiscrimatly used the tag "religious" on all who won't fully accept Word of Faith teaching. True, we do need to guard against religious spirits, but the definition of a "religious spirit" isn't "one who doesn't accept Word of Faith teaching". However, flippantly calling them "religious" does drive them even further away, while, at the mean time, our pride in this matter is what opens us to a religious spirit.

We need to do our utmost to include the rest of the body rather than alienate them. A good example of what can happen when we do so, is what began in Toronto in 1994.

When the ministry team from Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship came to hold a meeting in Bangkok in 1995, Jim Paul told us of one of the factors that led to the "Toronto" move:

Randy Clark, a Vineyard pastor, had been deeply hungering for a touch from the Lord both for himself and for his church. He had been several places to seek it, and finally he went to a Rodney Howard Browne meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This was attended by numerous Word of Faith believers and pastors.

However, before he could receive the touch from the Lord he was seeking, he was compelled by the Holy Spirit to repent and apologise on his own behalf and on behalf of the Vineyard movement of harsh criticism towards the Word of Faith movement. Only when he did so, was he renewed. In fact, he was filled to the point that, when invited to hold meetings in Toronto in January of 1994, it overflowed and initiated the "Toronto Blessing".

After telling us this, Jim Paul asked if there were anyone present from the Word of Faith movement. There were two of us present, and we both were asked to stand up (actually, I had stopped referring to myself by any label except "Christian", but being that I had been spiritually nurtured through the Word of Faith movement, I felt it was only right to stand up). He then apologised to us both, on behalf of the Vineyard churches (which, back then, TACF was still a part) for their criticism of the Word of Faith movement.

The principle here is, the more we want the Holy Spirit to move, the more room we must make for Him by building bridges between previously separated sections of His Body.

The more I hear about what God is doing, the more amazed I am. God used Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland to teach on faith and healing to Pentecostals. Then, lest anyone be left out because they can't understand Pentecostal terminology, He used C. Peter Wagner and the late John Wimber to reach those who had problems listening to Kenneth Copeland. Then, He used an unprecedented move of the Spirit in Toronto to reach stiff-upper-lip Canadians and Englishmen who couldn't stomach anything too "American". Then, lest the traditional Pentecostals feel put off by Canadians in bluejeans, He moved again in Pensecola at an AOG church!

Let's all follow the example of the Holy Spirit, and be bridge builders rather than castle keepers.

"Baruch" is something like an acrostic of the author's real name (B.Ch.). Baruch lives in Thailand, where he helps in a slum charity for AIDS patients and homeless children. He also writes, draws cartoons, plays the violin and maintains the Tishbyte Web Publishing website. His wife, Blessing, works with YWAM. All in all, they have a wonderful time.

For those who followed this link looking for a theological treatment of the Word of Faith message in a more-or-less positive way, here's the link page of Troy Edwards' site, on which I just happened to find a link to this page.

Other books by baruch...

...judging by the visit counter, Baruch's most popular book:

...the one Baruch wishes was his most popular book:

...on repentance, another highly under-rated subject:

1 Kenneth Hagin's own words, familiar to those who have heard him more than once. The account is related in his book, I Believe in Visions, Kenneth Hagin Ministries. return to text

2 ibid. return to text