By Len Hjalmarson

MY wife and I joined a Vineyard church in 1994, the year ‘renewal’ broke out in Toronto. Vineyard churches in Canada were strongly impacted, and soon the renewal became a blessing to hundreds of thousands of believers worldwide.

Yet this unprecedented blessing apparently made some sincere Christians blind to the problems raised by certain theological streams in the renewal.

We later joined another church involved in the renewal. Though we didn’t know it at the time, this church was flirting with Restorationism. Its leaders were influenced by the Kansas City Fellowship, the CNET team and Lance Wallnau.

Eventually, my wife and I left this church. We left in spite of the fact that the Lord was doing many good things there, and we continued to love and respect those in leadership.

A growing unease

Why did we leave a church community which was participating actively in the renewal movement?

It wasn’t an easy decision. At the time, there were many things that were unclear; but we felt a growing unease. We couldn’t articulate all the reasons for our discomfort. It was clear the Lord was leading us out, but we didn’t understand why.

You may be under the influence of Restorationism yourself; it is increasingly common, particularly in charismatic circles. But even some who teach from a Restorationism perspective don’t know its history, its dangerous approach to scripture or its lack of solid biblical foundations.

Speaking at the First World Pentecostal Conference in Zurich, Switzerland in 1947, David J. Duplessis declared: “There is nothing that can ever take the place of the Holy Spirit in the church. Let us pray for a greater outpouring than ever, and remember: when the flood comes, it will overflow, and most probably cause chaos in our regular programs.”

There was a prophetic ring to DuPlessis’ declaration, for within a number of months, a controversy erupted within the Pentecostal theatre – threatening to split the movement wide open, and usher in the predicted chaos conditions.

Latter Rain

History came to identify this controversy as the Latter Rain Movement, with its origins in North Battleford, Saskatchewan in 1949. Its lax exegesis of scripture became the cause of their doctrinal drift on a variety of theological themes.

In The Third Force, Gordon F. Atter, a recognized authority on Pentecostal revivals, cites a number of  traits which doctrinally set the Latter Rain Movement apart from orthodoxy:

• ‘kingdom now’ teaching, emphasizing God’s complete sovereignty over nature and active dominion over sin, sickness and the devil – and lack of a theology of suffering;

• restoration of the offices of apostles and prophets to the church;

• claims of having received ‘eternal physical life,’ espousing the idea of immortal ‘Manifest Sons of God.’

While the effects of the movement were minimized by 1955, it has not faded from view. It exists today in a more contemporary form as Restorationism, an eschatological reading of scripture calling for a ‘recovery’ of Davidic worship, praise and service. Proponents claim that this kind of worship was lost to the church between the death of the apostles and the Dark Ages.

This ‘recovery,’ which is said to have commenced from the time of the Reformation under Martin Luther, supposedly enables man to experience all that God had planned in the very beginning.

Close cousin to the Latter Rain, Restorationism may be identified under a broad assortment of other names: New Kingdom Teaching, Ultimate Movement, the Praise Movement, Manifest Sons, the Melchizedek Order and the Tabernacle of David.

Patchwork quilt

One cannot expect uniformity on all matters of creed among Restorationists. Like a patchwork quilt, its proponents display a variety of shades and hues. But there are two necessary elements needed in order for an individual to adhere to Restorationist or Reconstructionist teachings.

• a view of prophecy and prophetic teaching which gives them almost equal authority as scripture;

• a spiritual and allegorical method of interpretation, as opposed to historical and grammatical methodology

Continue article >>

Apart from this methodology, it is impossible to justify teachings like the restored Tabernacle of David, Kingdom Now theology or the particular amillennial approach to prophecy and the restored church.

Among Restorationists, the prophetic voice is of paramount importance. Consider the words of Earl Paulk, in his book The Wounded Body of Christ:

“Prophetic voices of God must take the lead, and speak as God in the flesh . . . . Before the church can become the glorified church God is waiting for, our ears must be open to hear prophetic words of God. It is not prophecy to teach what has already been prophesied. Prophecy opens up to new revelation, insight and dimension.”

Paulk continues, informing us that “the prophet is the only means God has of communicating to the world.”

We are advised that “mysteries are being unfolded today for the church, that have never been understood.”

This idea is further expanded in his book, Ultimate Kingdom. In Chapter One, ‘Principles of Interpretation,’ we read: “Many things that were not recorded are now being revealed unto the sons of God by the Holy Spirit.”

The Bible is the written word of God – and because it is, the Old and New Testament scriptures are authoritative and inerrant. In all matters of doctrine, it stands infallible.

That was then . . .

However, Paulk would have us believing and yielding to present-day utterances and revelations in the same measure as canonical scripture. It is not that Restorationism denies the revelatory quality of scripture. Rather, it subtly exchanges the Bible – God’s  ‘then’ word – as the reforming voice within the church, for a ‘now’ word.

The ‘now’ word arrives in several dimensions:

• we are in the last days, and about to experience the ‘final harvest’;

• the Lord is restoring ‘the tabernacle of David,’ or Davidic praise and worship

• the Lord will not return until he comes for a spotless bride; therefore the Lord is purifying his church, and therefore we must strive for purity.

• apostles and prophets are being restored to the church in order to purify and equip us for full restoration and Jesus’ return.

While many are familiar with the broad outlines of restorationism, not even Restorationists themselves always understand the foundation they are building on.

The standard Restorationism timeline is outlined in a section of  John Bevere’s The Fear of the Lord.

First, the author quotes Hosea 6:1-2:

“Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, but he will heal us; he has stricken, but he will bind us up. After two days, he will revive us; and on the third day, he will raise us up, that we may live in his sight.”

Then comes Bevere’s interpretation:

“This passage is a prophetic scripture describing God’s refinement of his church in preparation for his glory. He has torn, but he will heal. A day with the Lord is a thousand years        (2 Peter 3:8). It has been two full days (2,000 years) since the resurrection of the Lord.

“We are on the verge of God’s reviving and restoring his glory to his temple. The third day speaks of the 1,000-year reign of Christ, when he will live and reign in our sight.

“Hosea gives further instruction about how to live and what to pursue as we prepare for his glory: ‘Let us know, let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord. His going forth is established as the morning: He will come to us like the rain, like the latter and former rain to the earth.’”

God’s glory

To John Bevere and other Restorationists, “we are rapidly approaching the latter rain of God’s glory.” John believes the Lord has revealed to him the truth of the connections noted above. John would readily admit the interpretation he brings to Hosea 6 is based on a spiritual interpretation of the word, rather than a literal one.

So, is all of this a big deal? We know the Lord is going to return. Why not in our day?

Certainly it is possible. But rather than wait for him, or become preoccupied with a particular prophetic and end-times scheme, we should continue on with the ordinary day-to-day work of building the kingdom.

Len Hjalmarson is a Kelowna writer. More of his articles can be found at NextReformation.com.

June 2008