This particular website has a lot of information on the responses to the situation by both critics and supporters of the revival. (Note: the previous website serves as a good source and compilation of information. However, I cannot disagree more with their view of the whole situation, and especially the spirit in which the posts are written. There’s a way to be critical, and then there’s a way not to be…) Going through it, I’ve found a lot of interesting information. It seems that this time, the charismatic world is even more divided than it was during the Toronto Blessing. This is interesting to note, yet it’s not surprising because there are a lot more concerns about this revival than there were during Toronto. There are a lot of legitimate concerns, the two biggest probably being his emphasis on angels (and one particular called Emma) and the way he’s used violence to pray for healing for people.

The Christian leader that I probably respect the most in terms of how he’s able to be both grounded in the Word and yet open to the Spirit is RT Kendall. Kendall’s very Reformed in his beliefs and has a really solid teaching/preaching ministry and yet has mixed with prophetic charismatics who many charismatics themselves believe are quite extreme. He has an interesting article here where he struggles but eventually concludes that Florida isn’t of God.

Many others who were pro-Toronto Blessing have also come out against Florida. J. Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine (the foremost charismatic magazine) has blogged a few times expressing a lot of concerns about Florida.

I think it’s safe to say that there are a lot of legitimate concerns about Florida. It’s hard to find many people justifying the focus on Angels and Emma - if there is indeed has been a focus on Angels during the meetings. I don’t know for sure because I can’t claim to have followed all the meetings over several months. Whatever it is, Jesus should be central in any Christian meeting. Lee Grady has a got a good article on angels here. And it’s also hard to defend Todd’s use of violence when praying for healing - although it’s to be admitted that God has used dumbfounding methods, I don’t think using violence to heal would be in His character! I don’t doubt the healings that have occurred. As in all healing ministries/events, you’ll find people inflating numbers and hyping things up. Just as you’ll find critics hyping their counter-claims too - e.g. there’s been no evidence of any genuine healings, etc. Maybe Todd can be faulted for being over-enthusiastic in his claims of the number of resurrections that have occurred. But I have no doubt there have been genuine miracles and healings as well as those that would not stand up to careful scrutiny.

I’m more concerned about the angels and violence (and some other doctrinal stuff) than I am about his moral failures. Not because his moral failures can be condoned. By no means. He has to step down (which he has) and should go through a restoration process with accountability (which is what some people like Bill Johnson and others are seeking to go through with him). But if we’re talking about whether the move is genuine or not, his moral failure means nothing. I do not believe that if a person falls into grave moral sin, that means that his ministry has been a fraud and demonic all along. If so, what do we then say of the many saints in the Bible who fell into grave moral sin? Does falling into such sin disqualify their entire ministry? Of course not.

All in all, I think a lot of what has come from Florida was of God due to its fruits. And a lot of it doesn’t seem to be of God also. The critics tend to ignore the fruits and see the focus on angels, the use of violence and other stuff as proof that it’s demonic. I disagree. I think that’s denying the complexity of the whole issue at hand. If it’s totally demonic, then what about the fruits? How about the miracles and healings and the testimonies of changed lives. We cannot ignore that. I’ve heard many testimonies of increased healings and anointing in people’s ministries because of Florida. And I’ve heard of transformed lives. There’s no way that a straight “demonic” stamp can be placed on Florida unless one is prepared to ignore all the good that has come out of it. It would be equally wrong to say that everything from Florida is of God and there’s no need for discernment. Instead, what we need is careful, balanced and constructive criticism. Things are not so black and white. They are complex and so a nuanced, not reactionary, response is needed.

If the many critics had been less reactionary in their response - and recognize that there has been both good and bad coming out of Florida - then certain things may have changed for the better. What many critics have pointed out needed to be heard. But I think many of them jumped to the wrong conclusion and maybe they could have been more helpful if they had handled their criticisms differently. To be fair, I’ve read of how some charismatic leaders (e.g. Rodney Howard-Browne and Robert Ricciardelli) brought some of their legitimate concerns to Todd but they were ignored. So maybe I understand why they went public with criticisms. For them, their concerns are reflective of the fact that the move was demonic or dangerous and so they stated so. I think I would have a lot of similar concerns to them, but even with Todd ignoring them, I wouldn’t label the move demonic or dangerous. The stance I would have taken is to be cautious yet open to receive anything God has for us, and also be slow to jump to conclusions too easily or quickly.

In June 2008, Peter Wagner, Ché Ahn, Bill Johnson and John Arnott (who pastored the Toronto Blessing) held a service to commission Todd Bentley. They’ve been criticized by many in the charismatic movement for aligning themselves with Todd. As this statement by Doris Wagner and this by Peter Wagner show, the commissioning didn’t mean that the four agreed with everything of Todd’s ministry. In fact, they had many concerns too and wanted to bring some order and accountability to the move, recognizing that God was moving through Todd but there were a lot of things that were not right too. So they decided to stand by Todd against all the attacks he’s been getting. It wasn’t meant as a total endorsement of all Todd was doing.

I respect the four of them for doing so. I think that their move to stand by Todd has caused a lot of friction between them and a lot of their friends. So they showed courage in taking a stand. The above two statements made it clear that they felt strongly (against other people’s advice) that they needed to align apostolically with Todd first before they could speak their concerns to him. After the alignment service, they started to deal with the concerns and Peter stated that his team of 10 apostles (one of them being Lee Grady, who has been quite critical of the move) has identified 24 issues which they plan to report on.

The four are to be commended for not shying away from the issues and concerns. I think most people thought that Peter, John, Bill and Ché Ahn’s presence at that commissioning/alignment service meant that they endorsed Todd. And I think that’s a reasonable conclusion that one would draw from observing the service. The truth, however, is different. They weren’t there to give unconditional endorsement of Todd and the revival. Rather, they believed it to be a move of God and risked a lot to be identified with Todd because they wanted to help sort out the problems in this move. Rather than just condemning Todd and the move from afar, I think they did the right thing. Despite the fact that their involvement drew much criticism, they still got involved for the benefit of the move and Todd.

My only criticism is that they probably could have addressed the concerns about Todd and the revival a lot quicker than they did. If fact, they probably hadn’t addressed any of them before Todd stepped down. If they had done so, things may have turned out differently. But of course I can imagine how busy these ministers/apostles are! Though I don’t think this isn’t a very good excuse. If the four of them really felt God’s hand upon Todd and Florida and yet knew that there were a lot of concerns that needed to be addressed, they should have done so quickly. The quicker the better because Florida was being heavily scrutinized by the Christian world. If they felt Florida was a special move of God, then they should have done everything they could to make sure that God is fully glorified through it. Their other appointments should not have been put before addressing the issues at Florida.

Despite Todd stepping down, I hope the report about the 24 issues would still be written. I think we all could learn a lot from it. I’d like to end with Bill Johnson’s thoughts on this whole affair which can be seen in the three videos below. The title is “The Battle for Grace”. It challenged me (especially what he said about Saul in the OT) and helped me understand why the four of them above chose to stand with Todd.

It’s about me wanting more of God. Wanting to touch Him, and wanting Him to touch me. Bad theology? I dunno. Maybe? But, maybe not. The phrases “wanting more of God”, “wanting to touch Him” and “wanting Him to touch me” may not be biblical (?) but I think the cry behind it is. For example, one of my prayers during this time is Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3:17-19:

And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have the power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge - that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

This is clearly a prayer for a greater experience of God and of Christ’s love. The Ephesians are already “rooted and established in love”. Paul is writing to the Church (Christians) in Ephesus. And his prayer is that they may “know this love that surpasses knowledge”. An oxymoron. But no doubt, it’s about an experience because it surpasses knowledge. I do believe such an experience of Christ’s love comes through good preaching and teaching that results in a good understanding of Christ’s work for us. But I think it goes beyond that too. One can know a lot, but not experience much. One can be very knowledgeable, but it can all be head knowledge. I think this prayer is a prayer for “more”. We’ll never fully grasp how wide and long and high and deep the love of Christ is. We’ll never be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God here on this earth. But we can grow in our experience of Christ’s love and of God.

Or take what Paul said in Ephesians 5:18, “Be filled with the Spirit”, which actually means a continuous filling - “Keep on being filled with the Spirit”. Jeff Purswell of the Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) expands on SGM’s statement of faith passage, “The Holy Spirit desires to fill each believer continually with increased power…” with the below:

The statement emphasizes the necessity of the ongoing nature of the Spirit’s work, including continual and repeated fillings of the Spirit (cf. Eph. 5:18). While one’s theological framework is important, we are nonetheless more concerned that second, third, fourth, fifth… sixtieth… (etc.) encounters with the Spirit actually occur than we are with what one should call a second encounter with the Spirit (either a “baptism” or a “subsequent filling”).

I think that’s my cry here. To experience Him in a greater way. To experience more and more of the Spirit. To experience subsequent encounters and never be satisfied with what I’ve got or how much God has got me.

As I mentioned in this entry, I’m not going to be too critical of a friend who I believe was recipient of wrong teachings but who nevertheless experienced a touch from God. Her seeking of God may be based on the wrong teaching (regarding the Tabernacle of God), but as I wrote,

while disagreeing with the above teaching (i.e. what I think is a wrong teaching on the Tabernacle of God), I recognize that many lives have been transformed for the better as Christians are challenged to seek God more and more. To me, this can only be a good thing. And maybe at times better than if one has the right theology regarding the Tabernacle of God and yet become passive and don’t continuously seek God or the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18).

Growth is important for Christians here on earth. We haven’t arrived; we’ve only begun. It’s fundamental to know who we are in Christ, that there is no condemnation and that we’re righteous in God’s eyes because of Christ’s work on the cross. But the Christian life doesn’t stop there. We ought to experience more and more of Christ’s love and be filled more and more with the Spirit. It’s about growth in intimacy and experiencing the Father in Christ through the Holy Spirit in a greater and greater way.

Beyond seeking more of God, I wanna hear God’s voice too. I want to be led by Him. I want such an experience. I’ve been fascinated down the years by Christians (mostly charismatics) who speak of being led by God through His voice. I’ve always thought that that would be cool, but how come that never happened in my life? At least not in a dramatic or consistent way. Am I missing out on something? I wrote this year about hearing God’s voice here and here. So it’s definitely something I’ve been thinking about recently. And something I hope to gradually experience more of.

I’ve been reading John Eldredge’s Walking with God. Not the kind of book I’d normally read because I don’t think Eldredge is very grounded biblically - as say someone like John Piper. Not that I read a lot of Piper at all - I don’t. I respect him, but I’ve had a decade of being influenced by Reformed Christians and Reformed theology. I think I’ve got a good biblical foundation, but I realize that there’s more to Christianity than that Christian tradition can offer.

Eldredge’s book is all about hearing God and that’s why I bought it. And I’ve loved it so far. I’m not sure I’ll agree with a lot of his theology but I’m not put off by that. I like the book because it’s a very personal book and he shares a lot about his experiences of hearing God and other things. I don’t think I’ll read his other books eventhough he’s more famous for some of his other ones.

Reading and understanding can be helpful, but I guess it’s ultimately about practicing and experiencing. And that’s what I hope for this season. I’m going on a bit of a fast and cutting out on various things in order to focus more on God. It’s not easy. Habits need to be changed. But I think it’ll be worth it eventually. Cheers!

I can’t say I’m very competent in my Spanish. On the one hand, I definitely haven’t forgotten it totally like many people do when they have few opportunities to practice it. I have a very good friend with whom I have been practicing Spanish with since I started learning it. On the other hand, I’m not where I should be with all my experience in a Spanish speaking country and studies in the language. My speaking is pretty OK - it’s better than my speaking of Mandarin. However, my listening is quite poor (worse than that of Mandarin) and one area I hope to work on.

Since I took up the language, I’ve never ceased in my desire to improve. However, I haven’t always put in the necessary time nor did I go about seeking to improve my Spanish in the right way. I’ve got a lot of resources in Spanish, but I think one has to be smart in the way one goes about improving in a language. For example, a lot of my resources are just too difficult for me and what happened was I started to give up in using them.

Most Spanish materials you buy in Singapore are of the beginner’s level. You don’t find many intermediate to advanced materials around - simply because there isn’t that much of a demand for them. And that’s one of the problems I faced with improving my Spanish. Over the past few years, I ended up buying a lot of materials from overseas but they proved too difficult for me and had a demotivating effect upon me.

Having gone into English Language Teaching (ELT) or Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in the past year, I’ve also learned a lot about the best way for one to learn a language which I hope to apply to my own learning of Spanish. Anyway, the below are some resources which have excited me recently.

I just ordered and received 7 Spanish graded readers from European Schoolbooks. I think one of the most important ways to improve one’s first or second language is through reading. I improved my English when I started reading English books. For many years, I’ve been trying to find Spanish books to read. I bought the first book of Harry Potter and many Spanish magazines but I ended up giving up. Why? Because there were too many new words I didn’t understand and going to the dictionary always eventually demotivated me. That’s why graded readers are so important. These are books that contain grammatical structures and vocabulary at certain levels. Language learners can buy such books that are at their level and enjoy the book without having to always look up words in the dictionary. I bought these books with the audio CDs so I can also improve my listening.

A website which I recently discovered is SpanishPod. I plan to listen to these free podcasts to improve my Spanish. There are hundreds of free 10 minutes or so podcasts whereby Spanish is explained with English. They’re pretty good! You can pay a bit for the transcripts and some exercises. If not, you can just download the podcasts for free. There’s also a ChinesePod version which I should really start on too! Haha!

Another interesting website which I thought of subscribing to (but I decided it was too expensive) is LoMasTV. I think it’s an awesome way to improve one’s Spanish. It’s basically Spanish videos with both English and Spanish subtitles.

Recently I also decided to start buying DVDs that have Spanish audio and Spanish subtitles. Rather than buying movies, I decided that getting Comedies would be good because each doesn’t last that long. If it’s too long (like movies) and you don’t fully understand what’s going on, you kinda lose motivation because you can’t follow what’s going on. So I’m hoping to watch one episode each day.

I’m also going to try and read more of my Spanish Bible. I have about 10 Spanish Bibles - mostly Spanish-English parallel Bibles. I bring my New Testament Spanish-English parallel Bible everywhere I go although I tend to read only the English side. I have to start to read the Spanish side more often.

There’s also this cool Spanish program I downloaded that I hope to use - WordsGalore. It’ll help me improve my Spanish vocabulary.

I got to know some of the above resources from this good Learning Spanish Blog. Lastly, for Singaporeans who hope to get to know other Singaporeans who are interested in Spanish things, you can go to the Spanish in Singapore Yahoogroups. Lastly, anyone interested to find out more about learning Spanish, please feel free to contact me at idealist@stillhaventfound.org and I’d be glad to give you some advice based on my experience.

The workshop I attended was called “Reaching International Students in Singapore”. This is of course the topic I’ve been into recently. The session was led by the people from the Fellowship of Evangelical Students (FES). These are the people in charge of the Christian Fellowship (CF) groups at the various University and Polytechnic campuses throughout Singapore.

The 2.5 hours session consisted of introductory talks and some activities. I’ll just mention some interesting things that were mentioned. One speaker mentioned that Singapore was previously seen as the Antioch of Asia. That is, we’re a base to send out missionaries to the surrounding countries. And while that’s still true, he pointed out that many people are now flocking to Singapore - foreign workers and students. It’s interesting to see it this way. While there’s still a great need for missions in terms of moving cross-culturally, it’s good to recognize that a lot of students and workers are coming to Singapore and there’s a huge harvest field here in Singapore.

It was also mentioned that the top 6 countries from which foreign students come are, in order, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, India, Vietnam and South Korea. It’s also important to note that Singapore is aiming for 150,000 foreign students in Singapore by 2015. So there’s only going to be more of them coming.

While I thought the session was pretty OK, I felt it didn’t give a very good big picture of what’s involved in reaching out to international students here. The reason is because the speakers were only from one organization. FES does a lot of good work in the Universities and Polytechnics but it has to be noted that most international students do NOT study in these campuses. Most international students do not enter the Government/Public school systems. It was pointed out that only 35% of international students study in this sector. Meanwhile, the majority (65%) study in the private school system. That is, they study in private schools like United World College (UWC) or Singapore American School, but they also study in tertiary-level commercial schools that are sprouting out all over Singapore. These are the schools that offer external diplomas and degrees. For example, a famous tertiary-level private educational organization is Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS). This is one of the biggest around. There are other big ones like Asia Pacific Management Institute (APMI) or PSB Academy. However, there are tons and tons of smaller organizations too that most of us have never heard of.

For me, I’m interested in the international students in these organizations as opposed to those in the campuses that FES has a base in or those in government Primary or Secondary schools or those in International schools like UWC. Why? Because the international students in schools like MDIS or APMI and also in the smaller commercial schools are the most neglected and isolated of all international students. Ok, maybe not so much the bigger commercial schools like MDIS as you have a lot of Singaporean students studying in MDIS. But for the smaller commercial schools, a lot of them consist mostly of international students and hardly any Singaporean students. That means you’ll have fewer Singaporeans to reach out to such students. An international student in UWC or NUS or in local Primary or Secondary schools will have a lot of connections to Singaporean Christian students or churches. Not so for the international students in the smaller tertiary-level private schools. Not only is it more unlikely for such students to hear the gospel due to a lack of Singaporean Christian friends in these schools, but such students are also so much more open to friendships because most of their friends are fellow international students and so they long to get to know Singaporean friends to practice their English and also integrate to Singaporean society.

Therefore, I think it’s these students that are the most interesting lot. They are extremely open and they are longing to get to know other Singaporeans. Another interesting group of international students is the group that comes to Singapore solely to learn English in language schools. They may stay for 3 months or 6 months or a year. Their purpose is only to learn English and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends and so are also extremely open to friendship.

I’ve taught in both kinds of schools before. Right now, I’m teaching in a language school, but before I taught in private school that offers external diplomas/degrees and where about 90% of the students are from China and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends. These people are so open to friendship with Singaporeans and also pretty open to the gospel.

So how do we reach out to these two neglected groups? I believe the best way is to offer free English classes to them…

I left my previous English teaching job in April after fulfilling my commitments there. Then I started my Masters and worked part-time at one of my previous jobs. This was also an English teaching job but to 1-3 students at a time. Also, the students were already quite good at English. Though English was their Second Language (they were mainly Koreans who have come to study in Singapore schools), they were very young and thus caught up very fast - a case for the Critical Period Hypothesis that states that if people below a certain age learn another language, they’d do so much more easily than if the person started their learning past that critical period. Teaching to these students was thus quite boring for me and not very challenging. Firstly, it was not the kind of students I wanted to teach. I want to teach young adults who truly have difficulty learning English. And I want to teach in a classroom setting. The dynamics are very different when teaching in a classroom. It’s much more challenging and different skills are involved. This is what I want to do in future and thus while working part-time there, I was also searching for another job.

I wrote about the reasons why I left my previous English teaching job here. The major reason was because it didn’t really care about the students, but only about making money. More specifically, three things really made me leave. Firstly, I was made to use their coursebooks which they created by themselves. To say the least, it was pathetic and not fit to be used as a text. Secondly, they didn’t grade their students properly. Their students only had two levels to go to! Most language schools would have about 6 levels - Beginner, Elementary, Lower-Intermediate, Intermediate, Upper-Intermediate and Advanced. The implication of having two levels only was that in my class, there were students of varying levels. Of course, that always happens in a language classroom because no two students would have the exact level of language competence. But having only two levels meant that the difference in language ability within each class is even greater than it should be. And you can’t teach well like that. Thirdly, they had an absolutely ridiculous number of students in each class. For example, there were classes with over 40 (nearly 50) students in the register. So I brought up these points to my boss many times but she didn’t understand.

I feel strongly about all this because I know no language school in Australia (and I would probably say also America, Canada, UK and New Zealand, except for the fact that I don’t have any experience there) who would allow what I experienced to occur in their school. They are just too professional to allow all that. It’s about being professional in one’s job. It’s about going along with best practices and measuring up to international benchmarks. Singapore is a country which has always been pretty advanced and modern (except in their human rights and politics) in what they do. But in this area, it’s so far behind that it’s laughable. I do believe we are one of the best in our mainstream education system. I don’t agree with a lot of things, but if you’re talking about the system and the orthodoxy of the system, you can’t complain. It’s up there with the best. But when it comes to their English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, we are just so far behind.

I say the above not just based on my experience of my previous school. But I’ve also been to many job interviews over the past few weeks. I know there are language schools that are trying to do the best that they can with what they have. These are schools with ESL departments led by experienced professionals and they know what they’re doing. But I’ve also come across many schools where it’s only about the money they make.

A lot of schools have no clue what ESL teaching is. People don’t know that the ESL/EFL industry is huge and there’s been decades and decades of research and practical experience to draw from. In Australia (and other English-speaking countries too I’m sure), eventhough you’re a teacher who’s qualified to teach English in a mainstream school, you’ll never be able to teach ESL. You need a TESOL/TEFL/TESL certificate because they know that ESL teaching is totally different from normal English teaching. The methodology is unique. But in Singapore, many schools think that just because you have experience in teaching English in a mainstream school means you’re qualified to teach ESL. I know many schools which advertise that they’ll consider those who have a Bachelor of English or Mass Communications or Arts. What?? Having studied English (let alone the others) in University would definitely not prepare you to teach ESL simply because the way one teaches ESL students requires a set of skills that studying English in University will not give you. I’d go so far as to say that through my experiences in teaching in other areas, I think teaching ESL is probably one of the most, if not the most, difficult kind of teaching there is. If you teach other subjects, the major requirement is to have expert knowledge in that subject area. For teaching ESL, one needs to have both expert knowledge (i.e. of the English language), but it also requires a set of teaching skills that is unique. This is because you aren’t just teaching the content of the English language. That’s just a small part of ESL teaching. You’re also teaching language skills and you yourself have got to possess the skill of using the English language to facilitate English learning. I know of qualified mainstream teachers in Australia who’ve said that they’ve benefited and learned more from their TESOL certificate than from their Postgraduate Diploma of Education. I’ve gone through my TESOL/CELTA certification - all 120 hours of input and 6 hours of meticulously evaluated teaching practice - and till now I still feel so inadequate because there’s so much more to learn.

I did a little bit of research on Australia’s high standards of ESL education. Australia has an ELT (English Language Teaching) accreditation scheme called The National ELT Accreditation Scheme (NEAS). The aim of NEAS Australia is to “establish and uphold high standards of service provision in English Language Teaching in Australia”. Not all English language schools in Australia are accredited by NEAS and of course that just means it hasn’t reached such standards. But many schools are (check it out under the “approved elt centres” link). Looking through the criteria for being accredited, I would posit a guess that probably less than 5% or 3% of language schools in Singapore (or other private schools that have an ESL department) would be able to attain the standards needed for accreditation. I would not be surprised if no school/department here would be able to.

Here are some important standards that I know many language schools/departments would not be able to meet (you can view their Standards and Criteria for ELT Accreditation here):

1) Under the Academic management section, it states that the centre has to appoint “a suitably qualified and experienced person responsible for the academic management” and beyond having a recognized degree, this person has to have “five years experience in managing and/or teaching on ELT programs” and also a “TESOL qualification at postgraduate diploma level or about”.

I have come across many schools/departments headed by people who would not even come near to such qualifications or experience. I’ve been to many interviews and I don’t recall a single person who’s interviewed me with such qualifications or experience. In fact, most have not taught ESL for many years and most do not even have a TESOL certification. I think I’ve only come across two or three interviewers who I would say have a good knowledge of what teaching ESL is about and who have good qualifications.
a word about degrees and qualifications.

2) Under the Teachers section, all teachers need to have not just a degree but also some sort of TESOL qualification. A teaching qualification would not do. That means, as I’ve already said, that a person can be qualified to teach in mainstream schools with some sort of Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE), but still not be able to teach in the ELT centre. Why? Because teaching ESL is a totally different ballgame.

As I mentioned above, I know many teachers teaching ESL in Singapore who would not be able to qualify as ESL teachers in Australia.

3) Under Teacher professional development, it’s stated that the ELT centre needs to facilitate “ongoing professional development of teaching staff, to ensure teachers are kept up-to-date with current theory, knowledge and practice in the field”. Also, “newly qualified staff are provided with mentoring and support during their first year of employment”.

Again, I know no English school/department in Singapore that does this. And I think this is very important because the new staff need guidance and all the teaching staff need to receive ongoing professional development. Why? Because I think that a TESOL certificate is really the bare minimum that an ESL teacher ought to have. It hardly makes a person a good teacher and there’s still so much more to learn. A school that really cares for its students and its teachers would think about how they can provide teacher development.

4) Under Program delivery, “the student:teacher ratio for classroom based instruction does not exceed 18 students per teacher per class.”

As mentioned above, my first school had about 40 students on average on the class register. I’ve heard of at least 2 classes there just hitting under 50 students!! My previous boss told me the school went by the Ministry of Education’s standards of 40 students per class. I argued back that such standards are not appropriate for ESL teaching.

I’m glad to know, however, that I know no other schools that accept that number of students per class. The most elsewhere I know would be 25 to 30, which is still too high. Many schools I know have between 10 and 20 students, but probably only because they can’t get more per class. If they could get more, I have no doubts that a lot of them would just squeeze them all into one class because it makes good business sense.

Just a note here regarding certification. A certificate or a degree is a just a paper. One can be certified and qualified, and yet be a bad teacher. And one can lack paper qualifications and yet be a great teacher. One owner of a school who interviewed me didn’t care whether its teachers were certified or not. I was quite shocked, not because I think certification is the be all and end all of ESL teaching, but because I think it shows a lack of awareness of TESOL being a very specialized field that requires a unique set of skills to be good at it. Of course, such skills can be learned on the job. It could be learned internally in the school. But schools here don’t train their teachers. Many just think that if you’re experienced in teaching before or if you’re good at teaching in general, you’d make a good ESL teacher as there isn’t much difference between teaching in general and ESL teaching in particular.

Anyway, on to some specific encounters during my search for a job. I’ve talked to at least two people whose experience have further confirmed to me how education is becoming more of a business than about the learning of students. One person was part of a group that came together to start a school because they got so sick of their past experiences in the education industry and how the people there only wanted to make money. Another person talked about being cheated by a partner.

I also had a good talk with a HR personnel who interviewed me. This person honestly shared with me that the White teachers in the school were given a higher starting salary and didn’t have to do as much administrative work as local teachers. This (along with other repulsive company practices) made me sick and this person shared that she didn’t agree with it, but it was the owner’s policy. We got along well during our talk and so I asked why he continued in his job if he didn’t agree with such practices. I got a good enough answer from him.

In a way, I don’t blame the school for such policies. The students want white teachers, so the school has to provide for them if it wants their business. But it just shows how ignorant the students are and how much of an unprincipled money-grabbing fool the owner is. The owner is a typical Singaporean with a hangover colonial mentality. Compare him and his school with another school owned by a British. I had one of my first interviews (for an ESL teaching job) in Singapore with him. He offered me a job which I didn’t take for some reasons. But I asked him honestly whether it’s hard for a non-White to get an ESL teaching job in Singapore. He said he had no problems hiring a non-White as long as the person is qualified and able to teach well. Skin color didn’t make a difference to him. And he went on to say that if his students came to him to ask for a White teacher, he’d tell the student to either accept the teacher he has or leave. What can I say? Either a very lousy businessman, or one with principles.

I wrote to the Ministry of Education here and asked whether there are any standards for ESL schools and teaching here in Singapore - just like NEAS in Australia. And I’m looking forward to hearing from them if they bother to reply me. While being critical of the many ESL schools here, I do understand that a lot of unprofessionalism comes from a general desire to make money and also ignorance of what ESL is all about. The latter is understandable because we don’t have that long a history of being into ESL like other places like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. These countries have much better standards of professionalism because they’ve been doing this for ages. The ESL industry is only starting to come alive due to more intense globalization. More and more foreign students are coming to Singapore - especially from China, but also from Southeast Asia - and the numbers are only going to increase further as the Singapore government pushes hard to reach its goal of attracting 150,000 foreign students by 2015. All this only means more money and bigger business for many private education organisations. It remains to be seen how the ESL industry in Singapore will develop.

One thing I’ve realized is that there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to provide good education for foreign students. From what I know (which may be wrong), students who come to further their studies in private education organisations here do not really know much about the schools here. That’s because there are just so many around. Sure, there are some of better reputation. But then there are so many other small ones offering education programs. Students overseas mostly go through agencies in their home countries. By the time they reach Singapore, most would already have chosen which school to go to. And agencies over there don’t care whether the school is good or not, but only how much commission they get from the school. So the agencies would probably recommend a school that pays them more per student.

Therefore, a good language school which puts the students’ language learning above making money and which thus invests in good teachers and good facilities and makes sure that the classroom size is small, etc., may not make as much business as a school which puts money first and doesn’t care so much about the students’ learning, but which has more money to pay agents overseas. There’s thus very little monetary incentive to be a good language school.

Of course, Singapore does have accreditation schemes for private education organisations, but I don’t think they have any yet in regards to ESL teaching. I hope one day they will come up with one like NEAS in Australia, although I think it’s still a long way away.

Just watched the above. Awesome, awesome stuff. Need to watch more of these kind of things! The more I watch them, the more my heart is challenged to get out of this comfort zone which I’ve been in far too long. As I mentioned here, reading The Heavenly Man really challenged me. And I’ll probably look back upon that as a defining moment in my life. It made me think really seriously about being a missionary to China. It made me think seriously about being a missionary to a persecuted area. It made me think seriously about improving my really bad Chinese (Mandarin)!

I stopped learning Chinese when I was 10 years old when I left for Australia. When I returned back to Singapore, I didn’t want to study Chinese (I had too much to catch up) and was allowed to take German as my second language. So I’m your typical English-educated Banana/Potato (white on the inside, yellow on the outside for those not in the know) Singaporean who grew up not really liking Chinese. Of course I regret not continuing my Chinese because I’m so far behind now. People talk about Singaporeans being poor in their Chinese and that makes me even more discouraged to pick it up now because I’m so much worse than the typical Singaporean of my age! But I think I may pick it up real soon. Not sure whether I should because I don’t know if I’ll use it in future. Besides the fact that I’d like to spend time mastering my Spanish, I’m also not sure if I’ll go to China in future. I think there are places in the world that need missionaries more urgently than China - like Muslim nations and the unreached places. And anyway, I’m not sure how much I’m needed in China. The lives of Christians there would put all of us to shame. They know what it means to live for Jesus more than any of us. They know what persecution is about and they’d gladly suffer it. That can’t be said of us in the developed world. They’d make so much better missionaries to unsafe places (like Muslim nations) because they’ve experienced enough in their own country to not fear persecution!

Christianity in China is easily the real deal - clearly what Christianity is meant to be like. Of course, such forms of Christianity (when people are truly living for God and not building their own kingdom) are seen everywhere. But I don’t see much of it in the developed world. The Christians in China and places like that are the true warriors of faith. No doubt about that. No Christian leader in the developed world (no matter how famous or well-known) could even compare to most of those faceless heroes in China and the like.

I can’t wait to get Brother Yun’s new book Living Water. Though I don’t expect to agree with all the teachings in it (the book is meant to be of his teachings). I can admire his dedication to God without agreeing with everything he teaches. One can live the true Christian life without having one’s doctrines perfect, just as one can have his doctrines perfect (or more perfect) yet not live as one ought to live. I admire his lifestyle. But I probably wouldn’t agree with everything he teaches. I wasn’t comfortable with some of the songs I heard on the above video which focused more on what the Christians are going to do for God, rather than on what God has done for them in Christ. I still love grace and believe that good biblical teaching and preaching should be focused primarily on God’s grace as shown to us in Christ’s death for us. And that’s clear in the posts I’ve written on grace. What God has done for us in Christ is what the gospel is all about. The gospel of Christ is the message of God’s love for us in Christ. The gospel is not about about what we ought to do for God, it’s what God has already done for us. And yet there’s also a side of me that believes so greatly on giving my all to God - a place I’m very far from now, of course. (If I’m truly living that out, I won’t have time to blog. Duh!) I believe that Christians are called to give their all, to stop building their kingdom (which I think most Christians are actually doing, especially in the developed world) and to start living wholeheartedly for God and His glory alone. How do I reconcile the emphasis on God’s grace and the call to give all? It’s difficult. There’s a certain tension there, I admit. I love New Creation’s grace message (not everything, but a lot), but in my opinion there’s no way that the lives of the majority of the members of New Creation reflect how Christians are meant to live. I love the passion and zeal among City Harvest members for the lost (when they’re not thinking only of money), though I can’t agree with a lot of the teachings which lack the focus of grace. The lifestyle of City Harvest members challenges me (when they’re not chasing after money). I want to be in such an environment. It’s definitely closer to what I envision Christianity is meant to be, than it is in New Creation. The missions and reaching the lost. That’s beyond exciting! That’s what it’s meant to be like!

While I’ve been generally supportive of the Florida Healing Revival, I’d prefer to see Christianity in China as a model of how Christianity ought to be like. Up to this point, I don’t doubt that what’s happening in Florida is the work of God. But we also have to get our perspectives right. Christianity isn’t all about healing and miracles. Jesus promised persecution. Christianity as it’s meant to be would be filled with healings, miracles and persecutions too. It’ll be filled with suffering and victory. All of that happened in Brother Yun’s life and in the lives of many Chinese Christians. And I’m very sure that one day the Church will be awakened from its state of slumber. We will see increased healings and miracles, but also increased persecution. To tell you the truth, I can’t wait for that day…

I’m mentioning this testimony because I believe it’s important to deal with it. A lot of people reject the charismatic movement because there’s been a lot of abuses and excesses. If only charismatics would be more open to criticisms and recognize the correctness of certain criticisms, then there would be less anti-charismatics around and the charismatic movement would be more mature. There’s been dogmatism in both the charismatic and non-charismatic worlds of Christianity - not just in the non-charismatic world. And if we let go of that dogmatism, both sides can learn much from each other.

It’s the same thing with revivals. There’ll be a lot of abuses and excesses. And if the proponents of revivals would recognize this and be open to criticisms and if criticisms were done in a gentle and loving way, the revival would learn from its mistakes and more people would be open to God’s move.

Melinda Fish wrote the below regarding the Toronto Blessing:

Leaders must be confident they are acting out of obedience to the Lord, yet gentle in their approach to their parishioners. This is no time to display arrogance or imply that anyone reluctant to jump into the river is unspiritual or does not love God.

Beloved, can we refrain from using words like false prophet, deception… and demonic in reference to those with whom we disagree? Can we speak gently and humbly to our brothers and sisters, so that we may turn them around rather than provoke them to anger? Can we entertain the possibility that we, too, might be wrong in certain aspects? Can we, as mature Christians, be easily entreated, sympathetic, kind to all and patient when wronged?

I’m going to assume that the above testimony (of the pastor being proclaimed healed but then dying later on) is true in its every detail, which of course may not be correct. It’s very possible that the testimony is not accurate and this doesn’t have to be because the person was seeking to deceive others. There could be miscommunication involved. But I’ll give the author of the testimony the benefit of the doubt and assuming what was said is true, I think that Todd Bentley needs to respond to this unfortunate situation. That’s the right thing to do. It’ll be an uncomfortable thing to do, but it’s the right thing to do. How he ought to respond to it, I don’t know. But I know if he doesn’t respond to it, I don’t fault people for being disillusioned with him and the revival.

For me, even if Todd was at fault in this situation, I will not condemn the revival as fake or demonic because of it. Todd isn’t perfect. God works through imperfect people. I don’t believe that if a person prophecies falsely or proclaims wrongly that someone is healed, that that person is a false prophet and dangerous. Surely, false prophecies ought not to be treated lightly. Years back I was very disturbed that a well-known prophecy regarding the people in my country was proven false and that no one seemed to care about it. I talked with my pastor and friends about it and argued that someone should confront this person who prophesied falsely. I treated this issue seriously. It wasn’t that hard to confront the people (all well-known leaders) who accepted this prophecy and distributed it. It wasn’t difficult to confront the person who prophesied. But I knew that most wouldn’t care. And surely, no one I talked to cared much. I wasn’t too happy with how they treated a false prophecy lightly. But being a charismatic for a long time, I expected people to treat false prophecies lightly and not to care that much. There are definitely a lot of abuses regarding prophecies in the charismatic world.

All I wanted was for the person to own up to his mistake and the leaders who distributed the prophecies to own up to theirs. This is the right thing to do. It’s about honesty and integrity. It’s what God would want of those involved. My charismatic theology accepts that these things happen - i.e. we’re imperfect in our hearing from God and in our prophecies. That’s why I don’t like it when people speak with so much certainty of having heard from God because it may not be so. We should all have a bit more humility in this area. And when we’re wrong in our hearing from God, we need to own up to our mistakes, not sweep them under the carpet.

Of course, I know many non-charismatics have a different view of prophecies and think that if a person prophecies wrongly, that means the person is a false prophet or of the devil. I don’t believe that. That’s why I’m accepting of people who prophecy wrongly. And I won’t say that Todd or the revival is of the devil just because of this unfortunate incident. But I do expect them to deal with the criticism, apologize if needed and reflect upon the situation. Not doing so will just cause more people to be disillusioned and turned off from the revival.

So I don’t treat false prophecies lightly. But I don’t believe that every single false prophecy is a reflection that the person is from the devil. No, I just think it’s a reflection of our human fallibility and that we’re not perfect when hearing from God.

I do think critics of the revival should recognize that the revival can still be of God eventhough there’s so much imperfection and human error. But I also think that those who are in the revival ought to realize this too. If they do, then they won’t be afraid of confronting and dealing with every mistake they make and every imperfection that occurs. They won’t need to be overly defensive of everything. They will realize that it’s OK to be wrong in certain areas and thus not be afraid to confess their wrongs because they will know that God is gracious and moves in spite of our imperfections and mistakes.

So I’m OK with Todd having made such a serious mistake - if indeed he did. Even if he did, I’m still more positive about the revival than not. Pointing out that mistake (and even if there are many mistakes) doesn’t mean that the whole thing is of the devil. I mean, we got to consider the healings too. There have been many healed. What are we going to say about that? I’m quite surprised that critics of the revival so easily point out all the bad things but never comment on all the good that’s been done. We have to be balanced in our evaluation. And critics of the revival or whatever movement are not being honest if they themselves don’t deal with the good that have come out of the revival or the movement.

I’m not suggesting that we play a math game and that if there are more good than bad then overall things must be good. Rather, I believe there are explanations for everything. There has to be explanation for the bad. And there’s an explanation for the good. If we think this whole revival is fake because of some false prophecies or some people not being healed, we’re not being fair and honest because we fail to see the overwhelming good and the many healings that have occurred. The good doesn’t provide an excuse for the bad. As I’ve argued, the bad needs to be confronted and dealt with. If apologies need to be made, then it ought to be made. That’s the bad. To me, that just proves that there’s imperfection in the revival. It doesn’t mean I can go from seeing the bad to generalizing that everything is bad and the revival is fake.

Revival proponents who think that everything is just perfect and that there have been no mistakes or imperfections in this revival are clearly imbalanced in their evaluation. If they see only the good and refuse to acknowledge that there’s been bad, then their opinions aren’t that credible. But in the same way, critics of the revival who only point out the bad and don’t deal with the good aren’t being balanced in their evaluation either. And there’s a lot of both kinds of opinions around.

I’m not afraid to admit there’s been a lot of questionable stuff in the revival and that’s why I’ve provided links to extremely critical articles. But here I want to respond to those who point out the bad, but dismiss the healings completely. Jack Deere mentions in his book, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, of a lady in his non-charismatic congregation who suffered from depression and had a lot of struggles in her life. She spent years in Christian counseling without much improvement. But when Dr. John White, a charismatic, ministered in his church on the topic of healing, she was instantly set free after some time of prayer and deliverance. Whenever I think of this testimony, I wonder to myself how many more people are like this person who struggled emotionally and who needed healing but didn’t get it for so many years because their church or pastor didn’t believe in such charismatic practices?

By all means, point out the false prophecies. Point out the non-healings. But if that makes us criticize everything and demonize everything charismatic or of the revival, then we’re just going the extreme opposite direction. It’s easy to criticize people when something wrong clearly happened. But how about criticizing those when something good should have happened but didn’t because the people were closed to God’s Spirit? Unlike the situation whereby a bad clearly happened and everyone recognized it (e.g. in a false prophecy), an equally bad situation whereby God’s Spirit didn’t move because we were resistant to Him is different. In the latter situation, it’s not so clear that we erred in our lack of openness to God’s Spirit. But we clearly did.

How about all the people in the same state as that lady above? I’m sure God desires to heal many others emotionally and physically, but because of the pride that leads many non-charismatics to be closed to learning from certain good charismatic practices, how many people continue to be in bondage and how many people remain unhealed? And of course, no one criticizes pastors and leaders who are responsible for not bringing their congregation into the fullness of what God wants for them. But in reality, there should be criticism there.

There have been many people healed in the revival. To reject it as demonic just because of some errors is wrong. If Todd Bentley is to be criticized for his false proclamation of that healing (and I think he should be), then those people who throw everything out because of some errors ought to be criticized for the people not going to the revival and not receiving their healing because they are influenced by the extreme negative criticisms. In the same way that Jack Deere ought to be criticized (and he has already confessed his wrongs) for his long time rejection of the Spirit’s power in healing which probably resulted in many people in his former congregation not receiving healing and freedom, non-charismatics and those against the revival ought to be criticized if their words have indirectly caused some Christians not to be more open to God’s power and thus miss their chance to receive their healing.

My point isn’t that everyone who goes to Florida or who is open to the revival or who goes to a charismatic church will automatically be healed. Nor am I suggesting that everyone should go to Florida or accept this revival as good or accept everything in the charismatic movement. Rather, my point is that we should be honest enough and realize that many people have been healed at Florida and in charismatic churches. And could it be possible that these people probably wouldn’t have received their healing if they hadn’t gone to Florida or if they hadn’t gone to a charismatic church which taught on healing and the power of God to heal - just as that lady in Jack Deere’s church probably wouldn’t have received her healing if the leadership in the church had not invited the charismatic Dr. John White to minister there on healing. Therefore, let us not just criticize the bad. We should do that. We should deal with the bad. But we should also realize that if we prevent good from happening to people, that’s a bad too. That ought to be criticized too.

I think I’ll stop here for this post. In the past few weeks, even more blog posts have been written on the revival than when I started this series. And a lot of negative ones too. I want to accept the good and praise God for the wonderful healings as a result of this revival. And eventhough I’m generally more positive towards the revival, I’ve also read a lot of negative stuff that have concerned me a bit. Not to the extent that I’ll reject this revival as demonic. But as I’ve said here, I think there are concerns that need to be brought out into the open, and not ignored. I’ll touch on more of them in my next post in this series.

Firstly, I have no doubt a lot of what’s happening is of God because of the healings and miracles. I think the ultimate way to judge any revival is through its fruit. It’s the same way to judge miracles and healings and all. Sure, the devil can counterfeit miracles and healings and also revivals and manifestations. But if overall what you see coming out from a Christian meeting (be it a revival or healing or whatever) is people loving Jesus more, then I have no doubt God was in it. When we see weird manifestations happening that we don’t understand, all we gotta do is find out if the person involved has come out of it loving Jesus more or not. That may seem too simple, but I think it’s biblical and based on the Mark 3:24 which says that, “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” Satan would never counterfeit a miracle or manifestation if the person ends up loving Jesus more. Satan doesn’t do things that builds God’s kingdom! He does things that build his own kingdom!

Another thing is that a lot of people go there to seek God and their healing. They don’t go there to glorify the devil. And I have more faith in God’s ability to heal and in His compassion and love to answer His people’s prayers for healing than in the devil’s ability to undermine God’s desire to bless and heal His people. When we ask for something good from our heavenly Father, He’s going to answer it (Matthew 7:11) and not going to allow demonic activity and deception to reign in a place where He is being glorified and earnestly sought after.

Having said the above, that doesn’t mean I think that everything in these revival services are of God or that God would be pleased with every single thing that goes on in these meetings. On the contrary, and as I’ve said many times, I strongly believe that God moves through imperfect people, imperfect circumstances and imperfect theology. And I think there were a lot of that in the Toronto Blessing, in the Pensacola Outpouring and probably even now in this healing revival in Florida.

I’m a strong believer in grace. But I think a lot of these anointed ministers have sometimes preached “mixture” more than pure grace. But I have no doubt that God still moves through them. I think a lot of people (including myself) would be uncomfortable with some of the weird practices that we see in these revival meetings, and perhaps also the focus of these meetings (which oftentimes is the manifestations). I think perhaps God would not have liked the way certain things were done. But I have no doubt that He still moves through these people and still blesses many people.

Let me give another example. In my early days, I used to be a huge admirer of Benny Hinn. But then when I heard how he taught some outrightly unbiblical stuff (and attributed such teachings to the Spirit telling him such is so), I started to be cautious of his ministry. And I know there’s also been a lot of concern about his ministry’s finances - in fact, there seems to be a lot of concern about the finances of many big (charismatic) ministries, especially those from the Word of Faith tradition. Personally, I don’t think God is pleased with the way a lot of these ministers handle their money - especially since they seem to benefit a lot personally from a lot of the donations people give to their ministry. And anyone who knows me or has read my view of money would know how I would feel about such Christians. And I also don’t really like the way Benny Hinn does things - his showmanship on stage and all. I so much prefer such ministers to be humble and not showy - a good example of such a minister is Heidi Baker who has such a humble disposition in everything she does and it shows so clearly on stage. So I’m not crazy over some of his theology, his ministry’s handling of finances and his showmanship. To say the least, I think he’s less than perfect in many ways. I have a lot of things to be critical about regarding his ministry but that cannot prevent me from believing that God moves through him to heal many people. I would definitely bring a friend in need of healing to his meetings if I could. I know God has healed many people through him and I see Jesus being glorified in his meetings. This only brings me to the conclusion that God blesses and uses imperfect people and move through imperfect circumstances - and thank God for that because we’re all imperfect!

It’s good to read too that the leaders of the revival also know that not everything happening there is of God or is totally perfect as this quote by the pastor of the church at Lakeland demonstrates:

Todd [Bentley] and I know that not everything that’s happening here is of God. There’s a whole lot of flesh going on here as well.

I’ve seen videos of the services and at times I was not totally comfortable with a lot that was going on. This has nothing to do with the healings. I stand in awe of all that God is doing through healing so many people! But I’m uncomfortable with the hype and the self- and revival- promotion. I’m uncomfortable with the fact that sometimes there’s very little solid teaching - or any teaching at all. And perhaps the greatest thing I’m uncomfortable with, and I think the thing that most people who be uncomfortable with at first sight of the revival services, is the messiness, weirdness and disorderliness of what’s happening - and especially the bizarre manifestations that are often seen on stage and in the congregation, which J. Lee Grady talks about in his article. I know that these manifestations - especially when they occur on stage - offend a lot of people and have caused them to label these meetings demonic. I understand the concerns of these critics. I myself am uncomfortable when the focus is on such manifestations. But I’m also very careful not to judge just because I’m uncomfortable. A lot of what I see in Florida was there during the Toronto Blessing times. I think the message was different and God moved differently. Florida is a lot about healing and miracles. But the manifestations (laughter, body movements, etc.) are very much the same.

One reason why I’m careful not to be too critical of these bizarre manifestations is because I know when God comes in power, things start to happen to people. Simply put, they start to be overcome by the presence of God. Weird things may happen. Messiness in the congregation will probably result. Things won’t be so orderly. I believe that’s what happened in past revivals of centuries ago. Maybe not that dramatic, but I’m sure there were a lot of things that occurred that would make many people uncomfortable when the power of God comes. Of course, there may be the flesh working and no one in the revival doubts that, as the above quote revealed. I think the important thing to note is not to draw attention to the manifestations and not to allow the manifestations to take the limelight. The manifestations aren’t manifestations of the Spirit per se, but the body’s response to the presence/manifestations of the Spirit. People react differently. Some may do so to copy others. Others may do so genuinely as a response to the Spirit’s presence.

For me, while I’ve been to a lot of such meetings where people exhibited manifestations, I’ve never experienced such things. If anything, I do long to experience an overwhelming presence of God like they have. I haven’t experienced God like that but I’m not going to be critical of people who are genuinely experiencing something of God. I’ve had a lot of negative experiences. I’ve been on the receiving end of pushes (and so have given out ‘courtesy falls’) when people prayed for me. I think it’s wrong to push others and all. There’s no need to stimulate a fall by pushing people over when praying for them. I think this is an area where people seek to replicate certain manifestations and that’s wrong. (This results when people are too focused on the manifestations and think that such manifestations are badges of holiness or spirituality). It’s an abuse still quite common in charismatic circles. But this abuse isn’t going to make me critical of everything because I know many people are experiencing the real thing - the real overwhelming presence of God - and we all have to be thankful for that.

Rob Rufus has some wise thoughts here:

We cannot say that everything that comes out of Florida will be God. There has never been a revival where everything is God.

…I spoke to Terry Virgo while in the United Kingdom who heads up hundreds of churches around the world and he recognizes that the power of God is there. They are genuine and there are genuine miracles. He is saying that as a movement they don’t necessarily embrace the whole package - there are some things they would have questions about.

There’s nothing wrong with having a few questions - there’s nothing wrong with not understanding everything. Put some things up on the shelf. Everything must be tested but by and large I want to strongly say that God is on the move all over the world and what is happening in Florida IS God. There is no question about that. That is God. But everything that happens through different levels and different doesn’t necessarily represent everything that we would agree with. Behind this passionate, enthusiastic face - there is a thinking mind! I am going to test everything through right theology and all of that - and all that I don’t understand I will put on the shelf and I will wait.

…There has never been a revival - not one - where all three (God, the devil, the flesh) didn’t manifest. Some people are pointing, “Look, some of that stuff is fleshly… some of that stuff is demonic… that doctrine is a bit of heresy over there”. Yes I know - but God is also moving powerfully! You will never have a revival where you can get rid of flesh, get rid of the demonic trying to come in

Commenting on his experience of previous revivals, Terry Virgo writes:

What influenced me most significantly was not the extraordinary physical manifestations but the extraordinary lasting change that I observed in the lives of people I knew. Many displayed a new love and devotion to God and a new sensitivity to the Spirit’s presence. Some embraced a new commitment to Christ and his mission to win the world for his name. The physical manifestations gradually faded but the transformed lives have remained.

Ultimately, it’s not about the manifestations, but about positive change. I may be uncomfortable with some of the manifestations but I’ve seen and heard about a lot of positive change in the lives of those in previous revivals and that’s really the main reason why I’ll never say these revivals are demonic.

So while I’m uncomfortable about this and that and while I’ll disagree with the way certain things are done, ultimately I do believe (for now) that this revival was sent sovereignly by God and that He’s moving powerfully in Florida and even throughout the world.

In my next post, I hope to share my thoughts on the criticisms that this revival has received.

A smaller revival that occurred a while later was the Pensacola Outpouring. The focus on this revival was on repentance and holiness. I also managed to visit that Church before I visited Toronto - but again, probably a bit too late by then.

Well, those were pretty exciting times - especially the Toronto one. Weird things happened and so unsurprisingly criticisms abounded of some of the stuff that occurred during the services. At the peak of it all, I was quite caught up and maybe a bit too accepting of everything. I remember defending the Toronto Blessing against some of my friends’ criticisms. This was at a time when I was still thoroughly charismatic and hadn’t encountered the Reformed faith nor come to appreciate the non-charismatic side of Christianity. And so I was caught up with it all - as many charismatics were then.

Anyway, even after encountering and appreciating the non-charismatic side of Christianity years later, I didn’t reject my charismatic roots. Nor did I, after I started to appreciate the non-charismatic Christian world, become critical of all these revivals. Since the Toronto Blessing, many people have reflected upon how one should evaluate such revivals. Many books have been written and a lot of them point to revivals in history and how lots of weird and abnormal manifestations happened as the Spirit moved mightily upon people. Revivals aren’t neat things. They’re messy, not orderly. And lots of abnormal and weird things happen! So it’s not good enough to criticize a revival because of its weird manifestations.

Going back to the healing revival at Florida. I see that the blogsphere is starting to comment more and more on it and the person associated with the revival, Todd Bentley. Adrian Warnock is a respected blogger who has good relations with both Reformed (normally non- or anti-Charismatic) and Charismatic Christians. He recently wrote his thoughts on the revival here. He refers to Terry Virgo, who is the leader of a group of churches called Newfrontiers. Terry has written two posts so far on the revival. His first one was a bit more cautious. His second one, more open. Like Adrian Warnock, Terry and this group could probably be termed Reformed Charismatics too. While I would no longer call myself a Reformed Charismatic (i.e. one who appreciates both the Reformed and Charismatic worlds of Christianity) as I’m not sure how Reformed I still am, I respect such groups and leaders simply because the fact that they can claim to be Reformed in some way or that they have benefited from Reformed theology means that they have a good foundation in theology and are thus different from many flakey charismatics (or charismaniacs).

Here’s Rob Rufus’ thoughts on the revival. He’s a charismatic who is very grace-centered. J. Lee Grady, who I mentioned here, is also a charismatic who I respect. He is the editor of Charisma magazine, which is the most famous magazine for charismatic Christians. And I’ve always considered him to be pretty balanced and not a flakey charismatic. His thoughts on this revival are a bit more cautious.

(By the way, I’ve mentioned flakey charismatics a lot because there are a lot of them around. I’ve been a charismatic long enough to know that. I will always be one but I don’t see the need to defend every charismatic practice because in reality there are lots of weird things going around. I don’t agree with everything and acknowledge the many abuses and excesses. But I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are good and bad in Charismatic Christianity just as there are good and bad in non-charismatic Christianity.)

I also came across this article by Storm Harvest. I am not very familiar with this organization. From their website, their vision is to promote the prophetic (in Australia). I think their article is worth reading as it represents a more critical view of the revival from a pretty charismatic-leaning organization.

And lastly, I’d also like to mention some ultra critical websites simply because I think some of what they have to say merits reading and reflection. One is Revival School and the other is The Revival Army. Both these sites view the revival as demonic and dangerous and while at this stage I actually feel much more positive towards the revival, I think some of the stuff they have written are definitely worth reading. That doesn’t mean I agree with their conclusions, of course.

In my next post, I’ll mention some of my thoughts regarding the revival.

Anyway, yesterday’s service was quite an eye opener. Deborah preached a little bit about children and how God can move through them. She recently held a Children’s Ministry conference at COOS and she also taught the children there how to pray for the sick. So after her preaching, she got a few dozens of children to come out to the front. The children were going to pray for the sick. Then she asked the children if God gave them any Words of Knowledge. This could come through the children feeling a pain in their own body - a way that God could speak to them regarding what He wants to heal. The children who felt God speaking through them this way spoke into the microphone regarding what sickness God wants to heal (e.g. back pains, pain in the right ankle, etc.) and then people who were sick in that area could come up to the front for the children to pray for them. People who felt the pain completely gone then started to testify and probably about 15-20 people testified of God’s healing power during that time.

It’s exciting and wonderful to see God working through these children. Some were probably as young as 5-6 years old. During the ministry time, as time wore on, some children started running and playing on stage. Deborah mentioned that we should realize that they’re still kids. They may pray and God may heal through them, but the next minute they could be slapping their friends!

Just like this situation, I do believe God dearly loves to work through children. It’s all about childlike faith and children have that. They haven’t had enough of life experience to learn how to be scared or shy or embarrassed if their prayers aren’t answered. They just believe and expect God to be true to His Word to heal when they pray for people. I think we adults have to unlearn so many things, get rid of so many negative thoughts and past experiences. We have to renew a lot of our mind and thinking - something that children don’t need to. Unlike adults, they’re not too smart for their own good. They don’t rationalize or reason out everything. If they did like most adults, it’d be hard to have faith. I think Kierkegaard and Luther are right in believing that in a sense faith is opposed to reason. Children don’t use their minds to reason that much. They just believe. And God responds to such childlike faith.