Is Word of Faith Heresy? (Psst...NO!)

Heresy has been a very overused word in the 20th and 21st centuries. It's a word so casually tossed around that, like all things overused by the masses, its true intent finally ends up being gutted of any real meaning.

Traditionally, heresy is a label that is applied to any teaching that is at variance with one of the central tenets of Christianity. Today however, put any theological viewpoint into your Google search engine and hit enter and up pops a host of opinions concerning that viewpoint, with the guarantee you will find a number of those opinions screaming, "Heresy", or "Doctrinally Dangerous" or "Biblically Inaccurate". There is literally no theological perspective that is immune from those critical taglines and since everybody has an opinion and everybody can create a webpage or blog post (as I'm doing) everybody gets to sound off.

No movement or theological perspective has probably received more criticism than the Word of Faith movement. It has been made the subject of whole books dedicated to castigating it as something spawned from the depths of Satan. Treated with the same disdain that the Evangelical church castigated the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements with in the early and mid twentieth century. Just as there was no middle ground with the criticism of those movements, so there seems to be no middle ground today when it comes to the WOF movement. You are either enthusiastically for it or vitriolically opposed to it.

I, having spent the last 30 years of my life as a Christian around the movement, am enthusiastically for it. What that does NOT mean (and this is something critics don't like and doesn't fit in their one size fits all attacks) is that I agree with all that is, or has been, taught within the context of the WOF label. Quite the contrary. I once lost the possibility of becoming assistant pastor of a Church because I voiced concerns over some of the things advocated for in the movement and was viewed as a little suspect after that.

Admittedly, a lot of the criticism of WOF movement is self inflicted because the teachers advocating for it (though themselves holding perfectly orthodox views of the central tenets of Christianity) did not carefully think through what they were promoting in the light of all the scripture. In short, like many ministers today, they didn't do their homework to the degree that they should have. That was (and is) not true of all in the WOF movement but it seemed especially true of a number of high profile teachers in the 80's and 90's when the controversy about the movement came to a head.

Then when correction did come their way the WOF teachers had the tendency to turn a deaf ear to the complaints rather than allow their beliefs to be sifted by the what the critics were challenging them with. Searching out the scriptures, in the light of what their detractors were saying, would have been a healthy thing do because when those beliefs came through the fire they would have stood all the stronger from the examination. Just because somebody yaps, doesn't mean they're right, or that their perspective on the biblical text is the correct one. Every Christian theological perspective, across the board, has a light problem. Because in this age we "see through a glass darkly" when it comes to the revelation of the Word.

In my time I have personally covered at least 5 to 6 of the major books published that criticize the beliefs of the WOF movement, most of which were published (and read by me) in the 1990's and it's not hard to understand why those critiques were virtually ignored by those within WOF. These were not books written with the intent of engaging it's adherents in a pastoral discussion, with the hopes of helping them to see and correct the "error of their ways", if you will. These were full on polemic attacks written with the intent of vitriolically opposing the teachings of WOF while simultaneously making sure those within the critics own Churches were scared away from ever coming near, or adopting anything taught, by WOF teachers. So there was no real intent of biblical engagement on behalf of the authors.

When it came to making sure that the critics didn't lose members to WOF teachings they were, by and large, successful. When it came to destroying the WOF movement or changing the minds of those within it, they were a complete failure.

My own variances with WOF come from being a life long independent thinker and searching the scriptures for myself. They did not spawn from the works of the critics, which were largely based on every caricature and fringe belief they could muster up to mock and degrade. Some of the criticisms were truly laughable and it was easily seen that the author had no real exposure to WOF or what they truly believed. The polemics were penned under the common theological divide that "WOF doesn't believe what we do and therefore it's wrong". Or, "that's really different than what we, or the Church at large, has traditionally taught before and therefore it's definitely heresy". The same taglines which are applied to a couple more modern movements that source from the respectable circles of Evangelicalism (versus Pentecostalism) who defend their movements (as I will WOF) by citing that "not being new" or "not being what YOU believe", doesn't make it unsound, biblically inaccurate, or heresy.

I think what most critics, of any movement, forget is that any Church movement, as a whole, is difficult to capture as to some kind of uniformity. People are by and large independent thinkers and aren't as easily corralled under a doctrinal statement as the critics would like to think. That's true of the adherents of their own theologies as well as those outside of their denominational beliefs. Word of Faith is more nebulous in beliefs than its critics were (and are) willing to admit. Meaning, not everybody in WOF believes every little thing that comes from the pulpits of its teachers, or the shining lights in the movement. And that includes some of the major teachings put under a WOF heading. I personally take the majority of the doctrines of WOF and transplant them onto what I see as a firmer biblical foundation. Yes, believe it or not, that can be done, while yet maintaining the same point as was previously taught.

And even though WOF is something of a nebulous movement, when it comes to a consistent theology, what WOF does do, what really defines it as a movement, is that it gathers people around the central reality that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said in Mark 11:23-24, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21-22, and Luke 17:5-6. And WOF is adamant that all the denominational wiggling, doctrinal prejudices, and exegetical tricks, used to get around what Jesus plainly said, are themselves false. Beyond that central gathering point adherents can (and do) differ regarding how they see or would present, the remaining teachings within WOF.

That variance of beliefs is seen even within one of the works of the critics themselves. In Hank Hanegraaff's book, "Christianity in Crisis" he list (or originally did so) a complaint letter he received from Kenneth Hagin (who many try to peg as the father of the WOF movement) that he didn't like being "lumped in" with many of the other teachers Hanegraaff was opining on. Tacitly stating that he (Hagin) did not believe a lot of the things those other teachers taught.

As well, before Kenneth Hagin passed away he wrote a book called "The Midas Touch" which he intended as a corrective to what he saw as excesses in the message of biblical prosperity. It is well known today that he also convened a meeting of the top teachers in WOF to make them aware of those excesses. Yet even with the respect that Hagin commanded and the "pull" that he had, not everyone walked away from the table in agreement with him. And if I recall correctly, one of the men he had summoned to the meeting declined to come.

I think another thing that critics miss about WOF is that it is now into the second and third generation of teachers within the "movement". The originators having passed, or close to passing, into eternity. As with any movement where that is true (and I'm thinking of that same shift in the 1950's with Dispensationalism) there comes re-evaluation and balance. You still may not agree with what is taught but it would now be inaccurate to state that you're hearing the same message taught the same way as it was in earlier generations. And once again, just because you don't like what your hearing because YOU can't see it in the scriptures or it's not what YOUR church teaches, doesn't make it any less biblical than what's coming out of the pulpit of your Church.

I will look at individual beliefs in the WOF Churches in future articles but I will end by stating this. It's undisputed that WOF envisions Christianity through a different lens than is commonly found in today's Christian landscape. WOF takes seriously what the apostle Paul stated in Romans 5:17.

"For if by one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life, through the one, Jesus Christ."

That aspect of "reigning in life" through Christ Jesus beats at the heart and soul of WOF. That runs contrary to so much of Christianity that has no sense of victory or reigning in this life but pushes off Paul's words (as it does SO many other things) to the age to come.

WOF also takes seriously the words of Paul in Romans 14:17:

"for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

There is a whole theology of suffering today that accompanies the Cessationism that is still widely embraced across the Christian landscape. It has been crafted as a plausible replacement for the absence of spiritual gifts, supernatural life, power, and joy of the Holy Spirit in a person's life. Within my 30 years around the WOF movement I have never met so many joyous, positive, victory oriented men and women of God who refuse to settle down into the theological dregs of misery and suffering, even when they are going through the most trying of circumstances.

The reason for that is, those within the WOF movement also take seriously the many references in the New Testament that they are literally the body of Christ upon the earth, indwelt by Christ and the power of His Holy Spirit. Therefore when reading through the gospel narratives and viewing how Jesus handled life, they take as their standpoint of Christianity Jesus, Himself, and not the crowds that He ministered to. That shift in viewpoint is in direct contrast to how most of the Church views their own Christianity, lived from the standpoint of the role of the crowd. Poor, wayfaring strangers traveling through this world of woe who (even though they are indwelt by the Spirit of the resurrected Christ) expect nothing more within this life than the same naturalistic confines they knew before they were born from above. Anything beyond that is for the age to come.

WOF does not accept that. And that makes it different. But when it comes to the non essentials of the faith, "different" is not, and never will be, the defining point of "wrong".