[Extracted from Chapter 5, “The Hallmarks of the New Gnosticism”, in the upcoming expanded 800-page second edition of my 1993 book, “The Serpent & the Cross”]

In the thinking of the New Gnosticism, because ‘spirit’ is ethereal and non-corporeal — beyond words and basic logic — and because the Fall was a fall into matter, therefore the use of the human mind provides an obstacle which must be tamed, suppressed, and ultimately overcome if one (supposedly) is to be able to make contact with one’s ‘inner self’ (New-Age-speak for our alleged Godhood) and become truly spiritual. Wherever the New Gnosticism is operating, this assertion of the inferiority and hindrance of the mind to proper spiritual development will be very much to the forefront. Why would this be? As I will develop extensively in later chapters, it is in order to suspend reason and allow Satan easy entrance to our faculties.

Within the professing Church, this is primarily why the foundational techniques of the Christian sect known as the Charismatic Movement involve trance-inducing practices such as prolonged, repetitious chorus singing, eyes-closed, blissed-out, waving hands in the air hypnotically, a suggestion-induced swoon known as being ‘slain in the spirit’, and the babbling gibberish which is foolishly mistaken for the spiritual ‘gift of languages’ revealed in the Bible. In common with all mystics (whether of the East or West), and like the New Age folks with all their derivative practices, they believe that being ‘blissed out’ means being close to God, which is a satanic delusion. In fact, I have personally heard it said, by a number of members of the Charismatic sect, that the mind or intellectual reasoning presents a real stumbling-block to the Christian experience. Given the attraction to trance-inducing, mystical religion amongst this sect, it is not surprising to discover that leaders in it create an unnatural division between ‘spirit’ and ‘intellect’, advising those who attend their meetings and conferences to “leave their minds at the door with their shoes”, in much the same way as one would find in a darshan meeting led by the likes of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. A great many Christians are being hoodwinked today by this satanic call to abandon intellectual discernment which has been especially fostered in the Charismatic Movement.

For example, former Quaker and rock guitarist John Wimber, founder of the highly influential, neo-Pentecostal, Vineyard ministries in California (one might even also say founder of the modern Charismatic Movement), openly advocates a “paradigm shift” away from thinking with Western logic into the exclusively experiential way of oriental thinking — a concept thoroughly in line with the mystical ideology of the New Gnosticism (John Wimber, Power Evangelism, Hodder & Stoughton, 1985, p.89. But read all of his Chapter 5 in this first edition to appreciate where Wimber is leading his readers. His “Paradigm Shift” is directly parallel with that advocated by all mystics, Gnostics, and New Age syncretists. To back up his argument, he even includes a “subjective reality” picture like the rabbit or duck illustration which I showed earlier in the ‘Strawberry Fields” section of this chapter. In the more recent 1992 edition of his book, the material has been expanded somewhat but it still retains the original thrust, see pp.129-149).

Wimber also claims that “first century Semites did not argue from a premise to a conclusion; they were not controlled by rationalism” (John Wimber, Ibid., p.74). This is a highly erroneous and mischievous statement, displaying a phenomenal ignorance, and as a belief it is one of the reasons that the Charismatic Movement has its feet firmly planted in the New Gnosticism. Not only is it entirely historically inaccurate but it also attempts to denigrate logic, as if this is something to be shunned, which is an error at the highest level, especially considering that Christ Himself is known as the Logos! It also epitomises the considerable confusion in the Charismatic Movement in terms of its failure to identify the difference between (unhealthy) rationalism, whereby the miraculous is denied and the supernatural work of the Spirit is blasphemed, and (wholesome) rationality, whereby the Christian exercises necessary discernment and chooses that which is compatible with the law of God. One cannot have discernment and allegiance to Divine law without rationality. Because of this misunderstanding, it is often said in Charismatic circles that the use of the mind is destructive to true spirituality, and there is a general belittlement of the intellect over against what is deemed to be “the Spirit”. But there could be no more demonic suggestion than this! The suspension of the rational has been the stuff of mysticism and cultdom since the beginning of human history. Far from suspending the activity of the mind, the indwelling Holy Spirit actually transforms and sharpens it so that it works powerfully and in the full service of the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 21:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:15-16; Matthew 22:37; Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23; 2 Timothy 1:7). This is actually ‘basic Christianity 101’ but it has eluded the understanding of the Neo-Gnostic sect known as the Charismatic Movement.

In stating that “first century Semites did not argue from a premise to a conclusion”, John Wimber is also showing his profound ignorance of both history and the Bible. The ultimate first century Semite was surely the Lord Jesus Christ; yet He continually used the most devastating logic to demolish His opponents. One simple example: “Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God” (John 8:47). If A, then B. If not A, therefore not B. Pure logic: arguing from a premise to a conclusion. Many other examples could be given; but two more will suffice. Again, He said: “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, on account of this, the world hates you”(John 15:19). If A, then B. If not A, therefore not B. Pure logic. Again, He said:

“If one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:11-12).

That is pure logic: arguing from a premise to an irrefutable “therefore” conclusion. And it was used by a first century Semite — the ultimate first century Semite! — as a matter of course. Arguing in this manner, from the lesser to the greater, was a common first-century Semitic form of logic. Another first century Semite, Paul the Apostle, used exactly the same technique. For example, “He who spared not the own Son, but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also, with Him, graciously grant us all things?” (Romans 8:32). Paul regularly used the most devastating logic. When he was taking the Corinthians to task because there were some among them who — although continuing as Christian believers — said that there is no resurrection of the dead, he used a straightforward logical argument: “For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:16-17). He used logic to show them the irrationality of their position, just as Jesus used logic to show the Pharisees and Sadducees the irrationality of their positions. And we need to use logic today to show their modern successors the futility of their position. Without logic, we will never be able to “demolish arguments and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). The Christian mind is actually a hyper-logical mind because its logic is energized by the Holy Spirit.

So, we find that the first century Semite who had been born blind and who had spent his life as a beggar on the streets of Jerusalem, after he had been healed and brought into a saving relationship with Christ (the Logos), found that he was able to use the most withering logic against the Pharisees. His triumphant logical syllogism at the climax of his interview with the Pharisees (John 9:30-33), who had accused Jesus of being a sinner (John 9:24) and of not being from God (John 9:29), goes like this:

Major Premise: “Only those who are worshippers of God, who do His will and who are not (impenitent) sinners are heard by Him”.
Minor Premise: “This man was heard by God, because He opened the eyes of one who was born blind — something previously unheard of”.
Conclusion: “Therefore, this Man is from God. If He were not from God, He could do nothing. He must definitely not be an (impenitent) sinner”.

What is most interesting about this exchange is that this beggar was actually using the same kind of reasoning as the Pharisees in order to defeat them. First century Semites engaged in logical combat. Therefore, Wimber’s assertion that “first century Semites did not argue from a premise to a conclusion” is nothing less than a dangerous lie. We can see from this that it is twenty-first century Charismatics who cannot argue from a premise to a conclusion — not only because of their muddled reasoning but because their fundamental premises are profoundly mistaken. They confuse “rationality” with “rationalism” and thereby reject both.

It is significant to note that when Jesus was refuting the Sadducees — the supreme rationalists of the day — and their dumb attempts to prove that there was no resurrection, He does not accuse them of being rationalists but instead demolishes them with one logical argument after another and then upbraids them because they “do not know the Scriptures” (Matthew 22:29) — an accusation which should be levelled at all those who would have the audacity to claim that “first century Semites did not argue from a premise to a conclusion”. It is not at all “rationalistic” to argue from a premise to a conclusion: it is the only way to establish the truth — whether you are a first century Semite or a twenty-first century Anglo-Saxon!

So let us wholeheartedly reject humanistic rationalism, with its bland denial of the supernatural; but let us at the same time exercise the God-given faculty of rationality, by which healthy discernment is established, sound logic is embraced and every false way shunned. Never before has a ‘sound mind’ been so necessary in the life of the Church. To substitute healthy rationalism with the kind of mysticism we see today wreaking havoc in the Christian church — whether the medieval type of mysticism or the Charismatic kind — is the spiritual equivalent of moving from a three-dimensional world into a black hole.

Perhaps, in these matters, the children of the world are often wiser than the children of light. When the Lord uses the secular press to make observations that expose the absurdity of heretical sects in today’s professing Church, we should sit up and take notice. In a brilliant extended editorial in the Sunday Telegraph on the Charismatic Movement as early as 1991 (talk about seeing the writing on the wall!) entitled “That New Black Magic”, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne wrote:

“Charismatic religion is very much part of the New Age. That is to say, it is part of the flood of mindlessness that appears to be spreading throughout Western countries. From various brands of oriental meditation to witchcraft to little green men in UFOs, there is evidence that more and more people are seeking refuge from the difficulties of life in mysticism, mysteries, and superstition” (Sunday Telegraph, 14th April, 1991).

It is in these ways that the Charismatic Movement is very much a part of the worldwide Neo-Gnostic renaissance and New Age consciousness-altering baloney. The Eastern mystic seeks an ultimate experience of spiritual enlightenment, which is called in Sanskrit, Nirvana. It is highly significant that this word is literally translated as “a blowing out of the mind”, which involves the dissolving of the individual ego and a blending of oneself into the “cosmic soup”. In a world-view which regards reality as being merely subjective, the individuated consciousness is seen as being obstructive to spiritual progress. The Neo-Gnostic of today — whether Charismatic or New Age — has simply followed in this “mind-blowing” tradition. I have already mentioned above the many techniques which are utilised in order to produce this state, such as meditation, psychic exploration, consciousness-altering, the use of drugs, transpersonal psychology, asceticism, gurus, and a variety of trance-inducing practices such as repetitive singing and the babbling gibberish known as “tongues” (which can be practised in any religion or none and is not at all the same at the biblical ‘gift of languages’, as I will later show).

In refutation of this Hindu-Gnostic tenet of faith about blowing out the rational mind in order to progress spiritually, the Scriptures reveal that in order to come to God, we must first believe that He is (Hebrews 11:6) — a perception which does not involve the snuffing-out of the mind but, rather, a heightened exercise of it. The right use of the mind is an integral and essential part of Christian experience. The worship of God involves using the mind in equal proportion to all other cooperating agencies of the regenerated human constitution: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:37-38). In Luke’s gospel, it adds “and with all your strength” (Luke 10:27). Thus, all your faculties are involved, including mind and strength.

Accordingly, when a person becomes a Christian under the power of God, his or her mind is also a vital part of the transformation process (cf. Romans 12:2), rather than something to be left behind or — as some mystics describe it — “put in a cloud of unknowing” (a process which will be explored in detail in a later chapter). It is certainly true that over-intellectualism and scholasticism can have a dampening effect on the working of the Spirit; but the solution to that can never be found in going to the other extremes of mystic mindlessness or ecstatic indulgence.

.

.

[The above is extracted from Chapter 5, “The Hallmarks of the New Gnosticism”, in the upcoming expanded 800-page second edition of my 1993 book, “The Serpent & the Cross”].

.

.

© Copyright, Alan Morrison, 2023
[The copyright on my works is merely to protect them from any wanton plagiarism which could result in undesirable changes (as has actually happened!). Readers are free to reproduce my work, so long as it is in the same format and with the exact same content and its origin is acknowledged]

.