Journal: Emmaus Journal
Volume: EMJ 07:1 (Summer 1998)
Article: Book Reviews
Author: Anonymous

EmJ 7:1 (Sum 98) p. 100

Book Reviews

Editor
Kenneth Alan Daughters

Revival Wars: A Critique of Counterfeit Revival by James A. Beverley, Toronto: Evangelical Research Ministries, 1997. 95 pages. $9.99 (Canadian). Available from James A. Beverley, Tyndale Seminary, 25 Ballyconner Court, Toronto, Ontario M2M 4B3.

James A. Beverley serves as professor of theology and ethics at Tyndale Seminary (formerly Ontario Theological Seminary) in Canada. He is a specialist in the study of modern religious movements and is the author of Holy Laughter and the Toronto Blessing (Zondervan, 1995). The volume under review, Revival Wars, is a critique of Counterfeit Revival, the important new work by Hank Hanegraaff.1

The Weaknesses of Hanegraaff’s Book

Though Beverley has a few positive comments regarding Hanegraaff’s book, his remarks are for the most part negative. Much of Hanegraaff’s research is “outdated” (pp. 8, 52, 60, 78, 79, 94), and his analysis is “rooted in faulty logic, selective use of evidence, ad hominem arguments (p. 65), and an inexplicable failure to examine data that was contrary to his own position” (pp. 8, 65, 88–89). Beverley says that he does not question Hanegraaff’s motives, nor does he question “his sincerity or inner sense of integrity” (pp. 8, 13). Yet Hanegraaff’s book is “a counterfeit setup,” and “it fools unsuspecting and uninformed readers through a variety of tactics that make the book appear other than what it is in reality” (p. 13). The “flawed book” is “quite shallow and misleading” and “poses real dangers” for the reader (p. 13, 14). Hanegraaff has a simplistic approach that shows he “knows little of complexity or subtle and sophisticated analysis” (p. 15). He is unbalanced, unfair, and unconcerned for the truth (pp. 15, 75, 81). Not only is Hanegraaff illogical, but he shows no grace or charity toward his

EmJ 7:1 (Sum 98) p. 101

opponents (p. 22). He makes “important factual mistakes” (p. 23, 50), and his work is marred by a “judgmental attitude” and “intellectual rigidity” (pp. 35, 37).2 He picks out the worst examples of his subjects and “questions the very motives of people” (p. 40). He engages in “distortions” that are “so wild that [they defy] discussion” (p. 41). He makes “false personal judgments” and uses language that is “extreme” and “offensive” (p. 43).3 His arguments are “shallow” and [are] “an attempt to defame Christian brothers and sisters” (p. 49, 58, 65).4 He is ...