Labels

Saturday, December 7, 2013

The Mainline Seminaries as Sanhedrin





 This posting deals with the disparity between mainline academic theology and the fruitful and biblical affirming works of the great healing pioneers such as Agnes Sanford, John Nevius, etc. It is taken from my new book, Agnes Sanford and Her Companions (see below) I am certain many readers can add further horror stories about the faithlessness and apostasy of the mainline seminaries. (Please do as comments) "DOG theology" is my term for the infamous "Death of God" theology popular in the in the 1960s and 1970s, and emblematic of all forms of liberal and de-mythologizing theologies .

                                                     
"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers:
You always resist the Holy Spirit!”  - Acts 7:51
            It is useful to examine the contributions from the mainline seminaries towards the reestablishment of the healing ministry and the spiritual re-empowerment of the Church. Specifically, what did mainline seminary theologians make in the way of original contributions to the cause of Spirit empowered prayer and ministry?
            The answer is not complex: NOTHING, nada, zip.
This is not an exaggeration. It is true, that a few mainline theologians and scholars in recent decades have re-visited the miraculous and Pentecostalism favorably, as did Harvey Cox. Some theologians, like Thomas Oden, known famously for his “paleo-orthodoxy,” have been instrumental in recovering the faith-filled legacy of the Early Church. In fact, Oden, a fine Methodist scholar, also recovered for the modern reader the works of Mrs. Phoebe Palmer (chapter 00). Certainly this book is filled with many citations to books and articles from Christian scholars who have been helpful in telling the story of the Church’s slow recovery from its Hellenistic exaggerations and cessationism.
But truly, I do not know of a single original contribution by mainline theologians to the restoration of the Church’s spiritual powers, the Gifts of the Spirit, or the Church’s healing ministry. Seminary/academic writers have done nothing for the Church to compare to the spiritual and practical utility of John Nevius’ Demon Possession, E. W. Kenyon’s The Hidden Man, Agnes Sanford’s The Healing Light, John and Paula Sanford’s Transformation of the Inner Man, or the Hunter’s How to Heal the Sick.  All of these works gave Christendom original insights into the Bible, useful, accountable tools for prayer effectiveness, and revelations about the nature of spiritual reality.
To the contrary, the mainline seminaries have been a tremendous drag upon the Church’s re-empowerment. Like the Sanhedrin of New Testament times, they have been institutions of opposition to the renewing work of the Holy Spirit.[1]  We can recall that the seminaries in Colonial New England took a strong anti-revival positions towards the Great Awakening. Thus, although Jonathan Edwards left a great revival heritage in his writings, the interest in, and cultivation of revival was not continued in the seminaries. The exception being the Presbyterian “log” seminaries on the frontier that honored Edwards’ writings, and encouraged the communion cycle revivals of the Second Great Awakening – but only for a season.
            But the main Protestant seminaries were “pre-destined” to slip into Sadducaism and Pharisaism of one sort or another. Most formed their theology from the writings of Luther and Calvin where cessationism was embedded. As we have shown, core orthodox doctrines, as for instance the divinity of Jesus, are difficult to sustain without the witness of the power of God in miracles and the gifts of the Spirit. Thus a drift into Sadducaism and Deism in one form or another, as in DOG theology (“Death of God” of the 1960s), is almost inevitable.
Harvard was founded in 1636 to ensure an educated and orthodox clergy for New England by faithful and orthodox Puritans, but it soon veered to Deism/Sadducaism.  By 1700 many Christians in New England were dissatisfied with the Deist turn at Harvard and founded Yale. But that did not last a century as it too began slipping into Deism and liberalism.[2]
Harvard Divinity School, a major Sadducaic instiution:

Next, Andover was then established as a bastion of Protestant orthodoxy. The faculty at Andover was required to subscribe to a statement of orthodoxy as a way of ensuring that Deism/Unitarianism would not sneak in as it had at Harvard and Yale. After the 1860s, however, the statement of orthodoxy became less and less effective in stemming the logic of liberal theology and German “higher” biblical criticism (the myth hermeneutic). Eventually Andover became the most liberal of Northern seminaries and was absorbed into its old enemy Harvard.[3]
            Rev. Dennis Bennett, who triggered the public charismatic renewal, (chapter 00) went to a prestigious Presbyterian seminary in the early 1950s. On his first day of classes a senior seminarian told him:
“Of course, we no longer believe in the miracles of the bible. The divinity of Jesus, or the virgin birth,” he stated…” “Science has shown those to be impossible, also life after death, and other such things. We can no longer accept the supernatural. We must develop a natural, scientifically respectable religion that will be accepted by modern intellectuals!”[4]
            Later Bennett discovered that many of his teachers were atheists. One of our most respected professors, and a distinguished scholar, began his semester classes in the psychology of religion with: “I want you to understand that I am an atheist.”[5]
Bennett had experienced a powerful personal revelation of Jesus before he entered seminary and survived with his faith intact - though not as lively as when he arrived. But many of his fellow seminarians were not so fortunate and spread the distemper of religious atheism and DOG theology where ever they went.
Bennett's classic book, describing the opening of the Charismatic Movement:
            During the same period Don H. Gross, a trained physicist, went to an Episcopal seminary. He later reflected on how the teaching staff there stubbornly resisted the good news that the new quantum physics gives analogous evidence and validation of the biblical worldview (as shown in chapter 00).  His book, The Case for Spiritual Healing, contained a pioneer section on the relationship between quantum physics and healing.[6]
            Gross received a graduate degree in physics just after World War II. He then felt a call to the Episcopal priesthood and was ordained in 1949. His interest in healing was flamed thru a lecture given by the Rev. Alfred Price, director of the OSL (see chapter 00). Subsequently, Gross investigated several of Katherine Kuhlman's rallies and witnessed many healings.
            While at seminary Gross noticed a radical distinction between the methodologies he learned as a scientist, and that of his theology professors. As a scientist he knew that progress in scientific investigations depended in discovering facts and phenomenon that was not understood in terms of current theory (anomalies). Such anomalous facts forced a scientist to revise or reject current theory and seek better theories to cover the newly discovered phenomenon.
Gross saw, on the contrary, that his seminary professors operated with an opposite, pre-modern, methodology. When he presented his seminary professors with evidence for spiritual healing, they would not pursue an investigation, no matter how well-documented the evidence, nor would they modify their cessationist theories or philosophical materialism. No data contrary to their assumptions was recognized. While his professors listened politely to his enthusiastic presentation of why the miraculous was possible in terms of quantum physics, it made no impression on their beliefs. They continued in their belief that the world was a materialist/realist universe where the miraculous could not happen.[7] 
            Most “Christians in the pews” were unaware of the apostate poisons spreading from the seminaries.[8] Things continued to get only worse. The 1960s and 1970s there was a period of further radicalization of the seminaries, due in part to a flood of many new seminarians who felt no particular call to the ministry, but found seminaries a safe place to avoid the draft and service in the Vietnam War.
In the 1980’s a new type of seminarian began attending. These were persons who had life crisis and experiences such as divorces, drug dependencies, etc., they rightly understood as pointing to a needed spiritual solution, but had little grounding in Sunday School teaching or Bible study. They fell without much resistance into the Sadducaic assumptions and apostasies proclaimed by their professors.[9]
            In the 1980s I attended one of the most distinguished mainline seminaries in the United States. The resistance to the reality of the miraculous that Gross had documented decades earlier was ever present among the professors. I recall one incident in a class on pastoral counseling that was especially telling.  Actually, it one of the better courses I took, and the professor was an evangelical, although cessationist. As our first reading assignment, we studied William James’ classic, Varieties of Religious Experiences - one of the most read works in religious studies courses even to this day. We had noted carefully James’ methodology. James insisted that when examining spiritual phenomenon of any sort it was important to search out as many examples as possible, and categorize them from the bizarre and destructive to the useful and creative.
For example, James noted that the doctrine of celibacy as practiced by the Desert Fathers could lead to weird, destructive exaggerations such as monks fleeing in panic from the mere view of a woman. But James also noted that if you search well, you could also find good and non-neurotic persons who used celibacy to focus their service on others (Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 7:8-9) Thus, one had to look carefully at the entire range of the occurrence of the phenomenon to avoid false judgments.[10] Everyone in the class understood this.
A few weeks after we had finished James’ work, one of the seminarians began ridiculing the healing evangelist Ernest Angley, and claiming he and other healing evangelists were frauds. In fact, Angley’s mannerisms have always been a bit odd, but he is a sincere and effective minister of God’s healing graces.[11]
I said to him: “Why don’t you do “the William James” thing on this? Instead of bad mouthing Angley, why don’t you go out to places where people say healing is taking place, and to an Angley service, and line them up according to false, or deluded - or maybe real and effective. And then judge?” 
The professor looked at me with a surprised “ah-ha” look, as if saying, “Yes of course!” but he said nothing. The critical seminarian gave me a look of disgust and said: “Why don’t we just go on with today’s class?”
The moment of grace disappeared into the Sadducaic normality of the seminary…
Few other professions would get away with this sort of data avoidance.[12] In that wonderful movie, “The Bucket List,” Jack Nickelson played a cancer stricken businessman, Mr. Cole. His daughter had married an abusive man who repeatedly beat her. As a remedy, Mr. Cole got mob goons to kidnap and beat up his son-in-law as an “encouragement” never to abuse his daughter again. It worked. Now, the point is that Mr. Cole, as a law abiding, if greedy, businessman, had no business card for “Mob Goons & Associates” in his rolodex file. He didn’t know how to contact them. But he “Asked someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who got back to me.” 
Any seminary professor or DOG theologian who wanted to sniff out the truth about the miraculous or healing ministry could have “Asked someone, who knew someone …” Even back in the 1950s, before the Charismatic Renewal, they would have been referred to some Pentecostal healing revival, a CFO Camp, or an OSL mission, etc. They could then have investigated the miraculous and healing claims in the manner outlined in The Varieties of Religious Experiences that was first published in 1903.
 The Guild Methodology vs. the Wisdom of God:
            All of this is to say that mainline seminary professors have seldom, if ever functioned in the Wisdom of God, as was done by the healing pioneers such as the Rev. Nevius, Dr, Cullis, Agnes Sanford, etc. Rather, as St. Paul warned they were “…blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” (Eph. 4:14)
In fact, the methodology of the mainline seminaries is pre-modern and rightly termed “guild methodology.”[13] It is a methodology based on authority, and stresses the established opinions. Fundamental critique or questions are dismissed.  Ever more radical secular opinions are welcomed and entertained, but orthodox views are shut off as “reactionary.”[14]
The pre-modern seminary guild methodology is disguised with the secondary aspects of scholarship, as in sophisticated vocabulary, multiple sources (which repeat the same cessationist and “myth hermeneutic” assumptions) accurate footnoting, and impressive looking bibliographies. One of my professors at seminary was an atheist and Marxist. He made repeated claims that he was carrying out his profession in a “scientific” manner because he did not believe in the “myths” of the miraculous and used “Marxists analysis” in his research – this was before 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall. He had heard of Karl Popper’s work on science - but of course had not the time to read it.  His career was one of delusion, pretention and destruction. I saw several seminarians wither into faithlessness under his teachings.[15]
The Sadducaic seminary guild of the mainline seminaries has been, and continues to be, a fellowship of self-esteem.  That is, they think themselves to be in the vanguard of progress, while disdaining the “peasants in the pews” who take part in revivals, still believe in the miracles of the Bible, the reliability of the scriptures, healing prayer, and the divinity of Jesus, etc. Their position is “superior” to all of this and verified because other seminary professors who they respect believed similarly.
With this poisonous combination of the guild methodology, data avoidance, and misplaced self-esteem, the mainline seminary guild never produced an original contributions on the miraculous, or healing, or deliverance, or anything else that assisted the re-empowerment of the Church.[16]
An Invitation by Paul Tillich:
Not that the guild professors were not invited to something better. 
For instance, in 1945 one of the most prestigious and beloved of mainline theologians, Paul Tillich, presented a paper on religion and health at Columbia University. In that address he urged the acceptance of healing prayer as real and urged a scholarly effort to discern true healing prayer from “psychic” suggestion and or magical procedures.[17] (In effect the William James approach). A decade later he repeated the theme in a sermon given to ministers at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. 
You are not supposed to become physicians; you are not supposed to become psychotherapists; you are not supposed to become political reformers. But you are supposed to pronounce and to represent the healing and demon-conquering power implied in the message of the Christ…[18]
Strangely enough, there was no rush by Guild seminarians or professors to follow Tillich’s advice. In 1958 Tillich’s views on healing were published in an anthology on healing and the Church. The editor of that volume, Simon Doniger, expressed his frustration at lack of progress on this issue. In the preface he dedicated the book, tongue in cheek, “…to the modern Pharisaic mind that seeks to disprove all things and hold fast to that which is traditional.”[19]
Caveat to all this:     
In truth, a few mainline seminaries have become more Evangelical in the last decades.  That happened to the one I went to. Other mainline Evangelical seminaries of the more traditional sort have avoided Sadducaism, but at the cost of less than satisfactory fundamentalism, as in Bob Jones University. A very few, like Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, have maintained their Evangelical witness with great integrity and effectiveness - and with a nod towards the charismatic movement.[20]
            There have also been the Pentecostal seminaries, established by the Pentecostal denominations, which naturally teach the reality of the miraculous. Many of these belong to the smaller Pentecostal denominations, and do not have high academic records, and some restrict their teaching to only what their denomination believes. On the other hand, several Spirit-filled seminaries such as the School of Theology and Missions at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa and Regent University School of Ministry at Virginia Beach have grown to academic excellence and international renown. Their graduates are making a major impact on many denominations in destroying the stealth heresy.[21]

Regent University:
Spiritual issues:
              The absurdities of data avoidance of the DOG, liberal and other guild theologians could be attributed to a psychological drive to be comfortable, undisturbed and in power. That is, if academic achievements in books, articles, etc., are the criteria of position and promotion in the seminaries, why endanger or confuse the criteria by acknowledging a Church with the disciple’s authority and Gifts of the Spirit?  That an “unlearned” layman who has read Agnes Sanford, or had been raised in a Pentecostal/charismatic church might be more effective in ministry and more knowable about real spiritual issues, than a guild professor is very threatening.
This is a psychological understanding of the issue. But I really believe that what has really happened is that the seminaries became infested by demonic “principalities and powers” that clouded the minds of the staff to biblical truths. As Paul warned:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph. 6:12)
            The stubbornness and the illogical argumentation of the guild professors indicate this. In a conversation with the atheist/Marxist professor I mentioned above, I described a miraculous healing at a revival I had attended.  He responded, “But that is witchcraft, sheer witchcraft!” Here was a man who was a Marxist/materialist and consistently denied the possibility of any spiritual phenomenon, but would believe that there is a spiritual realm of witchcraft!  I was astounded to silence.[22] Recently, direct evidence of demonic entry and involvement in DOG theology has emerged.
 Demons inspiring modern theologian:

The self-disclosed Demonic Theology of Thomas J. J. Altizer, DOG theologian:
             In 2006 Thomas J. J. Altizer, released his autobiography, Living the Death of God.[23] Recall that Altizer was one of the leading “lights” of the DOG movement (chapter 00). In this work is found an amazing and candid description of this prominent DOG theologian becoming demon possessed and writing “theology” in that state.
Thomas was born (1927) into a seriously dysfunctional, and nominal Christian (Episcopalian) home. His father was an alcoholic and his uncle murdered his own son.  Thomas went to St. John’s College in Annapolis, where he majored in philosophy, and then on to the University of Chicago for graduate studies in religion. There, while studying an article on Nietzsche he felt a “conversion experience” - to the Death of God theology![24] During his studies at Chicago he already showed signs of severe emotional instability and depression (perhaps demonic obsession?).
            Altizer felt a “call” to the Episcopal priesthood and he began seminary studies.  In the last year of that process he took the psychological examination required of candidates for the priesthood.  This showed that he was deeply troubled and unacceptable as a minister.  One of his professors rejoiced at this and said it was “providential,” as his real gift was in theology![25]
          Altizer proceeded, and received a doctorate of religious studies and theology. In his studies he found Rudolph Bultman’s theology to his liking, but that of Karl Barth distasteful and much too orthodox. His dissertation was on Carl Jung, the pupil of Sigmund Freud who developed a “religious” form of psychoanalysis that was laced with Gnostic theology and understandings.[26]
          In regard to his possession, Altized recounted what happened to him just before his fateful psychological examination:
Shortly before this examination, I was in a turbulent condition …I was visited by a deep depression, one which occurred again and again throughout my life, but now with particular intensity. During this period I had perhaps the most ultimate experience of my life, and one that I believe profoundly affected my vocation as a theologian, and even my theological work itself. This occurred late at night, while I was in my room. I suddenly awoke and became truly possessed, and experienced an epiphany of Satan which I have never been able fully to deny, an experience in which I could actually feel Satan consuming me, absorbing me into his very being, as though this was the deepest possible initiation and bonding, the deepest and yet most horrible union. Few who read me know of this experience, but it is not accidental that I am perhaps the only theologian who now writes of Satan, and can jokingly refer to myself as the world’s leading Satanologist: indeed, Satan and Christ soon became my primary theological motifs, and my deepest theological goal eventually became one of discovering a coincidentia oppositorum between them. [27]
            That he considers himself the only theologian who writes about Satan is but an indicator of the restricted vision and reading range of Liberal and DOG theologians. More importantly, we need to parse what he meant by “coincidentia oppositorum,” which is a pillar of his Satanically inspired theology.[28] It is merely the old Gnostic lie that Satan and Jesus are “brothers” doing God’s work, and that really there is no evil, only ignorance. A further Satanic motif of Altizer’s was his understanding of Jesus’ death on the cross. For Altizer, Jesus was indeed God, but when he died, God transited from a transcendent God to imminence in the world which negated his transcendence and personhood (pantheism). Thus, the satanic payoff, God is not a being that one prays too, nor expects the miraculous, etc.
            Altizer taught this demonic mix at Emory’s Candler Seminary for over twenty years as a controversial, but admired professor.  He was broadly instrumental in radicalizing much of the faculty there, and was the subject of much publicity, including several major articles in Time Magazine. [29]
            Many alumni and other Methodists, deeply outraged over the theological atrocities he advocated, tried to have him removed from his teaching position. They were rebuffed under the rubric of “academic freedom.” In the 1980’s, when I studied at Candler, I interviewed a professor who remembered him well, and considered him a personable and “good professor.”  That speaks volumes about academic lack of spiritual discernment.  Sadly, a 2012 PBS documentary on Emory University perpetuates the myth of Altizer as “good professor.” In this documentary, which supposedly covered the history of Emory University, scant coverage was given to its founders, or their intention to found a pious Methodist College. The focus is on the modern period, and much attention is given to the “academic freedom” issue raised by Altizer, the hero of the piece.[30]  Sadducaism triumphed in the media again.
We must stop our comments on the seminary issue here, only noting that some denominations are now avoiding seminaries altogether. That is, a person who feels called to the ministry begins ministering at an entry level, as in a youth ministry volunteer, music assistant, home fellowship leader, etc. As the person progresses in ministry he or she is directed to read books on liturgy, denominational history and doctrine, etc., and attached to a minister/mentor. Greek and Hebrew can now be learned on a computer.  This takes longer than the three year seminary cycle, but produces spiritually tested and mature ministers.[31] Some of the successful Evangelical mega-churches have discovered they can run effective seminaries on their own campuses, and thus avoid the Sadducaic influences that poison so many seminary graduates.[32]

Announcement:

The noted Pentecostal scholar Dr. Jon Ruthven wrote a very positive review of my latest book, Agnes Sanford and Her Companions: The Assault on Cessationism and the Coming of the Charismatic Renewal. You can access it HERE.




The book may be purchased on Amazon, either print or inexpensive Kindle HERE You can purchase the print version at a discount from the publisher HERE

My wife has written a funny and inspiring story of how she transited from a cessionist and Baptist to a Spirit-filled Believer. The book has many stories of our three decades of ministry together.  It may be purchased HERE.

Watching God Work: The Stuff of Miracles by [DeArteaga, Carolyn Koontz]



P.S.: the footnotes all came out in italics, and I could not fix it. Someday I may, God willing, have the money to pay an admin assistant to fix these blogs. Hey, my first book was on a typewriter.
[1] There is much literature on the problem of faithlessness in the mainline seminaries - which of course has been ignored by the seminary community. Among the best pieces are: John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1970). An especially insightful article by a noted Pentecostal theologian and scholar, Jon Mark Ruthven is: “Are Pentecostal Seminaries a Good Idea?” Pneuma, 26 #2 (fall 2004), 339-345.  Evangelicals are represented in the discussion by Bernard Ramm’s, “The Labyrinth of Contemporary Theology.” Christianity Today (July 16, 1965), Ilion Jones’, “Is Protestant Christianity Being Sabotaged from Within?” Christianity Today  (Jan 7, 1966), 3-6. and John Jewell’s, The Long Way Home (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), Even liberal scholars have seen the problem: Charles M. Nielson, “The Loneliness of Protestantism, “ Christian Century (Sept 15, 1965) 11-21, and especially, Edward Fareley, Theologia: The Fragmentation ad Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), this is an excellent work, somewhat marred by an unclear writing style. For a resent newspaper article noting the morphing of a fine old Methodist seminary into an “all religions are equal” institution see: Mitchell Landsberg, “Claremont Seminary Reaches “Beyond Christianity,”” Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2010.    
[2]That Yale also became Sadducaic, and eventually a predominantly anti-Christian institution is documented by the seminal book of the modern American conservative movement, William F Buckley’s, God and Man At Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom,” (Chicago: Henry Regency, 1951).
[3] Steven Meyerhoff, “Andover Seminary: The Rise and Fall of an Evangelical Institution,” Presbyterian 8, #2 (fall 1982), 13-24.
[4] Dennis Bennett, Nine O’clock in the Morning (Plainsville: Logos International, 1970), 12-13.
[5] Ibid., 13.
[6]Don H. Gross, The Case for Spiritual Healing (New York; Thomas Nelson, 1958), see especially the appendix “On the Creation and Annihilation of Matter.”
[7] Gross, Case, chapter four, “The well-springs of reason.”
[8] In the 1980’s I had many conversations with some still faithful clergy of the Episcopal Church, and urged them to prepare to leave and to warn their congregations of what was happening in the seminaries. One told me “The situation is hopeless; but why trouble the flock?” Another said, “They won’t believe how bad things are, or if they do they will leave the church.”
[9]Luke T. Johnson, “The New Testament and the examined life: Thoughts on teaching,” The Christian Century (Feb 1-8, 1995) 108-119.
[10] William James, Varieties of Religious Experiences, (1903).
[11] My wife, who was educated in childhood development, saw his effective ministry with death children and with her professional eye concluded his ministry and healings of young children could not be faked.
[12]Coming in second and third for avoidance of unwelcomed facts are the politically correct sociology and political science departments of many universities. On this I have space only to cite two classics, Allen D Bloom’s, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1987), and Eugene Genovese’s, “The Question,” Dissent (Summer 1994).
[13]The term “seminary guild” is often used in the literature on the seminaries, see for example: Edward Fareley, Theologia, and Johnson, “The New Testament”   
[14] This is common to many aspects of academic life in the Western world today. See: Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The secret history of the American Left from Mussolini to the politics of meaning (Garden City: Doubleday, 2010).
[15] His writings are obscure and deserve to remain so, but for an equivalent Sadducaic romp into spiritual destructiveness and apostasy, see the works of the Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong, and especially his, Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile (San Francisco: Harper One, 1998).
[16]There were, in fact, a few works in the 20th Century that suggested that the healing ministry was valid and should be incorporated into mainline Protestant life, but in comparison to the “heroes of faith” I have written about in this work, the guild seminary contributions were entirely unoriginal. See for instance, Richard Hiltner, Religion and Health (New York; Macmillan, 1943).
[17] Paul Tillich, “The Relation of Religion and Health,” In: Simon Daniger, ed., Religion and Health: A Symposium (New York: Association Press, 1958).
[18] Pual Tillich, “Heal the Sick, Cast Out Demons,” Union Seminary Quarterly, 11 #1 (Nov. 1955), 7.
[19] Doninger, Religion, 5. Note that Doninger is using the concept of Pharisee as a religious person who holds firm to tradition and in ultimate opposition to the true work of the Church. This is an early understanding of what I subsequently elaborated. In Quenching the Spirit (1992).
[20] Fuller Seminary hosted the famous “Signs and Wonders” classes by John Wimber, the leader of the very charismatic Vineyard Fellowship churches.
[21]On this see: Jon Mark Ruthven is: “Are Pentecostal Seminaries a Good Idea?” Pneuma, 26 #2 (Fall 2004), 339-345. In my own Anglican/Episcopal tradition only two seminaries out of eleven in the United States managed to remain biblically orthodox and non-Sadduceeic, Nashota House in Wisconsin, and Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry in Pennsylvania. The rest have fallen into the black holes of Sadduceeism and political correctness.
[22] The combination of belief in atheism, Marxism and negative spirituality (spiritualism or Satanism) is illogical and contradictory, but it is also widespread. See this in reference to Cuba in: Diana Espiritu Santo’s, “The Powers of the Dead:  Spirits, Socialism, and Slaves in an African-Cuban Universe,” Fieldwork in Religion 3 #2 (Nov. 2008), 161-177.
[23] Thomas J. J. Altizer, and Mark Taylor, Living the Death of God (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006.) This book is expensive, and thankfully I was able to read substantial parts of in “preview” mode - none of my money went to the author.
[24] Altizer, Living, 9
[25] Altizer, Living, 4
[26] In my college days I was greatly attracted to the writings of Jung, but after I passed through and out of the occult I understood Jung’s psychological theology as dangerously Gnostic and occultic. His confusion of the demonic as “archetype” was especially troublesome. See a discussion of this in my first work: Past Life Visions. A Christian exploration (New York Seabury 1983). See also, Leanne Payne, The Healing Presence, (Westchester: Crossway Books,1989), Part III ‘Imagery and Symbol.”
[27] Altizer, Living, 8
[28] I must admit that I did not have the stomach to read Altizer’s works.  I read DOG theology back in my college days, and became an atheist as a result of that. I am relying for my renewed understanding of Altizer on the extensive article by Charles E Winquest,  “Thomas J. J. Altizer in Retrospect,” Religious Studies Review, 8 #4 (Oct. 1982), 337-342. Winquest is a fellow DOG theologian who admires Altizer’s work.
[29] See especially “The God is Dead movement,” Oct., 22, 1965.
[30] “Wise Heart: The Growth of a Great University in the Deep South,” aired, April 2012.
[31] My route to the ordained ministry was like this. I was an active layman in the healing ministry, OSL “conviener,” Sunday school teacher, and home church leader, while also researching and writing in Christian history.  I attended a mainline seminary part-time but left in disgust. I was ordained in 2000 through The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, which had the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer as its service book, but was orthodox and charismatic. In 20003 I was received into the Anglican Church of Bolivia in order to serve a “refugee” congregation from the Episcopal Church.
[32] Bobby Ross, “The Workers are Few: The gaps exists between what large churches need and what seminaries produce,” Christianity Today (August 2007) 18-19.