According to John Lindell, the pastor of James River, a former Assemblies of God church in Springfield Missouri, “Nothing is more exciting than laying hands on somebody and watching them healed; it’s thrilling, it’s wonderful!” And it would be, if it were true. James River had been a flagship church within the Assemblies of God denomination, with more than 12,000 attending at one time. But as Lindell persisted in teaching the beliefs of NAR leaders like Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding California, there was turmoil at his church that led to James River withdrawing from the denomination.
The above quote was taken from a Facebook posting by Grant Olson, a former long-time member of James River. Grant has been calling out John Lindell for over a year for false teaching and unsubstantiated claims of miraculous healing, like that of a woman who said she had three amputated toes grow back on her foot in a span of 30 minutes. Here is a 16-minute video by Grant with pictures he said demonstrated this was a lie. In “Show Me the Toes,” Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett also noted where this false claim was reported by national media; and provided links to pictures as well. They said:
Following her stunning miracle claim, it was repeated publicly by the lead pastor of James River Church, John Lindell, as well as Johnson. It was also reported by national media—including USA Today, Daily Mail, and Newsweek—after a local Christian, who desired to see proof of the regrown toes, created a website named ShowMetheToes.com, urging people with evidence to send emails. To date [now in May 2025], no photographic or video evidence has been offered.
As Pivec and Geivett said, even Lindell and Johnson should want evidence. “Reasonable belief must be grounded in evidence.” However, there is a perception produced by NAR leaders like Bill Johnson that miracles occur routinely at their churches. See “Bethel Claims Miracles. What Proof Do They Have?”, written by Anneliese Pierce, a former member of Bethel Church. In Bethel Redding (Part 2), part of an American Gospel docuseries, Anneliese said: “I think that within the Bethel community, there is so much testimony about healing, that it’s hard to believe that it is not happening all the time.”
Because of the narrative created by NAR leaders, they don’t question any reported miracle. And they double down on affirming the “truth” of the reported “miracles,” as with the supposedly regrown toes. The NAR, hyper charismatic teachings on spiritual gifts like healing, prophecy and words of knowledge (1 Corinthians 12: 7-11), creates division and a false dichotomy within the church. Yet, the allegations against Shawn Bolz, known as a prophetic minister, led to even Bethel Church distancing itself from him.
Watch these videos about Shawn Bolz, and how his “prophetic word” led a young woman at Bethel’s School of Supernatural Ministry (BSSM) to marry an abusive man and the similarities between his (and Chris Reed’s) supposed words of knowledge and psychic cold readings: “’Christian Psychics’ Shawn Bolz and Chris Reed.”
If you question or reject these extreme views—even if you do affirm the miraculous—you are thought of as a “cessationist” because you doubted the supposed spiritual gift. Rather than being a real “continuist,” affirming the reality of the healed toes, or a prophetic word of knowledge. And you find yourself faced with a decision to question the word of someone you hold to be an authoritative prophet of God. Pivec and Geivett pointed to this very problem in Reckless Christianity.
They said there was a big difference between Pentecostals and charismatics who merely claimed to have the spiritual gift of prophecy and those NAR apostles and prophets who claim to hold formal, governing offices empowered with great authority. “Because prophets in the office possess divine authority, there is a danger that people or churches to whom they prophesy will view their words as the very words of God.” They pointed to a prophecy that Kris Vallotton, the prophet for Bethel Church, declared where Bethel would experience “a tangible increase in miracles.”
It is striking that, in NAR delivering this type of prophecy is a prerogative reserved for prophets and apostles, and it is evidence of the “extraordinary authority” we associate with their conception of apostles and prophets. It is a kind of authority that is extraordinary in the sense of what it entitles them to do. But if this is a truthful account of the effect of Vallotton’s prophecy, what possible harm could come from such a prophecy?
The content of Vallotton’s prophecy contain implicit direction for the church. For example, it purports that miracles ought to be a major focus of this church. What does this mean? And would such a focus be healthy and biblical? Do we see anything like this set forth as desirable in the New Testament?
We don’t see in the New Testament that the manifestation of miracles (and other spiritual gifts) should be a major focus of the church. NAR or hyper charismatic practices are neither healthy or biblical. I think these beliefs perpetuate a dichotomy between cessationist and continuist theologies on modern charismatic gifts and create an unnecessary division in the church. There is a middle way between blanket approval and blanket rejection of modern spiritual gifts described by Vern Poythress in: “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology.”
Poythress said that while the book of Revelation was inspired, modern visions and prophecies were not, because the canon of Scripture is complete. However, modern visions and prophecies may be analogous to apostolic preaching. “Like modern preaching, modern intuitive speech has authority only insofar as it bases itself on the final infallible divine authority of Scripture.” A key distinction here is the difference between a rationally explicit process, like when Luke wrote his Gospel, and an intuitive process such as that used with the book of Revelation. Neither process is inherently more “spiritual” than the other; both Luke and Revelation were inspired.
The fact that we have analogy rather than identity means that we must respect certain restraints. Modern intuitive phenomena must be subject to the same restraints that are placed on preaching. Everything must be checked for conformity to Scripture.
I maintain that modern spiritual gifts are analogous to but not identical with the divinely authoritative gifts exercised by the apostles. Since there is no strict identity, apostolic teaching and the biblical canon have exclusive divine authority. On the other hand, since there is analogy, modern spiritual gifts are still genuine and useful to the church. Hence, there is a middle way between blanket approval and blanket rejection of modern charismatic gifts.
Christocentric Gifts
The work of Christ can be classified under the triad of his offices: prophet, priest and king. “Christ speaks to us (prophet), he rules over us (king), and he gives his life in service for us (priest).” When we are united with him, we are transformed into his likeness and bear his image. So, then as prophets, we speak his words to one another. As kings, we exercise authority over the areas for which we are responsible. And as priests, we serve one another.
If speaking gifts are strong, people can become recognized teachers. Where ruling gifts are evident, people can become shepherds or elders (1 Peter 5:1-4). And when serving gifts are strong, people become givers of mercy, as with the ministry of deacons. The Greek word for deacon, diakonos means servant. Poythress said the boundaries between these categories of gifts are not rigidly distinct. And in Christ’s life they had some typical combinations. Although the boundaries may be fuzzy, we can still see distinct emphases.
All the gifts mentioned in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 can be roughly classified as prophetic, kingly, or priestly. For example, gifts of wisdom and knowledge are prophetic, while gifts of administration, miraculous powers, and healing are kingly. But some gifts could [be] easily classified in more than one way. For example, healing could be seen as priestly, since it is an exercise of mercy toward the person healed. Ultimately, prophetic, kingly, and priestly functions can be expanded into perspectives on the whole life of God’s people, so we should not be disturbed by the apparent overlap. This classification is nevertheless useful in reminding us of our relation to the work of Christ and in reminding us that no one of the lists of gifts in the New Testament is intended to be exhaustive.
A Pyramid of Giftedness
Poythress then said the New Testament recognizes several levels of functioning for the classes of gifts, the prophetic, kingly and priestly. At the apex, level one, is Messianic giftedness with Jesus Christ. Next is apostolic giftedness, level two. Based on what they directly saw and heard, and on the Holy Spirit inspiring them, “they could testify authoritatively for all time concerning what Christ accomplished.” Included here were what Poythress referred to as “apostolic men” like Mark, Luke and Jude, who were closely associated with the apostles and produced the canon of the New Testament. In their roles as prophet, priest and king, the functions of the apostles and apostolic men were unrepeatable.
The third level of giftedness, level three, includes teachers, elders and deacons. And then level four is the level of involvement for every believer, “united to Christ” as a prophet, priest and king in a broader sense.
The distinction between gifts with full divine authority and subordinate (uninspired) gifts is now clear. Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1; 20:28) and is the Lord of the church (Ephesians 5:24). His work has full divine authority. The apostles and apostolic men are commissioned by Christ and bear his authority. Hence their words and official actions have divine authority (cf., e.g., 1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). In particular, words of the apostles in the exercise of their office are “inspired” in the technical sense. “Inspired” words are words spoken by God himself, words breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16), and hence they carry unqualified divine authority.
The Holy Spirit also works in a subordinate way in giving teaching and speaking gifts to pastors, teachers, and ordinary believers (Ephesians 4:11; Colossians 4:6). The speeches that these people give are not inspired. That is, the speeches are not identically the speech of God in such a way that they carry unqualified divine authority and perfection.
Such speeches may nevertheless be “inspiring” in the popular sense of the word. We acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is present. We thank God for the gifts that are exercised, and we know that when properly exercised they come from the power of the Spirit. But the results are always fallible and must be checked by the standard of the Bible. The necessity of testing later works by the Scripture is implied by the finality of revelation in Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3), the foundational character of the teaching of the apostles (Ephesians 2:20), and the fact that the canon of Scripture is complete. The best representatives of both charismatic and noncharismatic views agree.
Notice that Poythress’ sharp distinction between levels two and three separates the divine authority of apostles and apostolic men from the offices of pastors, teachers, elders and deacons of level three, who are under the biblical authority of level two. This distinction then carries over to how Ephesians 4:11 is used by NAR to support their five-fold government of the church by apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Remember the functions of the apostles and apostolic men were unrepeatable. Therefore, the authority exercised by the “apostles” and “prophets” in those offices within NAR, hyper charismatic churches would be under biblical authority, according to Poythress.
In Reckless Christianity, Pivec and Geivett said the NAR interpretation of Ephesians 4:11-13 believes Jesus meant that modern church government should include apostles and prophets; and “pride of place” should be given to apostles and prophets (according to the NAR understanding of 1 Corinthians 12:28). If the verbal gifts of continuist believers such as words of knowledge or wisdom, prophecy, and discerning spirits are under biblical authority, if the separation by Poythress between divine authority in level two, and under biblical authority in level three is acknowledged, the NAR insistence that churches should be governed under the office of apostles and prophets loses much of its sting. The power to make prophetic declarations and to give new revelations beyond Scripture is hamstrung. And then the problems from open theism and reconstructing Scripture to support NAR theology disappear, as the infallibility of Scripture is upheld. There is then no biblical support for the Shawn Bolzs, Bill Johnsons, or John Lindells when they teach about spiritual, apostolic gifts contrary to Scripture.
See “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts” and look for the upcoming “The Modern Analogue of ‘Prophecy’” for a further discussion of modern spiritual gifts.
