The Toronto Blessing (Latimer Studies 53/54)

Written by Martyn Percy Reviewed By Mark D.J. Smith

Few readers of Themelios will not have had some kind of contact with the Toronto Blessing (TB), and few will not have asked the question whether it is, as those involved claim, a movement instigated and sustained by God. In the view of many, one of the strongest positive evidences for the Blessing, particularly in its early days, was its apparent lack of alternative explanations: if TB’s strange phenomena were not caused by human beings, nor by the devil, they must have been caused by God. Yet, as time has passed, alternative explanations have been produced.

In this book, Percy seeks to describe, and so explain, what has taken place in Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship over the last three years in terms of sociological analysis. He believes that the theory of social exchange makes sense of much that has gone on. For example, as people travel to Toronto, some over great distances and at considerable cost, they require (presumably without consciously realizing it) some kind of ‘exchange’ on their investment. Then, once there, according to Percy,

they sing about the power and intimacy of God, hear testimonies of it, listen to it preached, and then finally get to experience it themselves. In effect, they reap what they sow.

Furthermore, the rhetoric of the Toronto Airport Vineyard is the rhetoric of self-surrender, reinforced by the pervasive metaphors of ‘fire’, ‘water’ and ‘rain’ and the call to ‘soak up’ and ‘marinate in’ the Blessing. Percy’s point is that this creates a pressure for some sort of exchange for the self-surrender, and so people ‘receive’ a fresh input of God’s power.

For those, like Percy, who regard themselves as relatively neutral observers of TB, and particularly for those who are interested in sociological analysis, social exchange theory may offer a helpful explanation of how human beings so happily take part in the bizarre behaviour involved. Unfortunately, though, for much of the time Percy offers more assertion than proof, and so for those involved in TB the book will be unconvincing. They will feel that, although the human side of the TB phenomena might be explained sociologically, nevertheless the Holy Spirit is involved. And that is the issue they (and with them many of those who have decided not to get involved in TB) consider most important.

This is where the other part of the book comes in, a part I have not mentioned thus far. Presumably in order to hedge their bets a little, the editors of the series Percy’s study appears in have put what they call a ‘Responsive Foreword’ by Nigel Scotland at the beginning. Scotland argues that, while Percy offers a number of helpful insights, he fails to recognize that his account is only partial, and in any case amounts to ‘a dogmatic unverifiable personal opinion’ in its assumption that because an alternative explanation has been found for parts of TB, the power of God can nowhere be involved. ‘Could it not be the case’, Scotland asks, ‘that the TB is something like the Church of England, good in places?’

Leaving aside the question of whether the editors have been fair to Percy in supplying such a critical ‘Responsive Foreword’, and so directing readers how to read the study, Scotland does raise the key question, namely, how are we to assess TB theologically and thus decide if and how God is involved? After all, one could apply social exchange theory to the rise of early Christianity, but would the explanations it furnished tell us whether God was involved or not? Despite being part of a series of theological studies, Percy offers no help in this, and readers will need to turn elsewhere should they want it. This is hardly surprising since, as Scotland rightly says, Percy ‘does not seem to entertain even the remotest possibility that religion could be other than a social construct’.

I would not advise readers to expect much help from Scotland on the key question, however. In essence, he takes the same line as others who are positive about TB, namely, that neither the ‘bad things’ about TB nor alternative explanations like Percy’s prove that God is not involved, while the ‘good things’ indicate that he is. This approach is popular because it appeals to the idea that good fruit can only be produced by a good tree; which, of course, is perceived to be a highly biblical idea. In my view, this is highly simplistic and, perhaps more importantly, misconceives the Bible’s teaching. It is simplistic because the TB, like almost any other religious movement, is bound to be accompanied by both good things and bad things. It misconceives the Bible in its assumption, for example, that Jesus’ teaching on how to judge a person’s character (‘by their fruit you shall know them’) can be applied to the assessment of religious experiences and movements (‘by some of their effects you shall know them’).

In the end, Percy’s book is useful in a limited way, but those who wish to consider the issues pertaining to theological judgements about the TB will need to turn elsewhere.


Mark D.J. Smith

Leicester