It's so easy to get carried away focusing on what we want to see. For Pentecostals, that might be a focus on a touch from God—so very little if any discernment is carried out on what happens in a typical event. But for conservatives, the focus may be around their suspicions that what Pentecostals get up to is not of God. So they end up focussing on the errors, concerned as they are for the truth.

One helpful antidote to a nitpicking attitude is to recognise that there are some phenomena that are simply not conclusive either way. They might be from God, they might not be. We can't tell.

Jonathan Edwards was a cessationist who went through a revival (the Great Awakening in USA), and he put together nine non-signs: phenomena that if happen, don't tell you either way what power was behind them. We'll be relying on Michael Brown's interpretation of Edwards' writing since it is quite hard to understand Edwards' old English, as written in Brown's book "Authentic Fire".Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire, Michael L. Brown, 2015 That book is a response to John MacArthur's "Strange Fire", where he condemns the whole Pentecostal and charismatic movement as demonic(!).

1. Don't judge based on unusual or extraordinary works

We have a natural tendency to be skeptical of unusual or different phenomena. It's other, and we don't know how to handle it. But difference itself may or may not be a bad thing.

I can think of many things in the Old and New Testament that were firsts for the followers of God, but turned out to be of God. Consider when tongues first came, and many people thought they were drunk (Acts 2)! What about walking around a fortification and blowing a trumpet, upon which the walls fell down (Joshua 6)? What about the prophet who walked around naked (Isaiah 20)? Or lay on his side for 390 days (Ezekiel 4)? Or being unable to move for the glory of the Lord filling the temple (2 Chronicles 5:13-14; 7:1-2)?

Equally, we shouldn't be attracted to strange things, particularly if we know of an occult connection, because Deuteronomy 18:9-12 and other passages say we shouldn't even learn about them.

Our natural stance towards strange things is skepticism: and that is good, because it protects us from going headlong into potential demonic activity. But use that skepticism to find out if it's possibly good—because it might be.

2. Don't judge based on effects on our bodies alone

All things being equal, someone falling over in a meeting may or may not be from God. We can't tell. Of course, if someone pushed them over, that's a different story. If someone used hypnotic techniques, that's also different. But if there was no hypnotic technique and it was spontaneous, don't write it off as demonic. It could be from God. Nevertheless, we can't tell on that basis alone.

We ought to expect that during a revival—or a Pentecostal meeting!—that people will get emotional. That the Spirit will convict people and they would have a physical reaction such as crying. But then again, perhaps the preacher was doing the convincing. It's hard to say. I shared a story in the testing of the spirits article about a man who was crying uncontrollably—but had no conviction. He was being manipulated by a demonic spirit. So crying doesn't tell us much in and of itself. We need to test the spirits by other means.

God gave us emotions! If we're conservative in personality, we may think emotional outbursts are sources of irrationality and lack of self-control—and they may well be! But equally, the Holy Spirit may have given a person joy, and many outgoing people rightly seek to express that flamboyantly. Our bodies can dance before the Lord somewhat ignobly, like king David, but don't be the party-poopers who despised David because of that. On the other hand, they could be immature or counterfeit. It's not something that's immediately obvious based on what they do.

3. Don't judge based on a single report

Michael Brown puts it this way:

It is impossible to have a quiet, unheralded revival. As I have said many times, you can have controversy without revival, but you cannot have revival without controversy.Authentic Fire, p125

Sometimes this is because it's so easy to gossip and slander—so be careful about what people say.

Other times, it's because people see the negative and focus on the bad bits—which may well be truthfully present—but therefore miss all the good that's happening—which may well also be truthfully present. This is confirmation bias, and because so much is happening in a large revival, there's bound to be both good elements and bad.

A move of God is rarely going to affect just a couple of people, so you'll always find some weirdos—who may or may not be Christian, but who eagerly report on what's going on. So what's reported and then repeated by others could be distorted from the very start.

Similarly, the official report also tends to be whitewashed. While their perspective is generally what is front and centre (as opposed to what's happening on the fringe), they tend to report only what is good, highly conscious of their reputation—and God's.

It's very hard to be an unbiased reporter in these situations, so what's reported must be taken with a large grain of salt. What happens may or may not be experienced by most people, and may or may not be condemned or upheld by its leaders. Therefore, try to hear from multiple sides, and understand each of the reporter's bias.

4. Don't judge based on people's imaginations

Some people may report wild imaginations that may seem vain or horrible to the outsider. The move of God should not be judged on this, though.

First, should we not expect that the powerful images Scripture gives us about heaven, hell, God, the Devil, judgement, the cross and more, would make a great impression on our imaginations? Scripture invites us to think about its images and metaphors by describing these things vividly and in multiple ways.

Second, if people are being greatly convicted of their sin, and yet they describe their sin in ways that seem horrible to you—should we be alarmed that they now call a spade a spade? If their imaginations have been sparked by conviction, we ought to expect vivid appraisals of the state of their soul.

Third, just because people seem to talk about vain or horrible things, this does not mean that they experienced nothing else, or that all the work done in them was simply imaginary. These things may catch the attention of others more than the slow but effective work of the Spirit in a person's heart.

5. Don't judge based on people copying others' example

You might think that a work of God has to come direct from God. That if a person copies from what someone else around them did, that that was not from God. That's not necessarily the case. God can use other people's example to teach someone.

Michael Brown writes:

It is easy to say that people are weeping, or collapsing, or shaking, or laughing just because they have seen other people do the same. But Edwards claims that learning by example is both reasonable and Scriptural, if, in fact, the work is from God. Again, you can't prove anything either way from this.Authentic Fire, p126

The classic text for this is Paul's "be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1), but there are many others (1 Timothy 4:12; Titus 2:7-8; Matthew 5:16; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 3:17).

6. Don't judge based on people's sinfulness

People will be touched and used by God despite their sinfulness. It's easy to find many such examples. Consider the Corinthian church, for starters, and the testimony of many today.

Paul rails against the sexual immorality of the Corinthians church (1 Corinthians 5) and their infighting which has escalated to the point of legal battles (1 Corinthians 6:1-11), but still calls out their sanctification (1 Corinthians 6:11) and ability to use the gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12-14).

Michael Brown's question is insightful: "Do the excesses, problems, and even moral failures in that church prove that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not good?"Authentic Fire, p126 Clearly the Scriptural answer is no.

7. Don't judge based on the error of some

Leaders are bound to make errors of judgment. Don't judge the whole based on the errors of some—particularly if these errors were acknowledged (but which reporter ever neutered their own salacious report by writing that? Therefore, graciously assume the best: that they did acknowledge it and turn away from it, unless otherwise proven.)

Furthermore, it may be easy to find examples of the Devil's work, intermingled amongst God's. This does not invalidate God's work. That's an argument of logic, as well as an argument based on the nature and desire of the Devil. The Devil would be attracted to God's work, always at the ready to discredit it by any means possible. It's a lie, however, to say that because the Devil worked some hypnotic or psychosomatic fake healing, that all of the healing was done that way, or all the preachers were therefore fake.

8. Don't judge based on some people falling away

Inevitably, people will claim to have an experience with God, but then fall away, backsliding back into sin. This, however, does not repudiate the movement as a whole.

Brown reminds us of Judas Iscariot: "Does his fall from apostleship disprove the ministry of Jesus or throw into question the validity of the other eleven apostles?"Authentic Fire, p127

Of course, if there were much larger numbers falling away, that would be different. But here, the bad fruit shows more about the character of the backsliders than it does the character of the preacher or movement.

9. Don't judge based on a preacher's overemphasis

Edwards was accused in his days of overemphasising hellfire preaching, as it has come to be known. He was never one to use a loud and passionate voice, to artificially raise emotions, but instead deliberately spoke monotone, so that if the Spirit did move, he would know that it was not because of his preaching style. Nevertheless, he used highly emotive language to describe hell and God's hatred of sin, that people criticised the Great Awakening based on his apparent lack of grace and love.

It is apparent that God will send his Holy Spirit where he wills, whether one overemphasises hell, or as Brown points out, whether one underemphasises hell (as is much more the case these days).Authentic Fire, p128 Many people have tried to replicate Edwards' revival by preaching the same message, but failed. Even Edwards' preached it multiple times, without the same effect. The power is not in the right words, or the right technique, but in God.

Other people might point to how Edwards spent much time in prayer for the souls of people he was preaching to. Again, I'd like to point out that while God is pleased to use our prayers, and our teaching and preaching and conversations, we should not think that we are able to call in a revival. God moves where he wills, and we ought not to try and manipulate him. Rather, we should be seeking where he wants to move, or is moving currently, and realign ourselves to him.

In any case, just because God is moving amongst a people, in no way makes their message or methods completely valid. He has his reasons for moving, which he often doesn't tell us. The validity of what's being preached must be independently checked by Scripture, and in the same way, the validity of what spiritual phenomena is occurring must be independently checked.

Conclusion

I was really impressed by these 'non-signs' that a man who had been through revival developed. It shows a high measure of graciousness, because we all know how easy it is to be cynical about big changes in a person. It is also all too easy to write-off people who think differently to you, and we do so primarily by these very things: a report about some backsliders, or a scandal or three, or some other fringe event.

We all carry a heavy confirmation bias, wanting to hear only what fits into preconceived ideas.

This calls for grace and wisdom. Grace, to hear out a side that you disagree with; and wisdom, to make sense of the large range of discordant testimonies and voices.

As an evangelical charismatic, I find myself on the one hand open to the things of the Spirit, knowing Scripture talks about certain phenomena as coming from God. This means for example that I must put my anti-supernaturalist, modernist background on notice. But on the other hand, I also am open to the idea that there are counterfeits and deception, and discernment is needed as a regular activity. This serves to help me put brakes on what might otherwise be a typical response by going from one extreme to the other.

I've come to understand that you cannot know a doctrine until you know its limits. Those fully open to the Spirit are highly likely to never close themselves to other spirits. But those fully closed to the Spirit are highly likely to miss what God wants to do through them. The best way forward is to believe what the Word says about the Spirit, and also take heed of the warnings.

Practically, I think if you're a Pentecostal: get yourself close to someone who is more naturally a thinker and can help you discern the spirits. If you're a conservative, get some faith for the things of the Spirit by getting into sensible people like Dr. Michael Brown or Sam Storms. These are safe starting points because they know the boundaries of the work of the Spirit, so they're not going to lead to the common error of opening yourself up to any old spirit.