Continuing our discussion of the Middle Way:
Everywhere you look, you’ll see that finding Truth eventually leads you to the Middle Way. Even Jesus said: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13-14). You can think of the “narrow gate” as the Middle Way. The “wide” gate allows you to veer to one side or another. On the wide road, it’s hard to keep to the middle; it’s easy to stray off the straight course.
An example of this is revival. Throughout the course of Church history (and I use a capital “C” to denote the true body of Christ) the Church as been charting a crooked course between suffocating institutionalism and uncontrolled fanaticism. Generally, after periods of dry, meaningless religiosity, somewhere revival breaks out, the Holy Spirit finds people who are willing to let Him control their lives instead of ecclesiastical structures and rules. But at the same time, some go too far, and “throw out the baby with the bath water” as it were. As I said before, too much authority is stifling; too little creates anarchy. When all authority is eschewed, there is no one to give grounding to the movement, to “try the spirits.”
For instance, during the wane of the Pentecostal movement of the early 20th Century, along with the growing acceptance [by mainline denominations] of their movement, Pentecostals were, at the same time, experiencing a loss of spiritual vitality that always accompanies the onslaught of institutionalism. The 1930s and 1940s have been described as a time when “the depth of worship and the operation of he gifts of the Spirit so much in evidence in earlier decades were not so prominent.” (Eddie L. Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, p. 167.) When the institutional church tried to control the revival, it was stifled. See also the history of the First Great Awakening, where Jonathan Edwards, the famous preacher, while well meaning, I’m sure, helped to shut down the revival: Although he welcomed and defended outward manifestations such as crying, groaning and falling under the power, Edwards stopped short of accepting the validity of spiritual gifts such as prophecy, tongues and miracles. As a staunch Calvinist, he believed that these “extraordinary gifts” had ceased with the apostolic [1st Century] church. (Hyatt, p. 111.) Because of his actions, in Edwards’ own words “The Spirit of God, not long after this time, appeared very sensibly withdrawing from all parts of the country.” Edwards didn’t realize why the Spirit was withdrawing. Edwards interpreted this to mean that the Spirit was grieved with the [manifestations] that had taken place. It is more likely, however, that the Spirit was grieved by this rejection of His presence and gifts. (Hyatt, p. 111.)
On the other hand, sometimes the fires of revival can get out of hand. By far, the greatest criticism of this revival [in Toronto] centered around the unusual manifestations that occurred. . .some detractors insisted that the manifestations were demonic in origin. Others, though not willing to call them demonic, expressed concern that they represented excessive, subjective expressions of human nature, i.e. the flesh, and that unchecked “fleshly zeal” might lead to fanaticism. There is no question that excesses occurred in this revival—as is the case in every revival—and that the New Testament admonition to test and prove spiritual manifestations is in order. (Hyatt, p. 188.).
In this case the two extremes of formal religion and unbridled fanaticism are part of the “easy and wide way” that leads to destruction. The Truth lies in the Middle Way: following the leading of the Spirit, yet yielding to the authority of Scripture and those the Spirit has raised up to lead Jesus’ flock.
