Understanding HTB’s Sandy Millar

  By Dusty Peterson
with Elizabeth McDonald

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, Sandy Millar has been somewhat overshadowed in the eyes of many Christians by Nicky Gumbel – his colleague at Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB).  This is only natural, because it is the latter’s name which appears on virtually every Alpha resource.  Gumbel has also been the one presenting the Alpha video talks themselves, and he has acted as frontman for the bulk of the HTB-related press and TV coverage since Alpha took off.  But this has all served to obscure the extraordinary influence that Millar exerts on the Church in Europe and elsewhere... 

After all, it was Millar who spent the eighties turning HTB into a pseudo-Vineyard fellowship; it was Millar who did more to promote Paul Cain and the ‘Kansas City Prophets’ in Britain; it was Millar who visited Toronto Airport in mid-1994 and passed the ‘anointing’ on to Pensacola’s Steve Hill;[1] and it was Millar who was the greater force in popularizing both ‘Toronto’ and Rodney Howard-Browne in the UK.  (Of course, it was also Millar who assigned Nicky Gumbel the job of managing Alpha in the first place.)  

To really comprehend this remarkable legacy, it is vital to comprehend the man himself.  As a barrister for ten years prior to studying for the Anglican priesthood, Sandy Millar is a gifted speaker.  He is also immensely suave, erudite, witty and charming.  The problem is that these qualities in a person can easily beguile us and dull our faculties from being able to discern what truly lies beneath.  The following article seeks to peel away the surface and discover the core of this powerful man.  

            By way of some background, John Alexander Kirkpatrick (Sandy) Millar was born in 1939 and was educated at Eton, graduating in law at Trinity College Cambridge.  According to his testimony he was converted in the late sixties.[2]  He began reading theology at St. John’s Durham in 1974 and was later ordained by the CofE, becoming the ‘vicar’ of HTB in 1985.  He is married to Annette, and they have four children.

OUR APPROACH 

The article you are reading is not primarily a review of Millar’s doctrines or practices – for this would require a book.  Rather, it endeavours to reveal the man himself.  Instead of comprising brief quotes from different sources, it will reproduce the full text of an extremely significant piece he has written to the members of his church. 

May 2004 was the tenth anniversary of the ‘Toronto Experience’ (TE) arriving at his Fellowship, and we have felt led to critique an amazing letter Millar wrote in defence of that movement.[3]  Please note, however, that the following is not another article about ‘Toronto’!  Rather, it has far more to do with Sandy Millar and his methods.  Indeed, it assumes that the reader already rejects the TE.  (For people who do not fall into this category, I (Dusty) have written a new book which seeks to cover, as graciously as possible, all the relevant issues – and to answer all the points in Millar’s letter.  Details are given at the end.)  Whatever their background, we are confident that readers will find the article below, along with its conclusions, very worthwhile.  

Titled A response to those speaking out against the current outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Millar’s piece tells us a great deal about this pivotal figure – and perfectly encapsulates what he is about.  Happily, it involves practically zero overlap with our Open Letter to HTB regarding ‘Toronto’, published in the last Vanguard.[4]  

(For Millar’s views on other matters, readers are directed to the new, and hugely improved, sixth edition of our book Alpha – the Unofficial Guide: Overview,[5] because Alpha looks at a broad spectrum of doctrines – and Millar has made clear that he is in full agreement with the content of the Course.  In fact he has stated that Alpha is “about as perfect as it can be”,[6] and his support for its teaching is evident from every Foreword he has written for any Alpha resource.[7])  

Millar’s letter is printed in short sections, with our comments added in between.  To distinguish his material, each part of it is underlined and given in a different typeface.  The punctuation in the letter is Millar’s own, as are the emphases.  We have merely prefixed each of his statements with an alphabetic character to facilitate reference to other parts of the letter.  

As you read on, it is worth bearing in mind that Millar had enjoyed nearly eighteen months to work out what the TE was in readiness for penning this item.  Note too that he obviously thought the text a very solid piece of work – for he allowed it to be re-published the following year in Renewal magazine.  

MILLAR’S  LETTER

[A]  Dear Friends,

What started for us in May of last year as the blessing from Toronto or the “Toronto Blessing” has long since become the “current move of the Holy Spirit” – as fresh as each day’s manna from heaven and no more immediately connected with Toronto than Pentecost is with Jerusalem. 

This is an unexpected start, for Millar’s comparison with “manna from heaven” tends to play down the fact that people originally received the TE from proximity to other people rather than directly from the spirit realm.  The reference to Jerusalem is also significant, because the outpouring at Pentecost obviously took place there – thus Millar seems to be implying that the “current move of the Holy Spirit” began in Toronto, which is not correct (as Millar indirectly admits later).[8]  

[B]  I have never consciously used this column – or anything else – to try to defend ourselves.  For a work of God doesn’t need defending from anyone – it needs proclaiming! 

This is important.  If Millar has never felt the need to defend his Fellowship, the inference is that he believes HTB has not done anything that was not “a work of God” during the ten years since he took it over.  This is unlikely!

Obviously God Himself is Almighty and thus needs no defending, but the Bible calls believers to defend God’s ways from those who would try to “pervert” them (Gal. 1:7; Acts 13:10 etc).  And, since Millar invites us to draw comparisons with Pentecost, Peter certainly defended what God was doing on that occasion.

(We feel this statement by Millar is confusing, for if he believes ‘Toronto’ is a work of God – and therefore needs no defending – why does his letter comprise a defence of it?)  

[C]  But there are still some today who are using their positions to cast doubt on what God is doing and as I suspect that their motives are no longer simply an innocent desire to “help” I am writing this month to encourage you if you are members here not to draw back as a result but to persevere and go deeper with God – to drink from the wells of salvation (Isaiah 12:3) 

Millar’s initial comment is surprising, because a previous letter by him had criticized folks who “observed, analyzed and dissected” the TE and who then felt able – after such a detailed investigation – to follow up with an immediate judgment about it[9] (even though Millar too made a swift judgment[10]), whereas he now questions the motives of those who expressed concerns over the TE after a good period of time had elapsed for careful reflection.  He seems a hard man to please in this regard.

Millar also intimates that anyone who still had doubts about the TE by the time of this letter had false motives, but he does not justify his idea.  Additionally, if someone has a “position”, as Millar terms it, are they really not entitled to use that position?  After all, did he himself not use his position to get across his view on ‘Toronto’?

            A further implication of Millar’s comments is that a person can only “go deeper with God” by receiving the TE.  This, along with his (erroneous) statement that ‘Toronto’ represented “the wells of salvation” must have put a lot of pressure onto his readers to accept the TE unquestioningly.[11]  

[D]  …and not to allow yourselves to be discouraged by the drip feed effect of what masquerades as sound theology but what is in effect a sort of commercialised chemotherapy offered to people who are suffering from no illness at all – except that they are all-out for God! 

            But why would someone checking the theology of the TE be “discouraged” from walking with the Lord as a result?  We are also surprised by Millar’s use of the word “masquerades” here.[12]  This term invariably applies to deliberate deception – as in a ‘mask’.  Inadvertently or otherwise, Millar is saying he views critics of the TE as willing deceivers.[13]

An even more surprising term to see is “commercialised”.  Numerous TE detractors offered their research for free, whereas many of the ministries promoting ‘Toronto’ gained very large sums from their commercialization of it.  (Indeed, could not the Alpha Course from Millar’s own church be reasonably described as “commercialised”?[14])

            “Chemotherapy” is a third unexpected term.  Chemotherapy is poisonous and causes terrible side-effects which can be fatal.  Millar seems to be labeling as toxic any questioning of the TE.  (The irony is that HTB has indirectly employed the term “toxic” in relation to the TE.  A book published by them refers happily to recipients being “intoxicated” by it.[15])

In closing, our own experience was that most ‘Toronto’ recipients were not remotely “all-out for God” but, frankly, were instead all-out for short-cuts to holiness (or even just power-trips).[16]  

[E]  But:- 1.  Don’t we need discernment? Yes!  We have always needed discernment, partly because a genuine encounter with God is by definition risky and cannot leave us unchanged. 

We note that Millar does not explain why an encounter with our heavenly Father is “by definition risky”, especially for those folks who are “all-out for God” and are at a “party” thrown by Him – as both Randy Clark and Nicky Gumbel called ‘Toronto’.[17]

            Millar only “partly” explains why we need discernment.  By not mentioning the other reason, Millar hints that Christians mainly just need it in order to determine the ways in which they have changed after an “encounter” with God, but Christians primarily need discernment because Satan is extremely subtle and because we fallen men and women are prone to deception.  The apostle Paul often warned of these facts.  What is more, the Bible makes plain that many will be deceived in the closing years before the Lord’s return (Mark 13:4-6; Jude 1:17-23; Luke 17:26-28; 2 Tim. 4:3-4 etc).[18]  

[F]  I have often reflected that in any meeting there may be people, possibly even sitting next to each other, one of whom will be showing signs of a genuine encounter with the Spirit of God; another of whom is responding in the flesh because he or she thinks that to respond that way will cause the Spirit to do something that He wasn’t actually doing; and the third of whom may be showing signs of a demonic response from within to the presence of the Holy Spirit coming upon them from without. 

This would indeed be an immensely confusing scenario, yet God is not the author of confusion.  Nonetheless, this is a helpful statement from Millar, for it goes a long way to confirming his awareness that TE manifestations were identical to those produced by the enemy.[19]

(Incidentally, readers may find Millar’s text clearer if they look through all the sections of it in one go and then return to our commentary.)  

[G]  But there is nothing new in our need of discernment.  James tells us that if we ask for wisdom we shall receive it. (James 1:5)  We are, many of us, used to asking God for wisdom to discern the works of the enemy. 

Millar’s comment on wisdom is selective.  It would be much more foundational to point out that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Psa. 111:10a; Prov. 9:10a) – and thus that, if we do not have a godly fear of the Lord, we won’t even have the beginnings of spiritual wisdom.[20]

Beyond this, it is very disquieting for Millar to omit the fact that God’s written Word is full of wisdom.  Would not a truly balanced comment on this subject include some reference to the centrality of the Bible in supplying wisdom?  Millar hints that all we need to do in order to discern the “works of the enemy” is simply ask God.  This does not fit with Paul’s urgent warnings to churches – like those in Ephesus, Galatia and Corinth – to know, and then obey, the Bible, and to base their judgments on “the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise” (2 Tim. 3:15).  God’s Word contains a great deal of information for mankind about the “works of the enemy”.  Would it not be dreadfully unwise to ignore it?[21]  

[H]  What we need now is wisdom to discern the work of the Holy Spirit for it is the Spirit that discerns the Spirit, not the flesh.  To attempt to discern the Spirit with the flesh is like an attempt to describe a sunset with algebraic expressions – it simply can’t be done.  But there is a certain amount of that going on. 

            By teaching that his readers no longer need wisdom to discern the source of ‘Toronto’, Millar is again obliging them to assume that it must be from God.  Also, the dual capitalization in the phrase “it is the Spirit that discerns the Spirit”, leads to the notion that only those folks who received the TE possess the necessary “Spirit” to discern whether the TE itself was of God or not.  This is self-evidently wrong.

Millar’s “sunset” analogy is potentially misleading.  Although it is impossible to fully describe a spiritual experience in words, what was actually “going on” among his target readership was uncertainty about the cause of ‘Toronto’, not its precise form.  Even unbelievers can discern that “bouncing up and down like a pogo-stick” (as HTB’s churchwarden found himself doing on a visit to Toronto[22]) brings no honour to Christ – yet this is a key feature of the ministry of the true Holy Ghost.

            Millar again appears confused, for he starts by suggesting that believers can discern the Spirit’s activity using wisdom but he then changes his mind and replaces the word “wisdom” with “Spirit”.  This seems to be a way of suggesting that Christians cannot discern whether the TE is of God or not by using their sanctified minds.  In other words, reasoning has no place in this debate – even such reasoning as is totally rooted in God’s Word.  At Pentecost, however, Peter gave a rational, biblical explanation of what was happening.  He used a great deal of reasoning there – as well as in his epistles.

It is interesting to note that, in the early days of ‘Toronto’, leaders like Millar tried to use reason to explain the TE.[23]  When we hearers began to see that the reasoning on offer did not ‘hold water’ (pardon the pun), Millar et al instead claimed we shouldn’t use reason after all.  

[I]  2.  What about the origins? And why should I have to go to Toronto to receive this blessing? Perhaps I could answer the second first: we haven’t got to go to Toronto at all! 

Regarding people visiting Toronto, Millar is avoiding the issue.  The question is not “why should I have to go to Toronto”, but “Why should I initially have to receive the TE by having it transferred to me from another person, rather than receive it direct from God?”.  

[J]  Indeed many fewer people from the U.K. are going to Toronto now and hundreds of people all over this country are receiving the Holy Spirit with many of the signs associated originally with Toronto. 

Millar is again side-stepping the point.  John Arnott, among many other fans, admitted that the TE was “highly contagious and transferable”.[24]  As soon as folks had brought the TE back with them, no wonder others decided not to go all the way to Canada when they could instead have it carried to them from those who had already been there – or from others further down this chain.

The pivotal matter here is the transferability of the TE.  The Holy Spirit is a Person, not some sort of impersonal force that can be passed from sinner to sinner.  (We are obliged to note that unholy spirits can be transferred in this way – hence passages like 1 Tim. 5:22 and Num. 19:11-16.  That Millar ducks the real question surely suggests he knows that Christians cannot ‘pass around’ the Spirit of God.)  Let us compare this feature of the TE with Pentecost.  There is no mention in Scripture that any of the thousands of converts on that day suffered any TE manifestations – despite being in very close proximity to the disciples.  

[K]  One of the most encouraging aspects of this current move of the Spirit is the difficulty that there is in identifying it with any one person or denomination, country or church.  All sorts of fellowships in so many different parts of the world are seeing exactly the same things and few of them have any direct links with Toronto at all.  It is the Holy Spirit doing what He does. 

Once again, Millar focuses on the geographic centre but avoids the actual question of the TE’s catchability – a feature which meant that Fellowships didn’t need any direct links with Toronto.[25]

(We have indeed been able without difficulty – but only through the Lord’s mercy – to trace this “current move” to a single church.  Please see the accompanying chart for details.  It, along with plentiful supporting documentation on the bayith.org website, proves that Fellowships did not need any links – direct or otherwise – with Toronto in order to have picked up the TE from its true originators.)

As with all other sections, if the reader would like proof that ‘Toronto’ was not “the Holy Spirit doing what He does”, please see the book advertised at the end of this article.  

[L]  And the origins?  I think it is important to make two points if you’re discussing origins.  a) The Kansas City prophetic people that came over here with the Vineyard in 1990 were not remotely occult as is sometimes suggested and I don’t know anyone who is involved in leading a church who thinks they were.  Indeed it is a bizarre notion. 

It is interesting to consider why Millar mentions the KCP at all, for they were not the “origins” of ‘Toronto’.  Obviously they were linked to Vineyard for three years at the end of the ’80s, but that does not make them originators of the TE.  John Arnott made crystal clear that the ‘Word-Faith’ movement (especially Messrs. Hinn, Copeland and Hagin Senior) played a vastly greater role in ‘Toronto’ than any member of the KCP.[26]  Is it unreasonable to observe that, by concentrating on the latter, Millar gives the impression he is facing up to the issue of the TE’s origins without actually having to mention the real roots like Benny Hinn?

Millar insists that the KCP “were not remotely occult”, but he is very mistaken.[27]  He also says he is unaware of “anyone involved in leading a church” who thinks they were.  But surely Millar knew of people involved in ‘leadership’ who believed this?  After all, in section [C] we saw him complain about people who were using their “position” to criticize the TE, and high-profile Pentecostal/Charismatic elders like Bill Randles, Peter Fenwick, Augustus Topi, Joseph Chambers and James McConnell (not to mention a blizzard of cessationist elders) believed the KCP to be occultic.

Philip Foster is another example.  He is an elder in Millar’s own denomination and actually wrote to Millar about occult influences on Vineyard six months before Millar produced this claim.  Although Foster did not mention the KCP by name, his letter left little doubt that he viewed practices like theirs as occultic – and he published a book that same year exposing occultism within the KCP.[28]  (Besides, why does an idea have to come from someone “leading” a church in order for it to be worth listening to?  John the Baptist would not have achieved much if people had followed this rule in his day!)

            Millar calls the idea that the KCP were occultic “bizarre”.  This is a strong word in view of the scriptural warnings about occultists infiltrating the visible Church – especially the large number of them due to be active within professing Christianity during the final years before the return of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 24:11,24; 1 John 4:1 etc).  The most obvious reason for Millar to use such a robust term is if he is Dominionist – and hence denies the Bible’s unambiguous teaching that life is going to get more perilous, not easier, for the true Church as the Lord’s return approaches (2 Tim. 3:1-5).  A Dominionist outlook would certainly be consistent with the rest of Millar’s letter.  

[M]  We watched them at very close quarters when they were here and saw them demonstrating a degree of prophetic anointing that in my view we have yet to see in this country even, or should I say especially, amongst some that might criticize them! 

This is exactly the same argument employed in the ’50s to defend William Branham (a man who had at least as much influence on ‘Toronto’ as did the KCP).  But scripture tells us that false prophets can produce ‘miracles’ too (Rev. 19:20; Mark 13:22) – including prophecies that come true (Deut. 13:1-4).  This is simply not the correct test.  (Nor is the test the relative ‘anointing’ on their detractors.  Millar is in trouble if he only accepts criticism from those he considers to be more gifted than he.[29])

            Here is a very well-known example, from the KCP’s Paul Cain, of the ‘anointing’ that so awed Millar: John Wimber himself confessed that “in July 1990, in front of 1,000 church leaders at Holy Trinity Brompton – Cain stated: ‘Thus saith the Lord: Revival will be released in England in October 1990…’”.[30]  (Whatever one’s definition of “revival”, it is a fact – according to HTB’s own newspaper – that, between 1989 and 1998, church attendance in England declined by 25%.[31])  

[N]  In many ways they showed us what St Paul probably meant when he said, “eagerly desire the gifts of the Spirit, especially the gift of prophecy.” (1 Cor 14:1) 

            What are some of these “many ways” in which the KCP demonstrated what Paul “probably” meant?  Millar doesn’t mention any.  Paul’s statement doesn’t seem at all vague, so why isn’t Millar sure what it means?  Is he saying the KCP eagerly desired the gift of prophecy but didn’t actually possess it?  Is he perhaps trying to use this verse to explain away their false prophecies?[32]  (HTB’s Alpha weekend teaches that all spiritual gifts have to be “developed by use”,[33] which certainly implies that HTB expects “prophetic people” to give false prophecies at times, but where does the Bible ever say that a spiritual gift has to be developed – or that someone can have a “degree” of prophetic anointing?  What use is a prophecy that cannot be relied upon?  And why would God ever give a false prophecy?)  

[O]  But I have noticed that the tendency to label as occult things or people that you don’t like, don’t understand or even possibly who are more gifted or anointed than you are has now re-emerged in relation to this current move of the Holy Spirit. 

            It is not that detractors didn’t “like” the members of the KCP.  What reason does Millar have for saying this?  Nor do we know of anyone who criticized the KCP out of jealousy.  The issue was not the size of the KCP’s “gifting”, but the source of it.  Neither is it that their detractors didn’t understand them.  The KCP’s core teachings stretch back at least as far as Jakob Boehme – who died in 1624 and, as such, are rather well understood by now.  Millar is accusing the KCP’s detractors of being childish – yet he offers no evidence in support of this claim.  Is he not being a bit immature himself in doing this?

            Millar has erected a ‘straw man’.  He has complained that some people call the KCP “occult”, but he is misrepresenting the issue.  Even if he were to argue that a fairer term might be “apostate” this would still preclude the KCP from operating in the true Holy Spirit (Acts 5:32).[34]  

[P]  Certainly some of the models are different from ours… 

            Millar is referring to the ‘ministry models’ used by those folks who comprised the origins of the TE.  (The accompanying chart lists the key people.)  But he is not talking about their theology, just the practical way in which they implement their theology.  Hence Millar and Gumbel say things like “We need a theology … Then we need a model”.[35]  Within the Alpha resources, Millar indicates that we can legitimately use whatever “model” we want – whether or not that ‘model’ appears in the Bible.[36]  In other words, his comment above does not represent any criticism of the people on our chart.

Amazingly, it gets worse.  By merely saying his model differs from those of the TE’s human roots, Millar implies that he shares their theology.[37]  The views held by most, or all, of these individuals regarding both the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ are downright heretical, yet HTB not only refuses to censure them, but seemingly chastises anyone who dares to do so.  The contrast with Peter’s unswerving proclamation of a completely sound theology at Pentecost could hardly be starker.  

[Q]  …but I think we ought to be very careful indeed before we suggest that some of the names, Rodney Howard-Browne, Randy Clark (whom I haven’t met but whom a number of people whose views I greatly respect value amongst their close friends) are other than servants of God trying to be obedient to the call of God on their lives.

            Millar has turned things upside-down in this matter.  What the Church should be “very careful indeed” about, especially in these last days, is to make absolutely certain that a person is truly a mature disciple of God before allowing them such massive influence over believers.

We are stunned that an elder who claims to frequently ask God for wisdom could defend Rodney Howard-Browne like this.  Also, note the way in which Millar refers to Randy Clark despite the fact that Clark was essentially just a go-between – as so many others were.  This means that Millar can again avoid direct reference to genuine roots like Hagin and Hinn.  (Millar only refers to “some of the names”, suggesting he knows that the other origins are at least as controversial as RHB.  Should he not have said more?)

Millar calls us to be “very careful indeed” before so much as suggesting that people like RHB are not “servants of God”.  This warning surely harks back to the “touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm” commandment[38] which, while only referring to actual harm, was often wheeled out to frighten Toronto’s doubters away from mere verbal challenges.  (When read in context, that verse does not even refer to individuals but to the corporate People of God being harmed by unbelievers.)

Note: In order to encourage uptake of the TE, the movement’s leaders often hailed each other as fine men of God.  When it was pointed out that the TE manifestations are consistent with God expressing His displeasure toward recipients, the message frequently changed and we were informed that God was using the TE to bring humility and cleansing to these fallible men.[39]  

[R]  b)  This current move of the Spirit is now totally remote from its origins in any event.  We ask the Holy Spirit to come – not the Spirit of x or y.  We have been asking the Spirit to come for the past nearly 20 years to my certain knowledge – and He comes.

            (Once again, since the TE is transferable between people, Millar’s comment about “the spirit of x or y” and his claim that the TE is “totally remote from its origins” are, at best, irrelevant.)

We sincerely hope Millar’s congregants are not superstitious enough to imagine that an activity would be made godly, or even safe, merely by inserting the words “Holy Spirit” into the proceedings.  Demons would indeed laugh at such a notion…

Comparing this with Pentecost, there is no hint that any of the Apostles prayed to the Holy Spirit – either before they were filled with the Holy Ghost or afterwards. Indeed, it is a practice devoid of any biblical precedent,[40] so the ‘fruit’ from it will never be a blessing.  Furthermore, what is to stop Millar’s readers from combining this practice with his statements in section [G] – and therefore believing it would be perfectly acceptable, regarding any future matters, to ask God the Holy Spirit for guidance?  This would instantly throw open a huge door to deception, even if the reader in question realized that the spirit behind ‘Toronto’ was not the Holy Spirit.

An interesting side observation is that, if HTB had already been ‘asking the Holy Spirit to come’ for “nearly twenty years” prior to Millar’s letter, then HTB’s use of this practice must have preceded John Wimber’s first visit there by at least five years.  Millar’s claim would indicate that he was trying to pray to the Holy Spirit at the time he joined HTB as a ‘curate’ in 1976.  Apparently, we cannot blame Millar’s Spirit-centred, rather than Christ-centred, outlook on Wimber after all.  

[S]  He was there before of course but He comes with different manifestations and in a different sense – to those who are hungry for Him.

            The Spirit is omnipresent, so there is never any need to be asking for Him to “come” to a location in the first place.  It is unholy spirits which have to travel.  Interestingly, Alpha guests refer to feeling a spirit ‘enter the room’ during the weekend retreat.[41]

What Millar calls a ‘hunger for God’ was more often simply a hunger for exciting physiological experiences.  And anyway, the TE manifestations were also received by people who had no appetite for God at all, including unsaved journalists whose only “hunger” was for a good story.

            Millar gives a strong indication here that he thinks anyone who questions ‘Toronto’ cannot be hungry for God.  But those who are truly ‘hungry’ for God grieve over the deteriorating spiritual state of the world – and of the Church – and know that when God truly moves it results in lasting repentance leading to genuine holiness.  They also know that the power which believers should chiefly be seeking is the power to become more Christlike in their behaviour.  The fact that ‘Toronto’ did not help in these things was the very reason some questioned it.  The only lasting repentance we ever noticed ‘Toronto’ producing was repentance from being self-controlled and from obstructing folks like those listed in the accompanying chart from spreading their false doctrines and practices.  

[T]  3.  What about the fruit?  The fruit is the true test of the work of the Spirit and is in any event infinitely more important than the manifestations.

The word “infinitely” here communicates that the distressing manifestations caused by ‘Toronto’ are not to be considered significant.  We are tempted to imagine that Millar is using this argument as a way of hiding the uncomfortable fact that almost all these manifestations are biblically indefensible.  He originally claimed that the TE manifestations were indeed important[42] but it seems that once he realized he could not sustain this teaching any longer he instead decided to imply they don’t really matter.

We are grateful to readers for their patience regarding our comments about ‘Toronto’ in what is primarily an article on Millar.  Readers will be relieved to learn that we do not plan any further Vanguard articles on the issue of ‘Toronto’, but neither do we feel it is an outdated subject so long as its fallout is still affecting men’s souls – and this article, including Millar’s defence of the TE, could easily fall into the hands of people still sympathetic to that episode.  

[U]  Indeed it is the fruit by which a tree is recognized and which is the test by which to judge both the tree and its roots – not the other way round (Matthew 12:33).

            This is exactly why the originators of ‘Toronto’ should have been tested according to the fruit of God’s Spirit in their characters and teachings before letting them loose on Fellowships (Gal. 5:22-23).  The problem arises when one tries to make the fruit the test of a “move” or movement.  Millar here likens the ‘Toronto’ movement to a tree but, in the verse he cites to justify this idea, the tree does not represent a movement at all but instead represents the Person of the Lord Jesus, which is why there is no mention of “roots” anywhere in the passage – despite what Millar implies.

(When we researched the origins behind ‘Toronto’, we got quite a shock.  Investigate some of the names on the accompanying chart and readers will discover: plagiarizers and paedophiles, fraudsters and Freemasons, drunkards and drug-takers, shamans, adulterers, practicing bisexuals and much more.  But, according to Millar’s measure, the Church can only know whether or not these people were of God by the fruit of things like the TE.  And, since Millar insists the TE was of God, is he not effectively saying that the people on our chart are probably all of God too?)

Finally, Millar’s choice of Bible verse in this section is particularly inappropriate because the context is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  The plain inference is that anyone who criticized the TE was in danger of committing the unforgivable sin.  This will have served to place further pressure on his readers to ignore Toronto’s dissenters and meekly follow Millar.  

[V]  The fruit from this current move of the Spirit here at Holy Trinity Brompton and at [HTB’s sister church] St Paul’s Onslow Square  (and other churches I am sure but I am not so closely connected day by day with them) is overwhelmingly positive and good:

This is odd.  Millar appears to be admitting that it was possible for a church to have the ‘Toronto’ spirit operational but for some of the fruit of that to be unquestionably bad – yet he doesn’t explain how the Holy Spirit can produce bad fruit.

            (One common fruit from this movement was confusion.  Just as occurs on the Alpha weekend, many recipients of the TE reported substantial bewilderment afterwards.  This is the very antithesis of what the true Holy Spirit engenders and was certainly not an obvious feature of Peter’s mind as he gave a crystal clear gospel message at Pentecost.)  

[W]  …new hope and boldness, fresh faith and a new desire and freedom in prayer. 

“Hope and boldness”: Muslims too are hopeful and very bold.  So are New Agers.  In fact, if hope is the measure then the TE cannot have been of God, for it led to as much disillusionment as hope.  A decade on, many have given up hope of seeing the worldwide Revival that Millar and others claimed ‘Toronto’ was going to bring (but about which the New Testament is completely silent).[43]

            “Fresh faith”: Again, other religions produce very strong faith.  The question is, where is this faith directed?  Not at obeying the Bible apparently.  (This is hardly surprising when TE leaders admit that ‘Toronto’ cannot be justified in Scripture – and when the manifestations are all listed there as marks of God’s unhappiness.)  Neither was the “fresh faith” directed towards the Lord Jesus.  (An illustration of this is that Millar has not yet mentioned the Lord once in his letter.  The faith and focus instead centres on the spirit behind ‘Toronto’ – a spirit which has already been cited fifteen times by Millar.)  There was “fresh faith” for some, but it was faith in the human leaders of the movement rather than in God’s holy, eternal Word.

            “New desire and freedom in prayer”: Once again, many pagans too have a powerful desire to pray.  One vital requirement is that we pray in a God-fearing way (Heb. 5:7b).  It is precisely because the TE reduced reverence for the Lord that people shook off restraint and found “new freedom” to approach the Almighty in any way they saw fit (but cf. Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10:1-2!).  

[X]  We are hearing testimony after testimony of this and of many new Christians coming to faith through the Alpha courses and elsewhere too.

            Millar’s own newspaper paints a different picture.  A report appeared on page 4 of the March – June 2001 edition of Alpha News, analyzing UK churches that had run Alpha Courses.  Of those which had used Alpha for three years or more, fully half of the total (54%) actually shrank.  The report’s authors endeavoured to make their statistics look better by pointing out that, of those churches which had run the Course for six years (the maximum period for which data was available) “only 49% shrank” during that time.  (The word “shrank” in this context means that these churches each lost more than 10% of their original membership.)

            Millar’s comment above is interesting for another reason.  Nowadays HTB is exceptionally keen to play down Alpha’s links with the TE,[44] yet Millar clearly connects the two here.  Evidently, the Alpha weekend is fully compatible with the TE.  Indeed, it is understood that Zimbabwe received ‘Toronto’ via an Alpha Course,[45] and Gumbel once confessed: “We are now nearly a year on from when the Holy [Toronto] Spirit fell with power on our staff meeting … At all the Alpha conferences we have had the same experience”.[46]  The Alpha weekend is plainly filling participants with a form of the Toronto spirit.  For the many reasons described in the new book mentioned shortly, this is a very unhealthy state of affairs – regardless of the rest of the Course…[47]

            The main problem with Millar’s claim here is that most Alpha testimonies emanate from the weekend rather than from the talks on the gospel.  In other words, unsaved Alpha guests are receiving the Toronto spirit and are imagining that this experience means they are saved.  Since unbelievers likewise experienced the TE without being saved during or after the event, this has clear ramifications for Alpha.  It also explains why most of the official Alpha testimonies do not make any mention of conviction of sin or even of the Lord Jesus.[48]  But those churches which are expecting great revival will be convinced that salvation has occurred even if they simply hear someone say “I distinctly felt something supernatural enter me and it was very nice, and I would like these exciting manifestations – that I believe are from God (because you told me they are) – to continue, so I may start attending your Fellowship”.

Finally, note Millar’s use of the extremely weak phrase “coming to faith” rather than something like “repenting and becoming followers of Jesus” or “being saved from Hell through Christ”.  Millar’s letter is to his own church members, so there seems no excuse whatever for not exalting the Lord Jesus properly.  

[Y]  So as we start this new [student] year here I hope you will be encouraged to go on drinking deeply of the water of life while this season continues. 

            Related to section [S], an intriguing point arises from the phrase “while this season continues”.  Combining the two sections, Millar teaches that the Holy Spirit only comes on people in the special TE “sense” during certain ‘seasons’ of history.  But why his version of the water of life is unavailable at other times in history, no matter how “thirsty” the believers are during them, remains unexplained.[49]

            Millar encourages people to “drink deeply” here.  See also his reference to ‘drinking’ in section [C].  This will have done nothing to discourage the ‘drunken’ behaviour which often characterized the TE.  Elsewhere, Millar was rather more direct in his promotion of this ‘drunkenness’.  In his very first article on the subject[50] he argued that the TE constituted a ‘re-evocation of the Day of Pentecost’ and that, since the disciples were accused of being drunk in Acts 2, we should not be surprised if the TE manifestations “carry with them many of the symptoms of drunkenness”...[51]

            Our article has already demonstrated that, for several reasons, the TE was not a ‘re-evocation of the Day of Pentecost’.  Sections [H], [J], [P], [R] and [V] all show that the two episodes differed in major respects.  Note too that, unlike what occurred during the TE years, a single day of Pentecost saw the salvation of “about three thousand souls” (v41)…

That aside, it has been pointed out by many watchmen that the Bible only refers to the accusation of drunkenness at Pentecost being made by “mockers” (v13).  The key to all mockery is exaggeration.  The mockers saw a gathering of men who showed inexplicable boldness and inexplicable happiness.  These are products of alcohol too, so the accusation is not particularly surprising.  It does not mean the disciples were staggering around or lying comatose on the floor.  And there is no evidence that they were slurring their words or struck dumb – indeed, the opposite is true (vv6,11).  Even Wimber was obliged to admit, “There’s nothing in Scripture that supports these kind of phenomena”.[52]  In fact the Scriptures unambiguously denounce drunken behaviour[53] – even if caused by a ‘spiritual’ activity – yet HTB saw much of this non-alcoholic drunkenness.[54]  

[Z]  Keep close to your Bible, your home group, your times of worship on Sunday and your growing ability to hear the voice of Jesus – “my sheep follow me because they know my voice. They will never follow a stranger: in fact they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” (John 10:4,5)  I should give up buying chemotherapy theology too!

            (Before we look at the main portion of Millar’s statement, observe the word “buying” in his final sentence.  This reinforces the idea he introduced in section [D] that critics were “commercialized” and were opposing ‘Toronto’ for the money.)

Millar at last mentions the Bible, but he does not actually tell people to live by it (nor even to test ‘Toronto’ by it).  Some folks will say that the phrase “Keep close to your Bible” implies obeying it,[55] but Millar includes this statement alongside a recommendation to “Keep close to … your home group” – suggesting to his readers that the two things have similar authority.  (Millar does the same when he says “keep close to … your times of worship on Sunday”, arguably teaching that church services – at least those at HTB – have the same authority as the Word of God.)

            In this letter, Millar sets himself up as a role model.  But his letter has quoted, or cited, very little Scripture indeed and his conclusions are consistently unbiblical.  If Millar’s congregants believe that this letter is a good example of ‘keeping close to your Bible’ then it can only serve to undermine the authority of Scripture again.  Besides, why will they bother to keep truly close to the Bible when, as Millar admits in section [K], “all sorts of fellowships”– including churches which have a very low view of Scripture – received ‘the Blessing’?

Incredibly, Millar manages to undermine the Bible even further – by seemingly disconnecting it from “the voice of Jesus”.  The Bible is the fundamental way in which the Lord speaks to us, yet Millar encourages his readers to assume that subjective feelings should be their main guide.  A crucial tool in recognising the Lord’s guidance is through what He says in Scripture, so Millar’s repeated side-lining of the Word is not going to help folks discern the true voice of the Lord.

            The implication of Millar’s “sheep” comment is that his hearers cannot be deceived, yet he then warns them about the deception of ‘toxic’ theology “masquerading” as the truth.  It is a shame that Millar did not avoid this contradiction – ideally by offering verses like: “Be not deceived: evil communications [i.e. ungodly associations] corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33); and “let no man deceive you…” (1 John 3:7a; Eph. 5:6a; 2 Thess. 2:3).  If Adam and Eve were deceived then all of us can be.

            A closing observation: ‘Toronto’ was always claimed to be bringing honour to the Lord Jesus Christ, and generally glorifying Him, yet He gets just one mention in Millar’s entire letter (which is more than eleven hundred words long).  Even when He is finally referred to, He is not honoured with any title, whereas God’s Spirit is blessed with the suffix “Holy” on seven occasions – and even Paul is given the adjective “saint”.[56]  

CONCLUSION  

Despite having kept tabs on Millar during the intervening time, we are not aware of him ever having retracted a single word of this letter.  (Readers will recall that he allowed it to be re-published nationally the year after it was circulated within his church.)  In fact, far from repenting, Millar actually decided to mark the tenth anniversary of ‘Toronto’ by inviting John Arnott to speak at HTB.[57]  

What, then, are Christians to make of Millar?  In this solitary letter we have seen manifold errors in his doctrine and practice.  But have we not also observed something of an attitude of: hypocrisy;[58] boastfulness;[59] irreverence;[60] and manipulation?[61]  Certainly he undermines both reason and holy writ.[62]  

Of particular interest has been the apparent, and frequent, dishonesty in his letter.  As far as we can see, he misleads or dishonestly represents matters in sections [A], [B], [K], [O], [P], [R], [S], [U] and [Y].  We would also argue that he is being dishonest each time he avoids the real issue.[63]  Has he shown any more integrity than did ‘Lord’ Hutton in his widely rejected inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly?  (This would not be unexpected, because – as Philip Foster points out – Hutton is a member of Millar’s Fellowship.[64])  Indeed, Millar’s entire letter seems less than honest in that it suggests there are only three remotely legitimate concerns about the TE.  We have identified several others in this single article, and numerous further ones in our Open Letter to HTB on the subject.  Consider too the following pattern:  

● When it first arrived, Millar claimed that the manifestations of the TE were biblical.  Once people proved him wrong here, he instead claimed that the manifestations are not very significant after all.

● Millar initially claimed that the human roots of the TE were biblical.  When people proved him wrong here too, he instead claimed that the human roots should be ignored.[65]

● In the early days, Millar claimed that the reasoning behind the TE was biblical.  Once people proved him wrong yet again, he instead claimed we mustn’t use reasoning after all.  

Another pattern in Millar’s letter is obfuscation.  He has confused matters again and again.  Just consider sections [B], [D], [E], [F], [H], [N], [T], [V], [Y] and [Z] alongside our commentary and footnotes.  This is a crucial point.  Millar is charming and intelligent, so if he also sets himself up as being a discerning, well-connected and knowledgeable elder then many people will trust him.  If what he actually teaches is confusing, then a lot of these people will give up trying to understand the issues and instead will simply follow this seemingly very spiritual man who is obviously so advanced in the faith that his great wisdom cannot be adequately expressed in mere words – nor understood by us lesser mortals.  Millar appears to use this technique with terrible regularity in his materials.  He can therefore lead his followers wherever he wants.  

Added to this, look at the coercion Millar employs.  Instead of reasoning with congregants he brow-beats them into submission by repeatedly suggesting that those people who question ‘Toronto’ are not of God.  He uses such coercion in sections [C], [D], [K], [O], [Q], [S], [U] and [Z].  (The combined message from these sections is that any material critical of ‘Toronto’ is demonic.  Assuming that the Spirit of God inspired some of that critical material, it is actually Millar who is in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.)  The point we are making is that the Apostles may have entreated, urged, and pleaded with, God’s people, but they never used Millar’s coercive techniques.  

Let us pause for a moment and consider how a false brother would attempt to lead Christians into a demonic practice:  

► Would he not misrepresent the originators of the practice (or encourage us to ignore the roots altogether)?

► Would he not intimidate those who were unhappy about the originators?

► Would he not exploit the Gamaliel principle – despite it obviously not applying to situations where demons could be the spiritual cause?[66]

► Would he not exploit Scripture whenever it could be made to support his view – but ignore it whenever it opposed him?

► Would he not encourage us to ignore Satan and be carefree about deception?[67]

► Would he not tell us to put reason to one side?

► Would he not misrepresent his detractors?

► Would he not undermine the authority of Scripture and instead tell us to place our trust in him?

► In the case of a practice which involved receiving a spirit, would he not insist that we postpone judgment until we had personally undergone it?

► Would he not encourage us to believe that the practice was needed for our very salvation?

► Would he not produce threats to the effect that anyone who criticizes the practice is in danger of Hellfire?

► Would he not demand that we delay judgment until the practice had had a chance to be spread far and wide?  

In every single one of the above cases, Millar has either done exactly that or has endorsed other people who have.  Even if the reader is not prepared to recognize Millar as a false brother (although the Bible does permit this[68]), it must be clear that he is a serious hazard to the Christian Church and needs to be avoided.  Do the above facts not also oblige us all to be profoundly suspicious of every individual, or group, which Millar endorses – and of everything his church does?

---oOo---