Controversy is like a social hemorrhoid that will flare up on a regular basis & need to be cooled and soothed (I almost used the term strange anal fire but I thought better of it). Some controversies are uglier than others. The worst kind of ugly controversy is the kind that might have been avoided because it wasn’t entirely necessary. Usually the culprit is misunderstanding, failure to define terms, or generally sloppy reactionism. When the internet was set ablaze with the anointing flame of controversy last week over the “Strange Fire” Conference in So-Cal, I had to wonder if this had the makings of one of those misunderstandings and failures to make responsible distinctions.
And in large measure I fear that this was just the case. As the smoke from the temple clears, I think there is a lesson to learn from this. The controversy was not just a quiet charismatic-cessationist stare-down. It was at times noisy and contentious. Names were dropped, reputations put on the line, and personal feelings bruised. Unfortunately there will likely remain some rifts between prominent persons and between prominent churches over the affair. And it may have been avoidable.
The biblical and theological debate about the gifts aside, wisdom demands something from us when it comes to a big public cyber-spat like this one. In this case I humbly submit that discernment requires distinctions. Some distinctions were not made that should have been made. Going forward, here are three things that must be clarified and made distinct on this subject.
1. The meaning of “charismatic”
Quick word association: I say “charismatic” you say …
Maybe you think of Robert Tilton with eyes shut tightly and hand raised, asking viewers who need a financial miracle to place their hands on their TV screens. Is that what we mean by that word? For some people it’s anyone who ever lifted a hand during worship. Maybe it’s belief in Holy Spirit baptism (aka “Second Blessing”). Or is it merely non-cessationism?
One thing is for sure, you’d better make clear the meaning you have in mind, and if you’re debating someone about it, you’d better agree between the two of you what precisely you both mean when you use the term. It has been painfully obvious to me in the brief eruption of attention on this issue that people are using the term differently. Some of them mean merely those whose theological position is not cessationism. Others seem to mean Todd Bentley, Kenneth Copeland, and people spending hours “Holy Ghost glued” to the floor.
Often usage determines meaning, and common or shared usage of a word can alter how we perceive it. Since this word is biblical, it seems most appropriate to recapture, as best we can, its early etymology as at least a starting place for defining it properly. As first year Greek students learn and as footnotes in your Bible may tell you, the word is essentially the word “grace” (“charis”) used in such a way (charisma or charismata) as to denote gracious acts or gifts. The specific use of the word to describe spiritual gifts (mostly in I Cor. 12 and Eph. 4) – and particularly the more extraordinary and supernatural gifts, like miracles, healings, tongues, prophetic words – is responsible for it being used to describe Christians who emphasize those kinds of supernatural gifts of the Spirit.
So far so good, but this still doesn’t help me know whether or not I should use the word only to describe those who believe that the supernatural gifts did not cease (as opposed to “cessationists” who believe that those gifts were for the messianic and apostolic eras and not normative for the church all-time), or whether I should use the word to include things like the prosperity movement, the strange semi-Eastern doctrines about how your words create spiritual realities (the so-called “Word of Faith” movement), and the outlandish “outpourings” that have people spending hours gyrating, fainting, laughing then growling, freezing and seizing.
Like many people, I have seen both the good and the utterly bizarre under this umbrella of “charismatic.” I have attended churches and have known ministers (even in my own family) who are charismatic by identification, of whom I would never say the sorts of things I say about certain televangelists. I’ve met old-school Southern Baptists overseas serving as missionaries who, though they were raised in a non-charismatic church setting, are convinced of supernatural spiritual activity based upon years of experience.
Then again, I’ve attended a charismatic service where the so-called preacher reads one verse from Isaiah (31:4 in case you need an idea for Sunday) about how God speaks as a “roaring lion” and then proceeds to lead the congregation in 45 minutes of “roaring in the Spirit.” A simplistic approach won’t do. There are charismatic Roman Catholics whose language and church life bears little resemblance to what you would find at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church (as it used to be called). When debates on cessationism broke out in the seminary classes I attended long ago, the mostly Southern Baptist students were very much split on the issue.
It may well be that we cannot presume to know what another person hears in the word “charismatic”, which means that we have to make the minimal effort of finding out and negotiating a definition that we can all understand. Even if I and an opponent agree to define the word differently, each of us will at least know what the other person is meaning when he or she uses the word.
2. “Charismatic” vs. the Prosperity and/or Word-Faith & Otherwise Whack-job Televangelists
A lot of what we say and think is categorical in nature. This is simple categorical logic, meaning we are identifying things in categories. Basic categorical propositions come in forms like “All x is y”, “No x is y”, “Some x is y” and “Some x is not y.” Part of the task of critical thinking and discernment is getting these kind of statements right and not being sloppy about it. Suffice to say that when someone uses the more sweeping and universal forms “All” and “No” there is a risk of over-generalizing in that hasty fashion that ends up unnecessarily implicating and offending otherwise innocent people in a given category.
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this. “All Charismatics are biblically ungrounded spiritual wierdos” would certainly count as the kind of categorical statement that ought not be uttered by a discerning individual. Not that anybody in the recent conference said that exactly, but similar sentiments, it turns out, are what caused such an uproar. A wiser person goes with the more modest “SOME x is y” and then proceeds to explain in greater detail. Would anyone disagree or take offense at the statement, “Some of those who identify as charismatics are caught up in unbiblical weirdness?” Maybe a few of those of whom this is actually true would take offense, but that is not a problem, so long as those taking the offense actually are those of whom the statement speaks. But you know who would NOT be offended? Those not described by the statement.
By similar example, if I hear someone say (as I have in recent years), “Christians are hateful bigots toward gays,” I am obliged to take exception to this. Without clarification this is in the form “All x is y.” It is an unfair hasty generalization. BUT if I hear them say, “Some Christians are hateful & bigoted toward gays,” I may well agree and assist in making the distinction clear (naming names – e’hem (under my breath) “Westboro”) & maybe re-stating it as “Some who claim to be Christians are hateful toward gays.”
Can you see how a little fairness and accuracy prevents an unnecessary fight? Why not take the effort to zero in on the true target instead of going all ‘drunk cowboy’ & firing buckshot into the crowd? There exists a legitimate problem to be addressed, and according to transcripts & summaries of the talks given at the conference, this very real problem was discussed. But it is a problem not unknown to many of those who identify as charismatic.
I am talking, of course, about that vast freakshow that includes prosperity teachers, self-proclaimed apostles and prophets, televangelists, etc. We all know who I’m talking about here, and unfortunately their success has indeed made them a global presence. They dominate the religious airwaves, they fill arenas, and they transmit their spiritual diseases to other continents like the early Europeans transmitted smallpox to populations around the world. Only the Europeans did so mostly by unwitting accident. These guys know full well what they are doing, and they are laughing-in-the-spirit all the way to the bank. They deserve all of the condemnation we can muster against them. Their jets can’t crash into their island resort summer homes fast enough to suit me. That’s the kind of strange fireball (and spiritual gift) I can believe in. (Note: I’m just kidding about the deadly jet crash, so commenters need not chastise me).
But that being said, what, I ask, does Paula White, for example, have to do with, say, Wayne Grudem, a writer of seminary theology texts who is a notable representative of the non-cessationist view? At most, I guess both of them would agree that the Holy Spirit actively does the sorts of things that accord with the more supernatural gifts. That, I would think, is where their agreement would end. I doubt very seriously that Grudem would, on that account, number among the fans and devotees of the pasty prophetess with the strangely contrived accent. There are several rather popular Youtube selections in which the prosperity gospel is given both barrels-full by one of the very writers who is theologically sympathetic with non-cessationism (see this one for example, where Piper uses the theological term “crap” in his scathing assessment of the movement).
I don’t fault the conference one bit for taking full aim at specific teachings, practices, even specific teachers, ministries or churches, so long as they remember that this means that “some”, not “all” charismatics are in league with Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn. Make the correct distinctions and then fire away. Had the conference designers and advertisers done this, I doubt we would be dealing with the uproar and aftermath of the whole affair.
3. Orthodox Charismatic Churches vs. Unorthodox (Perhaps Heretical) Teachers & Churches
An important distinction that charismatics need to make, make loudly and make often, is essentially the same one as #2 above but from their unique position and perspective. These are two sides of the same coin, in other words, but I want to be clear that charismatic churches, preachers and writers are under an obligation today, given the proliferation of the aforementioned excrement of false teachers, to distinguish themselves and join the open rebuke against them. Assuming a charismatic church is reasonably orthodox, I can think of a couple of pretty good reasons why the people would want to distinguish themselves from others who call themselves charismatic but are not orthodox.
One is concern for the overall reputation of the Church and the Gospel to the outside world. Those too enveloped in the Christian cocoon can forget just how many people on this planet have never been inside a Christian church nor had much interaction with believing Christians. They stand on the outside trying to figure us out, and very often their perceptions have been shaped by the worst possible influences. When I lived in Utah I often met people who had spent their Mormon lives looking from the outside at evangelical churches. Maybe they knew where a few were located in the city and had worked with someone who attended one, but as to what really goes on inside, it was mostly mysterious. But they HAD seen movie portrayals and plenty of televangelists. I discovered that some people suppose that every non-Roman Catholic church is something like what they’ve seen on TV, and every preacher inside basically some sub-species of Jesse Duplantis.
So if we fail to distinguish biblical churches -especially if they are charismatic in style – from the prosperity or ‘word-faith’ nonsense, we simply allow people to have a false impression that maintains an unnecessary obstacle for people and tarnishes the image of Christianity. Talk to secularists, Muslims or other outsiders sometime and get their impressions of what they think your church is probably like. You may be surprised. In all likelihood they will guess that your preacher yells everything, or maybe that the sermons are all about abortion and gays (thanks to the media’s portrayal), or that your church spends a lot its time getting people to give their money, only interested in the Almighty (Creflo) Dollar. These are stereotypes based on real cases, but people are allowed to persist in these characterizations and the Church gets a black eye because of it.
Besides removing false images of the Church that outsiders may have been given, another reason why charismatic churches should distinguish themselves is to maintain unity among all biblical and historic Christians while preventing hucksters and charlatans from using the silence of reputable teachers and churches as tacit approval or endorsement. The simple and undeniable fact is that the influential heretical movements in question have cast themselves in the charismatic image (again, mostly I’m thinking here of prosperity, word-faith, and wierdo-fests with the people becoming barnyard animals in the spirit – sometimes all being mixed but not necessarily in every case). Once called “Neo-Pentecostalism”, the worst offenders – whether getting filthy rich or prophesying falsely out of their rear-ends – have dressed themselves in the cloak of Pentecostal charismatic church stylings.
Because of this reality, like it or not, charismatic churches bear more scrutiny and have all the more duty to show themselves biblically faithful while calling liars and pseudo-apostles out. Non-charismatic (or at least less charismatic) churches need their charismatic brethren to uphold a more biblical picture of charismatic church than what the shysters are demonstrating. As some charismatic leaders have admitted, opening the door to the supernatural gifts requires a particular vigilance, given that people, simply by virtue of what they are, will always be prone toward error. Since we live in a biblically illiterate age where post-modern thinking has aroused a kind of mindless and undiscerning spiritual cocktail served up by writers and speakers whose expertise amounts to Oprah endorsements, it is that much more vitally important that charismatic churches keep things biblical and guard against a slide toward an anti-intellectual spiritual free-for-all. I don’t think this point is all that controversial. Sam Storms, our local theologically erudite while decidedly non-cessationist pastor of the Reformed persuasion, has said more than once that being fully open to the supernatural gifts, on the one hand, while warding off mere subjective whims & wide-upon spiritual freelancing, on the other, is not the easy road. Charismatic churches, however, can’t afford to take the easy road these days.
Ultimately the debate between cessationism and non-cessationism remains itself distinct from the discussion about prosperity & word-faith televangelism. The latter need not require much debate. We should roundly condemn it and seek to undermine it and/or correct it. But cessationism, like eschatology & a few other all-time intramural theological debates, can continue to be a civil discussion among Christians. To be fair, a lot of what was done at the controversial conference, according to transcripts I’ve seen, was simply defending cessationism and critiquing abusive heretical weirdness, neither of which should be controversial among biblical Christians, since the first is an ongoing debate of a mostly civil nature while the second is largely agreed upon by orthodox charismatics and non-charismatics alike.
The error was a lazy lumping together of all non-cessationists with the weirdos, or at least somehow blaming non-cessationists for the wierdness of certain self-identifying charismatics. And in full equality we should admit that some of those in the charismatic camp have been guilty of the reverse error, as Phil Johnson’s talk at the conference demonstrated, by calling cessationists deists or God-deniers (or even atheists). Why do that? Why run your mouth so recklessly and cause offense to people who are your brothers and sisters? I can’t see any excuse for it. Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Mormons are polygamists, etc., so likewise not all cessationists deny the Holy Spirit’s existence or God’s activity on earth, and not all self-identifying charismatics flail wildly & bark like dogs during worship, have imposing Jan Crouch hairdos, and send their money to this guy hoping for a “harvest.” Failure to make these distinctions insults a lot of people unnecessarily and turns the blogosphere into a holy war. Let this be a lesson to us all.
267 replies to "Let this Strange Firestorm be a Lesson"
+1
You write, “Why run your mouth so recklessly and cause offense to people who are your brothers and sisters? I can’t see any excuse for it.”
There’s a certain irony in your closing counsel given the unsparing manner in which you address yourself to schools of thought about which you are clearly ignorant (though I’m certain you’ve read all of the right critiques … written by those with little to no firsthand experience in the matter. Funny how often I find a contented ignorance among those who find thorough firsthand experience unnecessary when they don’t fear challenge from their fellows).
For them you feel quite free to employ invective, heaping scorn, deriding them dismissively.
Perhaps you should, after so certainly offering the sort of advice you’ve offered, reread your missive. You may find that edits are in order.
Very good points made. Though personally I am very sympathetic to the Strange Fire conference and what seemed to me its important aim of targeting charismatic excesses, to the degree that they failed to make clarifications and distinctions such as you’ve described, I think they made themselves less likely to be heard. The sane, orthodox charismatics not guilty of the excesses will of course be defensive when they’re lumped in together with the “wackos”. But I am also glad you point out how the charismatics who are not wackos should be policing the movement much more than they have been.
None of this bothers me as much as you misspelling “weird” three time! 🙂
CMP: “I don’t fault the conference one bit for taking full aim at specific teachings, practices, even specific teachers, ministries or churches, so long as they remember that this means that “some”, not “all” charismatics are in league with Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn. Make the correct distinctions and then fire away.”
If all agree to this, then as a minimum, let’s all give thanks to the Strange Fire Conference and Pastor John MacArthur for taking aim at the egregious abuses and excesses within a sizable number of the Charismatic Movement.
“Had the conference designers and advertisers done this, I doubt we would be dealing with the uproar and aftermath of the whole affair.”
I think the conference designers did, in fact, do this to a reasonable satisfaction, but it may not have been to your reasonable satisfaction. So that’s a subjective call.
The article was written by Clint Roberts not CMP.
Long-time reader. I can’t help but wonder if you didn’t miss the point altogether. The perspective of MacArthur and the others is that all of the abuses/heresies you mentioned stem from and are the fruit of charismatic/continuationist theology. So, if you understand that, the conference and book make perfect sense whether or not you agree.
Re: first sentence. I’m bummed that you “thought better of it”, but thank you for at least including its mention.
“Had the conference designers and advertisers done this, I doubt we would be dealing with the uproar and aftermath of the whole affair.”
Whenever I read or hear John MacArthur say something on this topic, I’m not sure he even sees such a distinction. Doesn’t he like to make the point that “reformed charismatic” is an oxymoron? I get the feeling he’d lump people like Paul Washer and Benny Hinn all in the same category.
I don’t plan to read his Strange Fire book but I felt this response to it made it clear what the book is about:
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/41371-a-final-appeal-to-pastor-john-macarthur-on-the-eve-of-his-strange-fire-conference
tuad
really? your logic…is not
They say mussolini made the trains run on time. Lets be sure to remember him for that. That of course should excuse his other behavior.
The conference organizers were not the problem, except to the extent they gave Jmac free rein. Jmac is responsible for his own words.
TUAD — FYI, for future info, CMP (who you ascribe) did not write this post.
More importantly, let’s assume that you are right and the necessary distinctions cited here *were* made to a reasonable satisfaction, but not to everyone’s reasonable satisfaction. The number of people in the latter category was large and contained both loud and important voices.
This would lead one to believe that all of us in that latter category are just a bunch of dolts who were unable to discern what MacArthur really meant. What conclusion are we to draw from the fact that no further clarification or distinction whatsoever came from GTY in the months leading up to the conference, or even in the first day of the conference itself?
I can certainly understand not bothering with those with whom you patently disagree. That’s in keeping with Proverbs 26:4 and Matthew 7:6. But what exactly is the thinking behind ignoring those with whom one basically agrees, but by whom one has merely been misinterpreted?
You’ll have to be more specific Larry. Are you saying that I was too harsh on the prosperity, word-faith, and/or way-out-pourings, without having enough inside “first-hand” knowledge of any or all of them?
Of course whatever I say, the beauty is people will apparently assume Michael wrote it, and he’ll catch the flack (which he’s used to doing anyway).
I think my sadness about the whole affair was that I don’t really know what it’s actually going to achieve. My feeling was that the whole thing could be summarised as “Charismatics are wacky and bad, and those of you who are ‘continuationists’ who aren’t wacky and bad really need to become cessationists so that it’s easier for everyone to pick the right side”.
Here’s what I don’t think will happen:
– Continuationists are, for the most part, unlikely to be persuaded by either the intellectual or polemical arguments to become cessationists
– “Charismaniacs” won’t even know it’s happened, and won’t change
– Cessationists are not going to be any clearer about the nature of charismatic theology, merely more entrenched in their own cessationist theology
– There will not be any unified rejection of the excesses of poor charismatic practice or theology
Here’s what will happen:
– JMac will sell a _lot_ of books
– Cessationists will node their heads sagely and wag their fingers at anyone even vaguely charismatic
– Orthodox continuationists and charismatics will weep
Yes, I’m being overly dramatic (and sarcastic). But from all the coverage I’ve seen, I haven’t yet understood what good JMac was hoping to achieve from this conference.
Yes Clint … your writ large dismissiveness lacks any hint of understanding … just the smug ridicule typical of those who run in crowds comfortable with such comfortable untruths.
How many quotes do you offer which aren’t provided by someone else? How much of your understanding was acquired from the opinions of others? How many months of listening first hand, reading first hand have you actually invested in the effort?
What specifically have you discovered to be unorthodox in the movements core theology? How do they compare to near eastern religion? Who specifically comprises the “freak show” (again, you seem to fail miserably in abiding by your own advice)?
Ben, I think your assessment is very near the truth.
Larry, again your chastisements are too cryptic for me to decipher. I will venture a guess, based on what you wrote, that you are taking great exception to the merciless way I am going after the “Word of Faith” televangelists. If that is not the case, disregard what follows here & make yourself clearer.
Admittedly I treat these particular hucksters with nothing but loathing. I am not too out of the ordinary on this, as I demonstrated by linking readers to the withering description of Piper (a non-cessationist as far as I can tell), who used the word “crap” to refer to their teachings. Note two things here: first, he is not the type to use that kind of word (unlike myself), so he must feel a special kind of disgust for the prosperity message, and second, he is not using the word in reference to the men who teach it but to the content of the teaching.
And if it is indeed prosperity/word-faith that you are feeling the emotional urgency to defend, I must ask why? Do you believe those teachings? Do you think those men (Copeland, Duplantis, Popoff, or whatever conglomeration of them you want to defend) really know and interpret the Bible well? Do you really think God has given them the anointing they claim? What has that message done for the Church? For the world? For YOU?
Honestly I can’t figure how so many people read and listen to these individuals. It stymies and depresses me to imagine the audience they maintain. If you are among them, I wish for you that you would separate yourself from their heresy for your own sake, the sake of whatever family you are raising, and the sake of the Gospel itself, which is being raped like a Taliban child bride every day on greasy TV screens around the world.
Ben,
I understand you think the conference is not likely to accomplish anything constructive (probably I’m understating your position). I would like to respond to your points. You began by saying, “Continuationists are, for the most part, unlikely to be persuaded by either the intellectual or polemical arguments to become cessationists.”
But the main point of the conference was to draw attention to faulty theology that leads to bad excesses in a large segment of the charismatic movement, practices which do great damage to millions of Christians. For example, when God’s people are being hoodwinked about healing and false prophecies proclaimed (i.e., prophecies that do not come to pass), we ought to challenge this. Since the errors are disseminated worldwide through such outlets as TBN, the response needs to be equally expansive and public. I think JM as a well-known teacher feels responsible to help correct this aberrant teaching (and there is indeed biblical mandate for the Church as a whole to rise up against false teaching).
Some may never hear of the conference, but the controversy surrounding it is bringing attention again to these important issues. Whether charismatics change or not (or simply correct what is faulty) is up to God. I haven’t yet watched all segments of the conference but I think an attempt was made to show the unbiblical nature of some charismatic theology that in turn leads to aberrant practices. We are called to present true teaching and correct the false. God alone is responsible for changing peoples’ minds and hearts. You imply that JM is motivated by selling books—how do you know this? You also ascribe low motivations to cessationists—but I think many just want the errors hurting God’s people corrected, not merely to “wag fingers”. The orthodox continuationists should weep- for the abuses emanating from their movement- & should be on the front lines correcting it, rather than attacking one drawing attention to the abuses.
Cryptic? Gee whiz … I’ll try to be as clear as possible. First, you’ve dodged my questions. Please, don’t do that … it’s suspect. Either answer the questions (as they’ve been asked) or explain that you’re unable to.
“Hucksters”, “Crap” … really, do you find such language suitable to this discussion? Doesn’t it seem slightly adolescent that you hide behind such language (despite counseling against it) rather than offer straightforward explanations. Are you hoping for cheers from those already aligned with you?
So, again … before moving forward, fist answer my questions. You’ve lodged the charges (lobbed the grenades) … now substantiate them.
By the way, if you’re able only to do this by first racing to your bookshelf or to a website to review the critiques of others … you ought to be, as a scholar and as believer, be embarrassed by such intellectually and ethically challenged behaviors.
As far as Piper’s view on the prosperity gospel, here’s a nice sermon jam set to him speaking on it.
However if you search YouTube for “piper prosperity gospel” there are tons of clips from numerous sermons.
And yes, Piper is a continuationist for whoever asked earlier in the thread.
Jonathan … trying to make my point?
Ben, I’ve read your post five times, and I’ve yet to see anything overly dramatic and very little that’s sarcastic. Did teh interwebs eat the part of your post to which you refer?
Alexander,
By what authority do you tell us what “the main point of the conference” was? And regardless of that answer, how does that fit in with this video?
I can run down the interstate wearing nothing but a sandwich-board that proclaims a deep theological truth. I guarantee that I’d be on the 6:00 news (certain parts pixelated, of course)
and some of the ancillary discussion in the days following will be about what was on the sandwich-board. But that doesn’t mean that what I did was right. Similarly, your contention that the conference (and the surrounding controversy) “is bringing attention” to error doesn’t justify anything.
Paul did not merely tell us to “speak the truth”; he told us to “speak the truth in love“. This is a clear indication that methodology is vital.
Finally, the fact that you say that Ben implies “that JM is motivated by selling books–how do you know this?” is very representative of a misunderstanding by MacArthur and his defenders. Some people actually just make statements for what they are, and don’t assume other people’s heart motives. (Nor do they admit that they don’t know heart motives and then immediately start conjecturing about what they just got done saying they didn’t know — see that video I linked — brothers, these things ought not be so.)
So, just as Ben doesn’t know MacArthur’s heart motive, you don’t know Ben’s heart motive to know that he was implying anything.
Unless, of course, you had a word from the Lord. In which case, welcome to the charismatic camp.
That’s odd. Jonathan’s youtube link just put the link in his comment, whereas mine actually embedded the video itself.
Wasn’t making a point, just providing a link for a clip referenced earlier in discussion but forgot it was linked from original article. Also confirming for Clint Roberts if Piper was continuationist or not.
Whooboy. OK, Larry, let’s do this. Quid pro quo. I’ll answer the questions you asked in the previous reply, and then you answer mine in the last reply.
Q1: “How many quotes do you offer which aren’t provided by someone else?”
A: Well, let’s see. How many quotes did I offer in the first place? By my initial re-scan of the post I don’t see any direct quotations. Of course I like quotations and have no problem using them, but consider: when you use a quotation, isn’t it BY DEFINITION provided “by someone else”? The words are either my words are someone else’s words. I fail to see the point of the question.
Q2: “How much of your understanding was acquired by the opinions of others? How many months of listening first hand, reading first hand have you actually invested in the effort?” (these two seem to go together)
A: If we are talking specifically about the issue of prosperity & word-faith teaching, as opposed to my broad understanding of everything else, then I would have to say that my understanding of what they teach is derived from several sources over the course of the last 25 years. They include original written material from the teachers themselves (in seminary I made myself suffer through Benny Hinn’s masterpiece “Good Morning, Holy Spirit”, which I always thought needed a sequel entitled “Hi Trinity I’m home”). The sources also include written material from others who have engaged and exposed these frauds over the years. And of course there are endless hours of video of these guys preaching. I’ve been watching them in segments (I can only stand so much at a time) over many years. But I suppose I have indeed taken stock of “the opinions of others” as everyone does. The “others” include, I might add, pro-word-faithers (like yourself) and against.
My word count is almost up, but I’m glad to deal with further questions. Why don’t you answer the questions I asked you about which teachers you follow & why?
Pastor Clint Roberts: “Controversy is like a social hemorrhoid that will flare up on a regular basis & need to be cooled and soothed (I almost used the term strange anal fire but I thought better of it).”
Prophetic?
Looks like you and commenter Larry are engaged in a controversy, eh?
😉
[…] 1. C Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen (and also Credo House Ministries) has declared that MacArthur is losing his voice among Evangelicals, and has also informed the whole world what someone who’s never been part of the charismatic movement thinks a Charismatic is. Michael Patton’s fellow team blogger Clint Roberts has tossed out some thoughts on lessons to learn from the Strange Firestorm. […]
The bottom line is, either the sign gifts have ceased, or they have not ceased. It seems that we all need to do our homework in scripture and try to determine which is truth because both cannot be true. A foundational issue here is: Is scripture sufficient to express all that God intended to tell us, or should we expect to receive new revelations from God? If we can expect new words from God that come to us in the form of impressions in our mind, how are we to decide what is truly a word from God and what isn’t? I think it’s quite interesting to watch the Grudem debate (youtube) on modern day prophesy that Justin Taylor posted on his site. Grudem argues that we receive new revelations that he would classify as prophesies that come to us as impressions in our mind. He admits that there will be error in the mix. It’s hard for me to fathom that that’s what God has for us now. It seems to me that if God was really speaking to us He would do so audibly, so that there would be no mistaking it. I never saw God speaking in a person’s thoughts in scripture when He had a message for them to convey. Isn’t God the same yesterday today and forever? And then there’s the matter of tongues, which we see in scripture were given to the apostles in known languages in order that people of other languages would hear the gospel such that they could understand it.
I watched most of the live streamed conference, Clint Roberts, and now that I’ve read your lengthy blog I seriously doubt that you did. Your assessment is not appropriate based on the collective talks I heard. You need to listen to all of the talks, and or read the book, before you can be a rightful critic. There were some excellent talks that you need to wrestle with.
Susan, you present — at best — a false dichotomy by implying that only the cessationist views Scripture as being sufficient. The issue is not the sufficiency of Scripture — no Christian would deny that — but its exclusivity (or lack thereof) as a means by which God reveals His truth.
You then go on to argue the cessationist view with phrases like: “It’s hard for me to fathom”, “It seems to me”, and “I never saw”. Cessationism frowns upon experience, and yet your argument is full of experiential phraseology.
Lastly, I find it rather befuddling that a cessationist would appeal to God’s immutability (“the same yesterday today and forever”) when that is the very foundation of the continuationist viewpoint — that God isn’t an “Indian giver”.
In scripture, “never saw God speaking” to his prophets or apostles etc by way of impressions in their mind that they were then left to wonder as to whether they were from God or not. In other words, there is no evidence in scripture that God speaks prophesy in this way. Sine there are no evidences in scripture that he did , that is a strong indication that we should not expect prophetic words from him in this day to come in such a nebulous and uncertain way.
Does it make since to you that we should expect there to be errors in modern day prophesies as Grudem says there will be? You want a scripture for that? How about the test for a prophet given in scripture, that all of a true prophets prophesies will prove TRUE? I can’t look that up right now but I trust you are aware of it.
Susan, I shall assume from your comment that you have no interest in addressing any of the issues that I raised. I am more than happy to return the favor.
I did, you just don’t care for my responses. You didn’t listen to the live streamed conference did you? If you had you would have heard many solid arguments from scripture. I will not dialogue with you further since you are argumentative but did not listen to the hours of talks I listened to. They were very good, better than I expected. I’ve noticed that the people who are the biggest critics of the conference haven’t taken the time to listen to all of it. Apparently the talks will be available soon, but the book is more complete.
A cessationist, arguing for Scripture as the sole means by which God reveals truth to us, telling someone else what their feelings are. In the words of the great philosopher (Larry the Cable Guy), “I don’t care who are; that’s funny right there.”
Brendt Wayne Waters,
My claim to know the “main point” of the conference is based on being a follower of Mr. MacArthur’s and Mr. Phil Johnson’s ministry and observing the theme of the conference. Must I be possessed of special “authority” to make very simple observations? I certainly didn’t receive “special revelation” to come to this conclusion.
In the video MacArthur says he thinks the “open by cautious” stance of certain prominent non-charismatics stance provides “cover” to charismatic errors– thus the video is well in keeping with the overall theme of the conference.
I believe the conference speakers spoke the truth in love, or motivated by love. Telling folks the truth about teachings that harm them because they are unbiblical is an act of love, and as far as I can tell, that is what motivated MacArthur and this conference.
Ben said: “Here’s what will happen: – JMac will sell a _lot_ of books…”
At first blush this sounded like a very loaded comment to me. But perhaps Ben’s making this point was simply observation, rather than hinting at anything sinister about MacArthur’s motives. I hope so.
I’m not stating that the controversy now surrounding the conference justifies anything. I am stating that because of the conference, and also because of passionate opinions surrounding it, some needed and possibly useful discussion on these matters is taking place.
Clint, your short answer is … practically nada. You’ve read one book by a chap who is viewed with misgivings by many in the WOF movement … Benny Hinn. Otherwise, your perspectives have been shaped by the opinions of others … rather than by extensive research into the teachings of those you so freely ridicule.
Benny Hinn, who you so freely mock, is more than a caricature though. Allow me to share a personal experience in this regard. While dining in his home one evening he took me to his study, eager to show me his library. He was, at that time, under fire from Hank Hanegraaff for a series of odd remarks and ideas … among them, certain remarks construed as WOF.
He quickly and proudly pointed out that no titles authored by Hagin or Copeland were to be found among his collection. I asked why? “They are not evil men Benny” I noted. He quickly corrected himself, pointing at the bottom shelf were several were to be found.
I couldn’t help but laugh. I found Benny to be part showman, part child yearning for approval, part immigrant eager to make the “American Dream” his own … but, I also found a man who genuinely loved Jesus Christ … imperfectly to be sure … but also sincerely and desperately. I found a man responding to his call within the context of his culture, religious experience (limited though it was) and faults.
A product of both his Arab upbringing (he nearly fainted when I revealed that I knew his name was Toufik … so fearful was he that his Arabic ethnicity would find Evangelicals rejecting him … though later he would disclose this on Larry King Live) and the sometimes odd subculture of Pentecostalism. Benny found the Mysticism of Catholicism as much to his liking as he did the snatches of Faith teaching that he glommed together.
Benny’s strong suit is not sound theology … or the disciplined study it demands (though he does study God’s word eagerly). Benny has exploited a gift, sometimes helping (in spite of…
(in spite of himself) … often doing harm. People have come to Christ through his efforts. Some have found their relationship deepened. Sadly, Benny has also provided ample fodder for his detractors, and worse, provided excuses for those eager to find them.
I recall vividly two strange dreams I experienced during the nineties, when I worked closely with a minister (whose counsel was regularly sought out by ministry and political leaders) whom Benny asked into his private circle hoping, I think, that he would provide guidance. Very late one evening while vacationing in North Carolina, I received an urgent call from this man. He was with Benny and another well-known Charismatic leader. Together they urged Benny toward change (later the man would wonder aloud if that was not rather like asking the bearded lady to shave). Benny was listening and wishing, I think, to yield to their counsel.
Benny, however, was surrounded by a small but influential group of people who may have felt they were serving his best interest … but were, in my opinion, unmistakably sycophantic. I fear that having left his meeting with these two counselors, he soon forgot their pleading advice among his entourage. As I wrote, I received a phone call late that night, asking that I pray for Benny. I went downstairs and did just that. Later, I returned to bed. As I closed my eyes I quite suddenly saw Benny standing on a road. Circling him, menacingly was a large brownish bear. Next I observed the man whom Benny had turned to for counsel approach Benny. As he did, the bear appeared to lunge toward him … he instantly recoiled, covering himself with his hands as if to protect himself. As he did though, he was unable to see that the bear, try as he might, could not harm him.
In an instant that scenario faded and I found myself viewing Benny from inside a small room. He appeared terribly frightened. Hovering closely around him was an enormous man. Shirtless, very muscular,…
. Shirtless, very muscular, tall and powerful. As I observed this scene, I suddenly found myself looking out from Benny’s eyes as if I were him. I was seized with a fear bordering on terror. I wanted to escape this creatures hold. I spied, through a door, which was slightly ajar, a group of men. I thought to call out to them for help. I slowly edged toward the door when this creature simply took me by my arm, pulling me back slowly form the door … and closing it with a horrible finality. I was struck by his irresistible strength. It was as if the slightest effort carried a million pounds of force behind it. I felt utterly alone … and desperate.
The it ended. The next day I phoned the man who awakened me the night before and shared with him my experience. He admitted than he had grown fearful of confronting Benny because of the reaction of Benny’s associates … fearful that he would simply be cut out of the loop and no longer enjoy any opportunity to help. As I reflected on this experience I wondered if I had not gained some insight into the nature of bondage. May we find ourselves silenced by our position, by our pride. Muzzled by our fear of being labeled by our flaws we remain captive to a bondage we simply lack the strength alone to break free of. How desperately we require the prayers of spiritual men at such times … rather than their unthinking ridicule.
Not long after I had another experience that rather cemented, in my mind, that the problems ran deeper than doctrine (as you might expect they would) … and my own failure to serve when I might have made a difference.
I was a guest in Dr. Colbert’s home, a home not too distant from Benny’s. A gathering of women had collected in one of their large rooms. There the women mingled, chatting informally. I wandered in and took a seat beside a rather portly woman. I had no sooner sat down when a wave of grief and despair seemed to wash over me. In that same instant I was immediately…
In that same instant I was immediately aware that these feelings were, in fact, those endured by the woman seated beside me. I sensed her despair flowing from a feeling of emotional abandonment, a fear that her husband no longer loved her … that he disdained her … that her children too were growing distant. She felt helpless and utterly alone.
It was all slightly overwhelming. As I turned to speak with her, Mary Colbert walked into the room and, spying me, walked over and introduced me to Suzanne Hinn … the woman seated beside me. All of my meetings with Benny, to this point, had been without his wife or children present, so having never met her I had no way of knowing who it was I sat beside. Sadly, I said nothing. It was a dreadful act of cowardice I greatly regret. Later, all of this would become very public. God, it seems, was reaching out yet again to bring wholeness to this man, his wife and family.
I share these things now, in fact, because it has become public knowledge. For many years, however, I kept these matters to myself. I share them in hope that you might realize that by treating men like Benny as if they are one dimensional caricatures, you can never really begin to sort error from truth … showmanship and manipulation from real ministry … the object of ridicule from the actual man. I also share them to underscore my own failure to better respond to his failings. Benny wished very much to be accepted … I’ve often wondered how differently things might have unfolded if those who’ve so publically ridiculed him would have instead humbly, gently and kindly shared their concerns with him in the most private manner possible … following those efforts with the faithful prayers of a brother … a partner in grace.
The human condition assures that each of us is flawed … some of our weaknesses yield more egregious faults than others. Some of us reveal weakness clumsily like Peter in Antioch when he chose to shield himself from the ridicule…
clumsily like Peter in Antioch when he chose to shield himself from the ridicule of colleagues … at the expense of his communion with the Church at Antioch. Then there are others like Saul of Tarsus … turning the sword of the Spirit on their brethren … smiting them rather than humbling imploring them.
Over the years I’ve spent time privately with many who enjoy a higher profile than most. I’ve observed in each of them strengths and weaknesses, foibles found alongside the most admirable qualities. I’ve hung my head in dismay and embarrassment at the absurd and tortured interpretations of scriptures I’ve sometimes heard … and yet listened as life ministering and liberating truth fell from the same lips. I’ve found their excuses for private jets laughable … even as they’ve shared them with me. I found the expense foolishly extravagant and yet … Though we each enjoy material belongings which others might find selfishly wasteful.
I watched quietly, one evening, among a gathering of perhaps two hundred of Washington’s powerful elite gathered in Blair House, the President’s guest house. We exchanged small talk before repairing to a larger room for the evening’s main event. Entering that room I observed a mildly humorous phenomenon. Each time a more powerful figure entered that room, those gathered would drift toward them … as if they had become the greater center of gravity. Soon, Secretary of State James Baker followed us into the room. Instantly those gathered seemed pulled toward this powerful man. Not long after, though, a frail, stooped woman slowly shuffled into the room … it was as if the iirisistable gravity of a black hole had suddenly appeared, overwhelming the power and influence of everyone gathered.
The simple, bowed woman spoke quietly and gently of Jesus … and of serving others. It was an extraordinary thing to witness the great and powerful fall under the shadow of this demure woman … Mother Teresa. I prefer her humility over the extravagance of those who feel only a private jet will serve their needs. But, If I’m honest … I’m much nearer their extravagance than Mother Teresa’s selflessness. It would have been I foolish of me to urge her toward greater earthly comforts … just as it would have been for her to impose her Spartan lifestyle on me. I know that God would have each of us place others before ourselves … and I know what that looks like for me. Shall I now offer that as the metric by which the spiritual life is lived? I will give an account for my life … and no one else. I will my life, by the grace of God in a fashion which models his love, compassion and concern for others and trust that it might inspire others to find where that line is drawn for themselves.
I’ve realized that we are all the workmanship of God in Christ Jesus … and products of a fallen world. We are at once glorious new creatures in Christ, but also hilarious bundles of contradictions. I want to live my life in the spirit of Galatians 6 …
Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load. Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh…
Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
Jesus is, I am convinced, at work among us. The degree to which He enjoys access to my life and circumstances lies, to some degree with me. As I trust wholly in Him, He works … just as He did in the gospels … when He was frequently heard to utter these remarkable words … “Be it unto you, even as you believe”
I would be only too happy to address your misgivings regarding these teachings … if only you’d discuss them beyond dismissive jibes and invective. Are you prepared for such a discussion?
Susan, the office of prophet in the old testament and the tests you refer to are unrelated to the gift of prophecy referred to in the new testament. When the gift of prophecy works through a believer today, it doesn’t make them a “Prophet” in the sense that they are speaking God’s commands to His people as happened in the OT and were to be taken as canon.
I’m certainly no expert on this subject, but in my experience with friends and people I know who operate in this gift, it often expresses itself as the Holy Spirit bringing to mind specific scriptures they share with a person related to a situation the person God is ministering to is going through, even when the situation is unknown to the one praying.
Some who are opposed to the gift of prophecy in general (disobeying 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20, 1 Corinthians 14:1 , 1 Corinthians 14:39, in my opinion) try to argue that the gift of prophecy would equate to new scripture or that the canon of the Bible is incomplete, but that seems like a straw man argument to me. No Biblically minded continuationist would ever make that sort of argument. The Bible was written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, infallible and complete for all time, not via the routine operation of the gifts.
In other words, someone with the gift of prophecy wouldn’t be telling you some new revelation of God that isn’t contained in scripture. Rather, they’d more likely be sharing some specific scripture that pertains to something happening in your life they know nothing about, at just the right moment you need to hear it, which would be a remarkable coincidence if there was no Holy Spirit.
Alex,
I’m sorry. I did not mean for the word “authority” to have such, er um, authority. Put less eloquently, what I was asking was “where did you get that from?” And you have answered that question — by observation and interpretation — the same tools used by those who told us “what he really meant” time and time again, as though someone who’s been at this preaching thing for 40+ years was that sloppy with conveying his point.
But let us assume (as you stated) that “the main point of the conference was to draw attention to faulty theology”. This actually would have been my assumption too, had I not seen the video that I linked above. But having watched that video, I thought that MacArthur might be interested in persuading the open-but-cautious crowd of their “error”. And so this assumption (silly me) that he actually wanted to move toward fixing the issue rather than simply pointing out problems is what let me to think that there was a disconnect between your interpretation of the purpose and the content of that video. Thank you for disabusing me of the foolish notion that MacArthur is actually interested in correcting “error”.
Telling folks the truth about teachings that harm them because they are unbiblical is an act of love
Actually, no. This is simply an implication that speaking the truth is inherently loving. And if that was the case, then Paul’s use of the words “in love” (as inspired by God) was redundant. I’m not ready to buy the idea that God only gets a B+ in English composition.
Hi Larry, thanks for sharing your encounters and thoughts. I found them fascinating.
Brendt,
What would be sufficient proof that MacArthur is speaking “truth, in love?” If he carefully qualified his statements about charismatics? If he had a nicer tone as he corrected their errors?
I think it’s obvious from the video that he wants the “Open but Cautious” crowd to correct themselves, since he makes the argument that he believes their stance contributes to proliferation of charismatic error.
By the way, are you speaking “truth in love” here as point out the faults of JM and his conference? Of course, if you say no, then it seems your demand that JM do so rings hollow. But if you say yes, why should one believe it when your comments come across as rather sarcastic and superior, and not really “interested in correcting error” but rather more vested in winning the argument?
Jonathan, I have no problem with sharing things from scripture with someone that speaks to the need of the moment, nor even that the Spirit might bring these things to our mind, but this is not the sort of modern day prophesy that MacArthur and co were addressing as being a problem. They were referring to supposed new revelation, that even respected, conservative scholar Wayne Grudem believes continues. If you want to know what I’m talking about, and what MacArthur and the other speakers are objecting to, look for the Grudem debate on prophesy ( a gentle discussion with a Cambridge pastor) posted on Justin Taylor’s site. It is a YouTube video.
Thanks, Alex, I think you’ve got Brendt’s number.
Alex,
What would be sufficient proof…
I am not asking for nor seeking proof. I merely pointed out the fallacy of implying that speaking the truth is inherently loving.
he wants the “Open but Cautious” crowd to correct themselves
I already thanked you for disabusing me of the idea that he wants to correct error. You don’t have to re-iterate.
“Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual point it out and move on. They made their bed; let them lie in it.”
By the way, are you speaking “truth in love” …?
I’m not sure. But then my opinion isn’t available for $22.99 at your local Christian bookstore, either.
… if you say no … But if you say yes …
Why don’t you just admit to being a continuationist, seeing as how you keep having a word from the Lord about the inner workings of my heart?
And for what it’s worth, I’m not “vested in winning the argument”. No argument is winnable when your questions are dodged and your statements misrepresented.
Alex, can I assume that you’ll be equally chastising Susan for being “vested in winning the argument” after her “I think you’ve got Brendt’s number” crack?
Once in a great while I find myself in dialogue with someone who is particularly condescending….
Alex – sorry to take so long to reply to your original post.
I think my main problem with the whole thing was that I got the impression that the conference was billed as one thing – “to draw attention to faulty theology that leads to bad excesses” as you put it – but for the most part was another – “charismatic theology is bad, cessationist theology is good”
Working through the sessions:
JMac opening address – A vision-casting type session whereby he essentially says that charismatics are a big problem, and that nothing good has ever come out of charismatic theology
Joni’s testimony – A good testimony that many (admittedly not all) charismatics would agree with – that when we pray for healing we aren’t always healed, and that suffering is something that we still need to wrestle with.
RC Sproul – Charismatics have a poor view of Pentecost (ie they have bad theology)
Steve Lawson – Reformed Charistmatics also have bad theology, because Calvin wouldn’t have touched them with a barge-pole.
Conrad Mbewe – Highlighting the abuse in Africa (note that this is the first talk that talks about abuses, rather than simply all charismatic theology)
JMac – He does talk more specifics here, but the underlying impression I get is that he regards all charismatics as being in error.
Tom Pennington – A defense of cessationism
Steve Lawson – Implying that charismatics do not hold to Sola Scriptura and are thus in error
Conrad Mbewe – Likening charismatic preachers in Africa to witch doctors
JMac – Advises that the best thing continuationist people can do to stop the excesses of the charismatic movement are to become cessationists
The vast majority of the conference was set up to show that cessationist theology is the right theology, and not in any way to call on charismatics to curb the excesses of the movement. From what I have read, the only way suggested by the conference to stop these excesses was to become a cessationist.