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"
Good grief … really should have reviewed my comments before posting them. Not certain I could’ve included more typos and glitches if I had made that my aim. Too bad there’s not an edit feature here.
Once in a great while I find myself in dialogue with someone who is particularly condescending….
What a coincidence.
Brendt,
You seem to be holding JM to account for not speaking the truth in love at this conference. So I asked basically what do you think he could have done better?
I cannot judge your heart but only interpret your comments. Apparently I’m not the only one with the impression that the tone of your comments has been combative. Since you seem to want JM to speak the truth in love, because this is biblical and right, and are saying that this has to do with how you say something and not just stating truth, then don’t you want to practice this as well? Anyway, continuationists can’t read men’s hearts, only God 😉
Larry, FYI for future reference, you can edit any comment (of your own) on the site for the first 5 minutes after you post it. I often write stuff offline, re-read it, find no problem, post it, and then see a glaring error. 🙂
A coincidence? The last time I experienced this I was conversing with an atheist.
Ben,
Thanks for the response. For years MacArthur has been critiquing the CM movement cataloging the abuses happening in it (at least in some of it). It’s clear he makes a connection between the movement’s underlying theology and its practices. This is not an unreasonable inference to draw.
He notes that reformed charismatics and “open but cautious” folks, many of whom he admires and counts as friends in ministry, don’t seem to be doing enough to counter the theological errors that lead to the abuses, since the abuses continue to proliferate. I think he’s saying the whole church should stand together against these damaging theological errors.
So the conference not only points to the errors in charismatic theology which it thinks leads to abuses, but also offers a corrective in cessationistic theology. In my opinion this makes sense; the conference is saying in effect, “here is a better, more biblically sound theology that if practiced would stop these abuses from happening.” The only issue I have, as I commented earlier, is that “to the degree that they failed to make clarifications and distinctions” amongst the various continuationists, some of whom are much much better in their theology and practices than others, he then loses the chance to foster the unified stance against error he seems to be striving for. The focus becomes on continuationists defending the good in their movement rather than teaming up with cessationists to go after the bad. Also perhaps he could have acknowledged some things within the movement as of value, even if he assesses that the underlying theology offers nothing he thinks helpful. For example he might have noted the enthusiasm of the CM movement in its worship and its desire/expectation to see God moving in power now, which I think are good things. Now I don’t think you need CM theology to get there, but certainly these are positives to strive for and perhaps he could have complimented these aspects of the movement.
Alex Jordan,
What do you think of this post and excerpt by Pastor Dan J. Phillips:
“what one hears (me talking now, not MacArthur) is wails and squeals about MacArthur talking about these abuses — not about the abuses themselves. It reminds me of how shocked (shocked!) Senatrix Barbara Boxer was for Senator Rick Santorum to describe partial-birth abortion on the floor of the Senate. The procedure itself didn’t bother her a bit, she adores it as a sacred right. But describing it? Offensive! Unheard-of!
So here, invariably the dramatists who flutter and swoon in their horror over MacArthur’s speaking out are not themselves known for their frequent and bold stances against the withering destructive errors of Charismaticism; but they do want to grab the spotlight as standing among the crowd of MacArthur’s detractors. “Of course, some of that is bad,” is the thought; “but this divisive conference is really, really bad!” Oh, yes? Color me unpersuaded.”
Alex,
I am hoisted on my own petard. Ben and I are probably fairly close in viewpoint, and yet the conversation between you and him was far less contentious than that between you and me. I guess that Solomon cat knew what he was talking about: A soft answer turns away wrath. Methodology matters in comment threads too. I apologize.
And having said that, I am recognizing that our views are closer than they would first appear (whether or not should frighten you is left as an exercise for the reader 🙂 ). And I’m not saying, “Aha! You agree that I am right!” We’re clearly on opposite sides of the cessationist/continuationist fence; but I think that each of us is closer to the fence than it’d appear, at least on this issue.
Let me give an illustration as to why I say that.
Scripture tells us that God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve took it a step further and wasn’t even going to touch it. Now, there is nothing evil about not touching it — and (obviously) if you don’t touch it, you can’t eat from it, and so that’s the rubric under which she was operating. (The fact that she ascribed this idea to God is troubling, but is a conversation for another day.)
Similarly, even though I disagree with it, there is nothing evil about cessationism (though evil things can be done when it is distorted — just like any other belief or ideology). And if one is a cessationist, then one definitely isn’t going to engage in charismatic excess. And so, yes, at the end of the day, cessationism is a solution to charismatic excess.
But as you noted, there is a “degree that they failed to make clarifications and distinctions” and also there was a lack of pointing out of positives (e.g. “the enthusiasm of the CM movement in its worship and its desire/expectation to see God moving in power now”).
(continued in next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
And now here’s where I think our opinions diverge:
These deficiencies in communication quickly turn “cessationism is a solution” to “cessationism is the solution”. And now we’re getting into Romans 14 territory. MacArthur does “not eat”, but he is also “[judging] him who eats”.
Brendt,
Thank you for the apology and the change in tone. I know can be reactive sometimes (thus ultimately unhelpful) when making comments in these kinds of forums. Hopefully I haven’t been so here.
As a former charismatic I sometimes wrestle with the cessationist stance I now affirm. Can one be a cessationist yet affirm that God could maybe return to speaking to His people via the sort of special communications He used in the past? If yes, I am that kind of cessationist. I am also the kind of cessationist that wants to see God moving powerfully in my life and in the church so that His truth and glory are revealed, and who longs for greater victory over sin in my walk with God– yet I think God has already given us what is needed for this to be happening.
Anyway to believe that that sort of special revelation is happening again today, I’d need to see the same level of corroborating evidence one finds in the NT. I don’t evidence of this in the popular charismatic movement– far from it. One sees rather what seems like a carnival side show, full of odd antics. I can sympathize that people want to believe God is now doing all kinds of miracles and giving special revelations. But it seems to me they are manufacturing experiences in order to satisfy this desire. I think that is quite dangerous and opens the door to being deceived. And some things I have encountered personally really anger me– when for example one has a loved one desperate for physical healing, and they do not get healed though given a word from the Lord and all kinds of teaching to lead them to believe their miracle was basically guaranteed (my becoming cessationist however wasn’t based on just this one disappointment). Also seeing desperate folks tricked out of their money– for they’re often encouraged to “sow a seed in faith in order to receive their miracle”– a miracle which never arrives– while the big names get rich– I just think that is very wicked, and God is…
Alex, in the words (lyrics) of Phil Vischer: “We can be friends / I’ll share my Jell-o”
Larry I appreciate your fascinating personal acquaintance with men like Benny Hinn. If that is true, then I would be the first to buy you a cup of coffee & listen with eager interest to your experiences with him & whomever else, while plying you with questions from my own sense of curiosity.
That said, there are a couple of problems with the way you are arguing in these posts. First, you seem to think that someone virtually needs a doctorate in Word-Faith theology in order to comment accurately upon it. This is simply wrong. I might ask you if you believe the Mormon Gospel is the true one and their church the true church. If you say “no” I might then ask if you have read all of the LDS Standard Works, the Journal of Discourses, all Conference Reports, etc. Have you read from their numerous magazines? Have you lived among them & gone to their “fast and testimony” meetings? Have you engaged BYU professors or interviewed their General Authorities?
The point is that spotting error, heresy or hucksterism requires something more than a rumor or cursory glance but something less than world-class expertise in that specific area. As I said, I have heard way too much of the teaching of these people over the last two plus decades. Let’s not forget that they are on television virtually around the clock. If I cannot judge a man by the very words that come from his mouth, then what do you suggest?
Secondly you sell short the depth & egregious nature of their errors. To say that doctrine/theology is not Benny’s “strong suit” is tantamount to saying that building bridges to homosexuals in the community is not Fred Phelps’ “strong suit.” This is no minor thing. Robert Tilton is hilarious when I forget for a moment that he is making shipwreck of the Christian message & leaving people’s spiritual status in shambles. Maybe if you met him you’d say he’s also like a child looking for approval. This does not exonerate him from crimes against Scripture, common sense…
As to Phillips’ post, I think this guy boils it down well: http://allreallyisvanity.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/yes-he-really-went-there/
Clint, you seem to have a real fondness for overstatement. As a rule that sort of linguistic extravagance does real harm to constructive and accurate dialogue. I prefer discussions that aren’t littered with straw men and a host of other logical fallacies. I would prefer a somewhat more open-minded approach … to say nothing of one in which my veracity is not in question (” If that is true, then I would be the first to buy you a cup of coffee”). That’s pretty insulting and, well, remarkably ill mannered.
Suggesting that I require of you a doctorate in WOF theology to accept your comments is just the sort of overstatement that allows you to brush aside your very real ignorance of it … as if that’s no big deal. Seems you’re more intent on being right rather than on being accurate. Again, very difficult to have an adult conversation under those terms. Your coupling of Petitio Principii and Dicto Simpliciter may be nearly artistic in its application but, in the end … still lousy substitutes for honest and constructive dialogue.
You offer a flyover appraisal of the movement with no real grasp of its theology … only its abuses (shall we discuss Calvinism from its critics pov? Or by citing its abuses?). That doesn’t even pass the smell test Clint.
Next you offer a superman sized leap by likening my remarks concerning Benny Hinn’s theological challenges to an embrace of the LGBT communities attempts at offering biblical justifications for their lifestyle. Again, that’s a feckless use of language in pursuit of simply winning a disagreement … and in obscuring your exceptional ignorance of the movements theology.
Tell me, how serious would you imagine me if I should suggest a dialogue concerning Calvinism that began by describing Calvin as a religious tyrant whose closed system of theology required an effort in circular reasoning that’s rivals modern liberalism’s madness. Oh yeah, he was a hateful bastard that had his opponents…
Oh yeah, he was a hateful bastard that had his opponents hung and anyone who embraces his madness has already demonstrated their inability to think rationally. OK … let’s start talking.
Somehow I see that as a non-starter. OK … let’s begin again. I’ll start by acknowledging that my only real attempts at discovery have occurred in the form of critiques which I’ve read and snatches of teachings I’ve heard on YouTube? Looking forward to that conversation, heretic? No? I can’t imagine why?
Again, if you’re interested in an adult conversation centered in mutual respect … fine. If not … at least be honest concerning your disinterest.
Hi Larry,
I thought Clint’s offer of a cup of coffee was genuine, and also a peace offering.
FWIW, I think he respects you too.
And for that matter, I believe in the Sovereignty of God and that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in the formation of the Strange Fire Conference, and that the Holy Spirit blessed and will be blessed by the Strange Fire Conference.
And all God’s people said… Amen!
As TUaD rightly suggests, I was being genuine, but no matter. I won’t make pretense of high expectations where this painful exchange is concerned.
I am pleased that you know the Latin names of a few logical fallacies. But if I’m begging the question (petitio), you need to be specific and point out exactly where & how. As for erecting & attacking straw men, I am guilty of that only if the prosperity/word-faith gang is comprised of genuinely anointed teachers of Biblical truth who handle the Word of God accurately, rather than smoke & mirrors showmen in love with their fame & living like the Real Housewives of the Holy Ghost in decadent opulence built upon the ‘sewn seeds’ of hapless & desperate listeners to their greed-oriented heretical message.
If they are the former and not the latter, then I’ve done them an enormous disservice, assaulted the character of godly messengers, done violence to the Great Commission that they are helping to bring about, and, as they are so fond of saying when challenged, am in great danger of being struck dead for touching God’s anointed. Suffice to say I’ll sleep well tonight.
Your swashbuckling frontal assault on Calvin elicits a yawn rather than the hyperventilating you may have supposed it would. I took a graduate course years ago on Calvin so I’m well aware of his faults. I guess you presume that everyone here is a rabid Calvinist & will emote wildly if he is spoken ill of in any way. Sorry to disappoint you, then again but if you follow prosperity/word-faith teachings, you’re already used to disappointment, I suppose.
That said, comparing Calvin (as a theologian & teacher) to someone like Kenneth Copeland is no less bizarre than comparing Mozart to Miley Cyrus. One is substantive (whether you agree with any/all of it or not), and the other is sheer fluff & a wonton bastardization of Christian theology.
Give me two doctrines from the word-faithers that you find most biblical & compelling.
I never doubted that your invitation wasn’t genuine … it was as real as your bad manners.
No, I rather expected a yawn because I was merely parroting the assault on Calvinism regularly launched by unthinking men who know little through their own earnest examination of the tenets of Calvinism.
Much like your approach to WOF theology. That was the point of the remark … to demonstrate the same hamfisted approach you seem not only fond of … but reliant upon.
That you didn’t see the obvious effort in comparisons is more than little surprising.
So, you continue to dodge … at this point I find that sadly unsurprising. I’ve observed this same dismissive and intellectually suspect behavior in Credo blogs for some time … for men who offer themselves as intellectuals, scholars and apologists … that ought to be cause for real reflection.
Wow, this comments thread has been strange. It’s not clear why Larry has come on so strong against the author of the article. The article’s chief point, after all, seems to be: 1) that we ought to be careful about lumping all charismatics together in the same theological boat, and 2) if the recent JM conference had avoided doing this, the uproar ensuing from it would have been reduced or avoided. Those points seem seem quite straightforward so what has Larry so teed off? A series of intriguing tales about interactions with Benny Hinn and others were then related by Larry. Interesting, but the point? Perhaps knowing Mr. Hinn personally, he is defending his friend as a three dimensional person. This is admirable, but it also seems Larry acknowledges Benny Hinn does actually have some bad theology. Now the author of the post did not attack Benny Hinn or anyone else on a personal level, but seems to be weighing in negatively on WOF theology. Is Mr. Hinn guilty of propagating false teachings/bad theology or not, seems a relevant question. Surely God personally knows each of us, including knowing our hearts much better than we ourselves know them, and has great compassion on us as sinners. This doesn’t mean he won’t hold us accountable for our sins, and as James writes, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. ”
Has Clint been guilty of ignorantly disparaging WOF theology? Is there a defense of WOF theology still to be offered by Larry? Nothing specific has been charged, no real debate has really begun, and this after 60+ comments. Even my interaction with Brendt has been more productive than this! (surprisingly). I really should be studying…
Alexander, for what it’s worth, I’ve appreciated your comments on both threads regarding the conference. If it weren’t for your insightful perspective I probably would’ve vacated sooner 😉
Susan – have you ever been blessed and encouraged by a comment in a sermon that was not just whilst quoting scripture? Something specific for you that you really needed to hear at that moment? If you think of prophecy as being something similar, but given outside the context of a sermon, a speaking in the Spirit to give a word of encouragement, would that be OK? This is not new revelation, any more than a sermon is adding to the bible.
It would be good if charismatics stopped talking of this in terms of ‘revelation’ it seems only to be misunderstood. It is also true that such a specific word of encouragement would in no sense be infallible – and mistakes can be made, requiring judgment/discernment.
I believe in this kind of gift, but do not believe in the continuation of the office of prophet as such. I’m not sure what category that puts me in!
I’ve had enough experience of this to know people can be blessed this way. It’s exciting if the speaker says things they could not otherwise know, which takes it out of the realm of purely natural speaking – but doesn’t turn it into a theophany! It’s naturally supernatural. ‘Continuationists’ who may also have experienced this kind of thing may well be forgiven for being defensive if they think this is being attacked by being associated with the out and out false prophets who are really wolves.
Alex – thanks for your last response. Your third paragraph in particular hit the nail on the head – “the focus becomes on continuationists defending the good in their movement rather than teaming up with cessationists to go after the bad” is very much what I feel that the response to the conference has been.
I also agree with Brendt that it seemed to quickly turn from “cessationism is _a_ solution” to “cessationism is _the_ solution”, which led to the above result.
FWIW there has been some additional interesting coverage:
Michael L. Brown’s radio show had Phil Johnson (JMac’s assistant) on it, overlapping with Adrian Warnock and then Sam Storms: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2013/10/strange-fire-radio-mp3-and-questions-for-cessationists/ )
Adrian is also starting a series going through the Strange Fire book and debating it’s theological stance: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2013/10/strange-fire-every-biblical-argument-refuted/
And Frank Viola is reposting some of his original critique of Charismatic Chaos: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/strangefire1/
I’m going to write to a couple of charismatic theological bloggers to see if I can persuade them to go the “other direction” and maybe see a serious of posts that critiques charismatic excesses, and also maybe some of the more “moderate” but equally errant Charismatic practices.
(A great book on this is “Post-Charismatic” by Rob McAlpine)
Ken, in answer to your question, I will tell you of an experience I had at the church we attended formerly (I was there for most of my life). The church was a conservative evangelical church but under the leadership of the current pastor I began to notice some significant changes over time. One thing that very much concerned me was that the gospel was no longer belong clearly and completely proclaimed from the pulpit. There was no call for individuals to believe and repent in order to be saved. In fact, salvation language disappeared. I noticed that evangelism had become a dinosaur word, and concept. Instead, there was a constant focus on deeds…doing good deeds to those outside the church, but not telling them about Jesus.
My husband and I attended the SS class where the pastor was involved as well as some young men he was mentoring. This is where the pastor’s apparent shift in theological framework became most evident. We watched a video series in the class over the course of a few weeks. I became increasingly disturbed that the video was highlighting people who went to live in the ghetto and do good to help people but there was never any mention of talking with people about Jesus.
This became a burden that welled up within me, and I began to reason through it in my mind and talk with God about it. Over the course of a couple of weeks this became a compelling force in my heart. It got to the point that there was this sort of daily recitation going through my head and God brought Romans 10 to my attention “how are they to hear without a preacher?…..”
Day after day this became further and further honed in my mind. Finally it dawned on me that this might be something God was doing and I’d better take heed. So, I began to pray, “Lord, if this is something you want me to say to the entire group then help me to know. I submit to you, to be used by you in this way, if you want me to speak, HELP me!
Continued……
Susan,
Thanks so much– I am really gratified to know that my comments were helpful to you. It’s an encouragement since sometimes I feel like I’m wasting precious time by making comments…
Blessing, Alex
Ben,
I think these news series in which many leading continuationists are re-defending the correctness of their theology, though helpful for understanding continuationist theology– still misses the alarm raised by the SF conference and by others — that there is right now and for many years much aberrant teaching harming the body of Christ worldwide that emerges from a large segment of the charismatic movement.
If the more solid continuationists acknowledge this, and furthermore, acknowledge that the aberrations are from their own camp, then where is the urgency to correct these errors? Instead, it seems there is great urgency to launch into defense mode. Which confirms one of the major charges made at the conference– that those who should know better don’t seem troubled or responsive enough to the huge damage being done through incorrect teachings within charismaticism.
And also I would ask, why is it that this movement so often fosters strange and aberrant practices in the first place? Could it be that when one opens the door to highly subjective revelation–which is attributed to God but cannot be definitively tested by Scriptural standards– that a Pandora’s box of error is unleashed? As for charismatic phenomena, where are the medical reports showing people born blind now see, people who were dead are now raised, that the crippled have new legs? That’s NT miracles– you say that is what is happening? Why is the gift of prophecy in the age of the Spirit now being celebrated as something LESS accurate that what was given under the OT dispensation? Why can prophecy be wrong 80% of the time, as Mike Bickle declares? Why is it now supposedly mixed with human error? If prophecy can be partly right/partly wrong, what earthly good is it? Why are tongues now not real languages but considered private prayer language that mostly goes uninterpreted? Is this the life of supernatural superabundance the CM movement declares so valuable and needed now?
ugh! I just typed a continuation of my story but lost all of it due to loss of internet connection. I had to whip up a last minute lunch for my son and send him off to school and now I have only seconds to get ready to leave for the Bible study I attend….someone picks me up(!). I’ll have to continue this later….but it’s important that i get to my point in all this…..LATER!
Hey Alex,
A very quick reply (it’s almost hometime for me) to answer some of your questions:
> As for charismatic phenomena, where are the medical reports showing people born blind now see, people who were dead are now raised, that the crippled have new legs?
They do exist. Bear in mind that many doctors are reluctant to put their name to something like this, particularly if they gave the original diagnosis.
How’s about this for starters: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7137895.stm ?
I don’t have the reports, but I have spoken with a man in Mozambique who had been legally declared dead, but was raised to life.
> Why is the gift of prophecy in the age of the Spirit now being celebrated as something LESS accurate that what was given under the OT dispensation?
3 points. 1 – there are a number of OT prophecies that are not recorded, but not marked as being false. 2 – there are a number of people in the NT who are regarded as prophetic, but we have no prophecy from them either. 3 – friends of Paul received a prophetic word about what would happen to him if he returned to Jerusalem, but their interpretation was wrong (that he should not go).
> Why can prophecy be wrong 80% of the time, as Mike Bickle declares? Why is it now supposedly mixed with human error? If prophecy can be partly right/partly wrong, what earthly good is it?
In a community of faith, the testing of a Word is something that builds unity and faith.
> Why are tongues now not real languages but considered private prayer language that mostly goes uninterpreted?
1. This seems to be a popular misconception – there are numerous stories of people speaking in earthly languages. 2. Public interpretation is what Paul ordains, but there is plenty of NT evidence of tongues in private.
> Is this the life of supernatural superabundance the CM movement declares so valuable and needed now?
I’m sure that the Jewish said much the same thing about Jesus… 😉
Alex, it’s difficult for to believe that you can be so obtuse, indeed, it appears that Clint’s style is perhaps not unlike yours and, consequently, you are inured to its toxic tone … or, you simply ignore evidence unsuitable to your point. In either case, allow me to refresh your memory (after all, this wasn’t a conversation held in the parking lot … it’s here … in black and white):
“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”
“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.”
“…where Piper uses the theological term “crap” in his scathing assessment of the movement).”
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.
“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.”
“Do you believe those teachings? Do you think those men (Copeland, Duplantis, Popoff, or whatever conglomeration of them you want to defend)”
“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.”
“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…
Benny Hinn’s masterpiece “Good Morning, Holy Spirit”, which I always thought needed a sequel entitled “Hi Trinity I’m home”)”
“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?”
“Larry I appreciate your fascinating personal acquaintance with men like Benny Hinn. If that is true … If you’re not lying”
“To say that doctrine/theology is not Benny’s “strong suit” is tantamount to saying that building bridges to homosexuals in the community is not Fred Phelps’ “strong suit.” This is no minor thing. Robert Tilton is hilarious when I forget for a moment that he is making shipwreck of the Christian message & leaving people’s spiritual status in shambles. Maybe if you met him you’d say he’s also like a child looking for approval. This does not exonerate him from crimes against Scripture, common sense… “
These quotes taken directly from Clint’s original post and his subsequent responses to comments. They are a strange mix of ignorance, conflation, logical fallacies galore and unseemly arrogance, nicely seasoned with smug self-rightousness. It’s not just his lack of decorum, intellectual honesty and general fairness that are so concerning … he’s genuinely mean spirited. A sort of Calvinist Bill Maher … except less funny (if that’s possible). Did Saul Alinsky pen another book … Rules for the reformed … that I’m unaware of?
He’s seems unable to simply find error in someone’s theology … he finds it necessary (with unconcealed eagerness) to denigrate them personally. Apart from the obvious insecurities inherent in that sort of shtick, it afford’s his target no human dignity and undermines any real meaningful dialogue. Indeed, it seems that snarking serves to replace substantive criticisms … which can only leave you guessing that he’s implying more knowledge of the matter under discussion than he actually possesses.
I’ve encountered the very same demeanor and tactics when debating modern liberals. Pressed for facts, for cogent reasoning, they invariably turn to ad hominem attacks, liberal mythology and apologia as they dodge demanded facts … coherent answers. After deploying smoke screens, lobbing incendiary ad hominem attacks, opening multiple fronts while dodging questions they simply depart the field claiming victory.
Not unlike my experience here where Clint has yet to answer my questions. It’s the boorish, overbearing behavior of a doctrinaire.
You Alex, are equally obtuse regarding the point of my posts. It wasn’t cryptic, I rather doubt your reading comprehension is seriously compromised … its simply that it’s so much more convenient to replace the obvious with your script.
To put it simply, I’m still waiting on honest answers to simple questions. Then we may continue the debate. I’m not holding my breath.
Ben,
I do believe in healings in answer to prayer– and God of course may provide that healing in miraculous fashion if He chooses. But the CM often claims the same miracles that characterized the church in Jesus’ day are happening now. What you have stated thus far does not give evidence for this claim.
None of your remarks on prophecy– except point #3– address the question of downgrading of prophecy from 100% accuracy in the OT– under penalty of death– to prophecy now mixed with human error that can be wrong most of the time and needs to be sifted by the Church’s evaluation.
And I think the prophecy given to Paul was indeed accurate but Paul decided not to heed it because he had already been told by Jesus Himself that he would face persecution in the various places to which God was calling him. This article presents a thorough analysis and refutation of Wayne Grudem’s position on this passage: http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-a-humble-argument-for-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-part-8.
“Numerous stories of people speaking real languages”. More anecdotes? Most of the CM tongues I have witnessed firsthand are people making sounds that don’t really sound like true language, without interpretation being given. And you can turn on the Christian TV to see numerous examples of this sort of thing happening all the time. It is debatable whether Paul was advocating tongues as private prayer language, when it seems he argues that what makes tongues valuable is interpretation, so that the words may then edify others.
“I’m sure that the Jewish said much the same thing about Jesus…”
Actually the Jews had to admit that Jesus was doing outstanding miracles because Jesus’ miracles were irrefutable. Unlike the so-called miracles touted today by much of the CM movement.
Larry, you speak of being guided by Galatians 6, but your tone and manner in these comments falls short of that. I guess you think you have the right to label me “obtuse” and blinded by my “script”. In any case what I observe is there’s now 80+ comments and you have yet to offer anything meaningful for debate. If what Clint has written is in your mind too harsh and ignorant in its condemnation of the WOF movement, why don’t you at least begin to show him his error? Or, just dismiss him as one who knows not what he is talking about and move on. He at least attempted to begin a dialogue with you. There is no “debate” to continue- you have not even begun to debate. Why you think he is obligated to provide a long list of “answers” to you before you engage in debate is a mystery.
Alex … I didn’t employ insulting terms … I described your behavior as it exists. Paul, the author of Galatians similarly rebuked Peter if you’ll recall. Inconsistent? I think not.
You too employ the dodge.
Why do I expect answers? Among adults Alex, people who lodge substantial charges are expected to substantiate them. Have I stumbled in Romper Room … or is this an adult conversation?
Larry,
The one “dodging” here is you, who has yet to say offer even one point for debate after 80 comments.
The errors of some in the CM movement the article catalogs are so egregious that substantiation ought to be unnecessary.
But if you had pointed, let’s say, to a specific charge the article makes that you challenge the accuracy of, then perhaps an adult debate could have already been underway.
Instead, it seems you think the author is obligated to 1st write what would probably amount to another full-length article, in order to substantiate the charges against some of the CM movement he makes in this article (which is not even the main point of this article).
Perhaps you have stumbled into “Fantasy Island”– a place where everyone agrees with you and provides exactly what you demand.
Alex … repeating a false posit doesn’t render it truthful. It only lessens your credibility. I have not dodged. I’ve asked repeatedly for my initial questions, posed in response to Clint’s original post, to be answered. Additionally, once Clint has done so, I’ve offered a thorough debate regarding the matter. So please, keep your facts straight and stop replacing them with those of your own making. That’s both rude and dishonest.
I posed several pointed questions regarding the irresponsible remarks offered by Clint. He has yet to answer them. My guess is that he can not do so in a fashion which welcomes scrutiny … so he doesn’t.
Your remarks, however, are becoming not only increasingly silly … but are, given that I’m conversing with Clint, quite out of order. Unless of course you’re now representing his opinions. Are you?
If not, are you merely spoiling for a fight? Is this the sort of spirit engendered by reformed theology? Contentiousness? Seems a rather common theme.
Larry,
I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly like being called obtuse, rude, dishonest, untruthful, blinded by my script, etc. So no, I’m not spoiling for a fight, but to me these terms are insulting and provocative. You seem to want a fight and have from your very first rant here.
I am pointing out simply that after 80 comments you have not even begun to debate. I think the author tried to narrow the focus of the discussion down in order to be able to engage with you but that apparently doesn’t satisfy. In any case, I find your comments off-putting and a waste of my time. Perhaps you’ll fare better with the author if you stop being a jerk.
Alex, if you don’t wish to have those behaviors challenged … then don’t engage in them. Fairly simple, yes?
Insulting? Provocative? Rich irony indeed coming form your side. You clearly find nothing in your remarks or Clint’s which are insulting or provocative … though, when confronted with your own behaviors … you’re suddenly hyper-sensitive.
That would qualify as obtuse, dishonest, and blinded (we’ll call it subjective, o.k.?).
Suggesting I’m spoiling for a fight is again, rich irony … or rhetorical sleight of hand. You’ve simply attempted to elude responsibility for your actions by now accusing me of them.
Next, you sign off by calling me a “jerk”. Do you really wonder why I’m having a challenge taking you and Clint seriously?
So now, as I wrote earlier, in very much the style of a modern liberal who has painted themselves into a corner … you lob a final grenade and self-righteously storm off … slamming the door behind you.
Discussions of scripture are not an end in themselves. Doctrinal discussions are not a hobby. Their ultimate purpose is to minister life and yield liberty … revealing to us more fully the person of Jesus Christ.
Consider that when you next choose to dive into such a discussion.
Alexander, you see who you are dealing with here. My advice: don’t waste your time. You won’t accomplish anything. I think you have wisdom and understanding but there are some on this thread who are incapable of receiving it. Perhaps it’s a matter of what is in the heart, God’s Spirit or not.
Excuse me Larry– I did not state agreement with all of Clint’s article nor with all the language he used.
You entered the discussion with this,
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).
To me this initial comment was extremely condescending– saying the author is ignorant, gets all his information secondhand, etc. Your next comment wasn’t any better, and continued in the same vein,
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?…
As I said earlier, Clint offered to narrow the discussion to begin a more focused debate, but you did not take him up on it. Observing all this I simply questioned your tactics in the discussion and was called “obtuse” “rude” “dishonest” “untruthful” blinded by my “script”. Did I make all sorts of insulting accusations about you? And because I did not take kindly to these insults, I am “self-righteous” and “hypersensitive” to boot, pursuing “doctrinal discussion” as a mere “hobby”.
After all this, do you expect those observing to believe your object here has been “to minister life and yield liberty … revealing to us more fully the person of Jesus Christ”? Perhaps you need to examine your own heart if indeed that is your goal.
to continue what I started. After a week of having this daily recitation cycling through my mind, and a lot of prayer, Sunday came and I sensed that that might be the day I should say something. Our class leader announced that he’d decided the night before that the last video in the series wasn’t appropriate for the class (and it just occurred to me that that might have been because it got into the need for verbal proclamation of the gospel), so he invited us to engage in open discussion about the series. That had never happened before (that there was not lesson). At that point my heart was thumping harder and my head was bowed in prayer. I asked God to help me say only what he wanted me to say, nothing more; nothing less.
I am not a public speaker, nor had I taught such a class before, so this was a stretch for me, but the words flowed easily from that which had been going through my mind all week. I read from Romans 10 and talked about the necessity of individual response to the gospel so that a person would be transformed by the indwelling Spirit, rather than thinking we can transform culture through our good deeds alone.
When I was done speaking I felt a great sense of relief because I believed I had obeyed God. Someone told me later that there was dead silence in the room at first (I don’t recall that), but I do remember much of what was said in response. The discussion in class was about what I raised for the rest of the hour. It was the only discussion about evangelism that I had heard at the church for many years. Many people responded defensively and negatively. The senior pastor, his wife and another former pastor were present, along with about 80-100 others. Not a single person present said anything in agreement with me. Afterwards, the former college pastor who was visiting the class that day, told me that he had often had the same thoughts I had expressed.
NOTE, although I believe that the Spirit was helping me know what to say…
I will not say that “God told me to say….”. The only words I spoke that I can say that God said were the words I read from Romans 10. Did I prophesy? I would not say that I did.
We finally left the church because things kept getting worse and worse and the gospel was absent from the teaching throughout the church except for a few remaining places, like the older people’s SS class. When we first attended the church we now go to full time I immediately saw a tremendous difference in the teaching. I had a conversation with the pastor who invited me to make an appointment to sit down and talk with him in his office.
At the end of our conversation I also mentioned the above incident. Later I was concerned that not knowing me he might think that I see myself as some sort of a prophet so I sent him an email and mentioned that. He told me that he thought I had exercised the gift of word of wisdom. I have had others make such comments to me in the past. It was not me, but rather the empowering of the Spirit for the need of the moment. I was a mere instrument. What I said was not revelatory, but rather a call back to scriptural principles.
I believe that John MacArthur spoke out of this same sort of urgency, given him by the Spirit. The conference was born out of a deep concern over the corrupt teaching of God’s word and false worship, which also deeply grieves God! Those who suggest that JM did this in order to promote a book (as if he had his own self-interests in mind) are judging his heart and it’s wrong. I learned that he sent out cards for a free copy of the book to his entire subscriber list. This was from someone who personally received one of these cards in the mail. I can barely imagine how many people that includes! I imagine he will loose more money on the book than he will make.
Clearly minefield within Christianity that has wounded people from all camps, still does and where new mines are both discovered, stepped on but also planted.
@Alex#55, very insightful and reading your views here has been soothing for me resonating with my perception (of transcripts from conference, comments all over the Internet etc) coming from a chaotic charismatic upbringing. Thank you for putting in the time commenting!
Random reflection: funny that evidence of signs seems to be such a frustrating area for both CM and nonCM. CM frustrated about undeniable lack of whilst nonCM for having to produce, when faith is all that matters. Can reasoning ever resolve an argument based on those two stances?
Peace brothers and sisters…
Alex, you can’t have it both ways. You registered surprise at my reaction to Clint’s post, suggesting that his post was a simple, straightforward innocuous piece, yet not once did you ever take issue with any of his portrayals or personal attacks. Not intellectual integrity … by any reasonable measure.
To point out ignorance is not condescending when ignorance is on display. Condescending would find me suggesting that the author was inane, clownish … stupid. I did not.
One is an insult … the other is an observation … a description of a very real state. Clint betrays enormous ignorance of the movement.
Like Susan, you seem to have a need to insert yourself into discussions not directed toward you. Again, as if you’re spoiling for a fight.
Your portrayal of Clint’s post lacked only accuracy … other than that is was fine. Rather like your portrayal of my own.
To suggest that Clint offered to “narrow the discussion” entirely ignores his refusal to answer the questions essential to a conversation. It’s impossible to have a substantive discussion when its starting point is error. It also ignores my invitation to a complete discussion once my questions had been answered.
You continue to conveniently ignore that.
Again, it was his refusal to answer simple questions regarding his assertions, which delayed any further discussion. BTW, listing the total number of posts, most of which were other peoples and unrelated to my discussion, in a manner which suggest in more than 80 comments I’ve not yet made a substantive remark is silly.
I restricted my comments to Clint … until you felt compelled to offer your inaccurate appraisal, uninvited opinion and finally insults.
Amazingly, the chap who called someone a “jerk” is praised by Susan as wise … and I am dismissed. What an upside down perspective.
This is a closed system at its finest. Where, dissenting opinions are unwelcome … and scrutiny despised.
I have confessed already, Larry, my true feelings for the gang of prosperity televangelists that I think we are talking about. It would include but probably not be limited to the likes of your friend Benny, K. Copeland, the ‘rajin’ Cajun’ Duplantis, Paula White, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, all of whom I mentioned by name in the blog. There are others orbiting this gaudy constellation who may not be as egregious in their overt teachings of the peculiar doctrines of prosperity/word-faith, although I do not sit & watch them all full-time (Do you think I’m a masochist?). These others may include the likes of Creflo, Jakes, Juanita Bynum, Joyce Meyer, Richard Roberts, etc.
Let me say further, since you’ve harped in this in your lengthy & verbose replies since, that I would put the primary emphasis on their teachings (in terms of the problem I have with them), but I take issue with them personally as well for their immoral hankering for and flaunting of material wealth, among other things (like practicing deception). A tertiary problem I have with them involves the clownish & superficial ways they dress, act, speak, & carry on, which does its own kind of damage to Christianity by making it seem buffoonish to the watching world.
You must realize & appreciate, Larry, the initial surprise for many of us that someone would actually come to the defense of these people’s teachings & ministries. I wondered briefly if you were putting us on. They rarely make an effort to defend their teachings themselves, and why would they (and how could they)? It wouldn’t do them any good. They have made their fortunes engaging emotions not minds.
Now do you really want us to hash out the well-known problems with this movement? Will you blather on about how I’m “relying on the opinions of others” if I link to articles like this collection (http://www.equip.org/category/word-faith-movement/)?
And AGAIN, you could start by specifying which teachers/teachings you believe…
Let it lie Alex, he argues like one who does not poses God’s Spirit, and was part of the ministry of a false teacher for years. Don’t let THE enemy waste your time in mindless circular discussion.
Yes Clint I will … but you really behave scandalously.
You wear rudeness, arrogance and just plain ugliness like a porcupine’s quills. You seem incapable of offering an opinion absent insufferable boorishness.
Indeed, you appear to go out of your way to demean and insult. I assume you conduct monologues (are you a teacher?) and simply do not brook dissent.
Fine. I’ll ask my questions … and I’ll expect real answers. Insults will be viewed as efforts in obfuscation … and I’ll point them each time for what they are.
Question 1 – What are the essential tenets of WOF theology?
Question 2 – What denies them orthodoxy?
Susan: “The discussion in class was about what I raised for the rest of the hour. It was the only discussion about evangelism that I had heard at the church for many years. Many people responded defensively and negatively. The senior pastor, his wife and another former pastor were present, along with about 80-100 others. Not a single person present said anything in agreement with me.”
Maybe it was your tone.
😉
P.S. Just kidding! Seriously, just kidding. I was really looking forward to the completion of your multi-part post. Thanks for completing it.
Susan you’re probably right.
It will be clear soon enough if Larry actually intends to discuss anything or will continue to bore us all.
Alex … I assume you’ve not participated in any structured debates have you?
Clint has offered a pointed critique (“heresy”) of WOF theology. A critique so final … so certain, suggests that he has a fairly broad understanding of it … else, he wouldn’t offer such a sweeping denunciation.
I must know his basis for that claim … his understanding of the movement’s primary thesis. Next, I need to understand the metrics against which he index’s them. What is the biblical premise for his claims of heresy.
Now, please Alex … stop inserting yourself into this discussion. I find your manner unhelpful.