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"
@ Larry
Question 1 – What are the essential tenets of WOF theology?
I’ll ask that question of you. According to you, what are the essential tenets of WOF theology? You are making the claim that it is being misrepresented here. So please correct the record for me.
No, indeed not.
Mr. Roberts has asserted claims of heresy. No thinking, responsible person would ever issue such a declaration in the absence of irrefutable evidence.
I will first learn what is leads Clint so certainly to that conclusion. Next, I’ll address it thoroughly myself.
The questions are simple and straightforward. If a lengthy period passes before Clint answers … I’ll assume he’s pouring over the literature of other critics.
Again, the certainty with which he has addressed himself to the matter ought to be the result of a very real understanding of the movements theology. Consequently, answering the questions I’ve posed should be a simple matter.
And you are making the claim that he has misrepresented the movements theology. Consequently, answering your own question should also be a simple matter. Why will you not answer it?
Marvin … I find it interesting that your comments, historically, occur only in Clint’s posts. How intriguing. Might you be a psuedoname?
Very poor logic Marvin … convenient, but poor. The man who levels the charge is bound to substantiate it. Or retract it.
Just so I understand, you won’t answer my question because my logic is poor?
I did answer your question … allow me to repeat:
No, indeed not.
Mr. Roberts has asserted claims of heresy. No thinking, responsible person would ever issue such a declaration in the absence of irrefutable evidence.
I will first learn what is leads Clint so certainly to that conclusion. Next, I’ll address it thoroughly myself.
The questions are simple and straightforward. If a lengthy period passes before Clint answers … I’ll assume he’s pouring over the literature of other critics.
Again, the certainty with which he has addressed himself to the matter ought to be the result of a very real understanding of the movements theology. Consequently, answering the questions I’ve posed should be a simple matter.
Oh, I understand now. Refusing to answer a simple question was the answer. Forgive my lack of understanding of your logic.
No, but since you insist upon twisting my remarks to suit your own narrative … there’s no point in continuing to respond. I’ll simply continue waiting on the Clint’s answers.
I have not twisted anything you have said to suit my narrative. I simply asked a question that should have been an easy lay up for you to answer (which judging from the tenor of your posts, you clearly believe to be the case). Yet you don’t answer it. It begs the question as to why?
You claim that folks on this thread refuse to address your questions, but when one is directed your way, you dodge, obfuscate, or in my case, just say “nope” and that’s that.
You clearly are educated, but I do find your lack of answering any direct questions rather vexing.
One is left to speculate that perhaps the reason you don’t is because it is a tall order to defend the indefensible.
Clint … please just answer the questions. This is absurd. The logic is not merely simple … this is the manner of debate. Please dispense with this strangeness.
Miss a (part of a) day, miss a lot… If it’s not too late to wrestle this discussion off of the veracity (or lack thereof) of WoF, I’d like to throw out a couple thoughts.
Alex, about a million comments ago, you said: “… why is it that this movement so often fosters strange and aberrant practices in the first place?”
Do you realize that this question — taken without context — could have been uttered by a Jewish leader in about 72 AD, speaking about “The Way”? 🙂 Not being a smart-aleck. Just noting that that question alone can apply to a lot of stuff.
One other thought. In an effort to find some common ground with the MacArthur defenders, some continuationists have admitted that, “yeah, we need to do a better job of calling out error on our team.” While I think that issue was about 0.0000000000001% of the point of the conference, I was willing to concede this idea.
But after further review, I’m not so sure anymore. We’ve all heard the (by now cliched) illustration that bank tellers and the like study real money extensively so that they can recognize counterfeit money easily. The parallel in this case is, what if the responsibility for most continuationists who are theologically sound (by the standards of anyone rational, anyway) is to “lead a quiet life, to mind [their] own business, and to work with [their] own hands … that [they] may walk properly toward those who are outside”? And for that matter, where does anyone get off saying that someone like Piper and someone like Hinn are on the same team, and that the former needs to rein in the latter?
It’s one of the basic responsibilities of an elder isn’t it?
Titus 1:9
He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and CORRECT those who speak against it.
It doesn’t mention team membership or any requirements of being on what team. O_o
I agree with Larry that Clint’s article is rather lacking in facts and uses overly harsh language in the absence of those facts. I’m just not sure how that allows the other side to respond in kind.
Furthermore, while this article is rather lacking in facts, I’m not sure one can expect someone to write an entire treatise on what they are criticizing in the context of a blog post before criticizing it. One must not expect quite that level of erudition for a forum such as this. If someone says “Prosperity Gospel” there are certain images and understandings among those external to the movement that this conjures up. Charitably speaking one should probably assume that this general conception is what the author of this article has, and if that perception is wrong then correct him as well as the rest of us who may have the wrong perception and understanding.
While there is very strong reactions on both sides the direction of the responses (from both sides) is not helping the person observing to gain any better understanding of Word of Faith or Prosperity Theology and the arguments for or against it. In this respect a point Larry made early on is right. Most of what I have seen which systematically analyzes these movements is from those outside of the movements and they are universally critical. On the other hand I (like Clint) have yet to see someone attempt a systematic defense of these movements. Most of the intellectually based objections of outsiders seem to go unanswered.
ah. sorry Brendt, I didn’t notice that you don’t believe JMac was actually trying to “CORRECT” the error. my bad
Brendt,
The popular CM movement provides more than enough context for my question, with all the weird, unbiblical practices and teachings which characterize it. So my question is highly applicable to the CM movement, not to a lot of other “stuff”. Are you seriously going to argue that there are other movements right now spawning equal absurdities?
Who can declare whether or not Hinn and Piper on the same team– but it seems they have in common the teaching that all gifts from NT days are still happening today.
The body of Christ as a whole is responsible to stand firm against heretical teaching. One would think that gifted men like Piper should lead the way in this. For example, he has strongly denounced the “prosperity gospel” which in turn is often part of the message of popular charismatic teachers. However I think his thinking on continuation of gifts makes him extremely hesitant to denounce other charismatic strangeness, I guess for fear of denouncing what he thinks just might be real moves of God. Yet cessationists quite plainly see these strange activities being the fruit of unsound doctrine.
I must first ask Larry’s forgiveness for not replying to his last post within 5 minutes. I am unable by the circumstances of regular daily life to remain online at all times. For your own amusement you can imagine and assert that I was busily “pouring over” previous prosperity critics’ writings & posting a few times under the alias ‘Marvin the Martian.’ What else do you expect from someone who “behaves scandalously” like myself?
Now I must reiterate that my experience w/ Prosperity-Word-Faith (PWF) teaching began at least as early as college, many years ago. Whilst studying theology, biblical languages, church history, etc., I would sit w/ dorm-mates & watch Benny, Tilton, Copeland, Price & others. We would analyze the messages we heard there. One apartment-mate one yr. called & signed up to receive everything they offered, just to see what the average caller/responder experienced. We got their literature, prayer-cloths, & in some cases very bizarre things, along w/ letters promising miracles & asking endlessly for money.
I also briefly knew a gentleman who had taught music at Oral Roberts Univ. & had gotten to know a lot of faculty there. He talked with them often & shared with me their theology, how they taught their students, etc. I lived for a few yrs. in the DFW area which is, like Tulsa, a kind of televangelist headquarters of sorts. I had yet more chances to engage these beliefs. I say all of this just as a cursory glimpse into my history to let you know that I did not suddenly become aware of these ideas last week & go off ‘half-cocked’ against them without any understanding of them.
Because I don’t know of an official systematic theology in print of the PWF teachers (systematic theology being such a very un-PWF kind of thing in general), a theology is to be gleaned from the preponderance of their countless messages & books. From these a few key ideas have been prevalent, from the days of Kenneth Hagin right down to Creflo today. (To be…
While there is very strong reactions on both sides the direction of the responses (from both sides) is not helping the person observing to gain any better understanding of Word of Faith or Prosperity Theology and the arguments for or against it. In this respect a point Larry made early on is right. Most of what I have seen which systematically analyzes these movements is from those outside of the movements and they are universally critical. On the other hand I (like Clint) have yet to see someone attempt a systematic defense of these movements. Most of the intellectually based objections of outsiders seem to go unanswered.
Michael, good points. If actual substantive defense of a charismatic or even Word-Faith theology had been presented and debated here that could have been productive. But there is in my view a lot of posturing going on and not much of substance has been said. I agree with your point that some of the critique in the original post is harsh— remarks about hairstyles and contrived accents are not relevant or helpful in my view. I think that sort of language detracts from the argument and doesn’t foster friendly discussion. On the other hand as you point out the original article has been matched by equally strong and harsh language in the comments.
Key ideas of the insidious PWF movement:
Faith is construed as a kind of metaphysical power, talked about the way Obi Wan speaks of the force. Except that this power needs actual words to be spoken in order to be exercised. God had faith & his spoken words made the universe. We are like God in this way (we are “little gods”), so we use this power by speaking the words that reflect what we want. You can speak to your body to be well, speak to the natural world to alter it, speak to your bank account to make it swell with wealth. So long as you have faith & put it to use with spoken words, you can almost construct the reality you want.
This idea is not novel. Some non-Christian spiritual books in our culture teach something similar – like “The Secret,” for ex. But it is not a belief shared by the biblical writers nor Christians throughout history.
This basic idea is what leads them to teach ‘health & wealth’, since faith properly exercised (by speaking) keeps you from sickness & brings financial abundance, which is God’s will for us. We’re king’s kids, after all. Jesus was filthy rich himself, they say, & opulence is a sign that you’re doing something right by God’s standards. Some PWF guys claimed they hadn’t had a cold in 20 yrs., etc.
Results of these teachings have been: (1) increased wealth for the PWF teachers as people send in their “seed” gifts in order to receive the hundred-fold return, (2) undercover exposes showing deception & fraud, along w/ gross misuse of funds, (3) lawsuits against some of them (Tilton most famously) based in part on the undercover reports, (4) a few tragic high profile cases of the deaths of people who relied on one or more of these guys for a cure for fatal illness, (5) a handful of salacious tabloid affairs such as Benny & Paula White or J. Bynum saying she’s “been with women.”
Not to mention the wild offhand stuff they’ve said on all sorts of doctrinal things, some of it comically heretical. I…
Clint,
Most of my experience, reading, and viewing has been similar. Still I wonder what the need of the first paragraph in your response was. While perhaps valid, these statements and sarcasm do not serve to advance the discussion. If Larry actually has a systematic defense of the theology and responses to the objections I am interested in hearing it. The inclusion of comments such as these only encourages more name calling.
Well, I’m watching the World Series tonight … I’ll respond tomorrow. Not certain when … I have meetings throughout the day. But I will provide a detailed response.
Clint, I will be frank. You know little of Word of Faith Theology and less of those men and women who minister within it. Nevertheless, you breezily assign the extraordinarily damning title of heretic … shame on you.
That sort of fecklessness has absolutely no place among responsible leaders … ever. It seems to me that you employ sarcasm in place of real knowledge … the combination of verbal bullying and faux witty repartee can be intimidating to many. So much so that they simply will not challenge your assertion.
I hope I’m wrong … I don’t, however, think I am.
I’ve had this conversation with more than a few ministers (from across the denominational spectrum) during the last three decades. It’s generally a pleasant and rewarding experience. This has been anything but.
I will be frank and pointed in my responses … if your mien demands it. I would prefer comity … but I will not shy away from confrontation if your responses merit it. That ball is in your court.
I look forward to our discussion.
One more practical matter. Is there any way in which the number of available characters can be dramatically increased, or a different forum employed.
Working within these limits will be very tedious.
Alex: Are you seriously going to argue that there are other movements right now spawning equal absurdities?
Dude. Chill. Then re-read my post. Then note the smiley. Then chill some more. I specifically spoke of 72 AD (which is nowhere near “right now”) and that that one sentence alone can be widely applicable. I ain’t arguing diddly.
Who can declare whether or not Hinn and Piper on the same team– but it seems they have in common the teaching that all gifts from NT days are still happening today.
Charles Manson and I have in common a race and facial hair. Just because a clean-shaven black man doesn’t share those features doesn’t make it right for him to declare that ol’ Chuck and I are on the same team.
That sort of fecklessness…
Clint, Costco has 128-ounce boxes of feck on sale this week.
Susan – thanks for posting. I will, being an ancient authority, accept it as genuine – you know, the ‘Longer Ending’ of Susan!
A couple of comments. There ought not to be the fear of being thought super-spiritual or even ‘charismatic’ if you really believe God has impressed you to say something, but evangelicals can wrongly instill fear about this. I call this the prompting of the Spirit, and on one or two occasions this has almost been ‘the Lord told me’, but I have never heard a voice and would not talk like that. (I was once ‘prompted’ in such a way whilst praying to visit someone. When I arrived she was just putting the phone down. She’d been visited by the town’s false prophet and it had got to her, so she prayed Lord either get someone to phone or send someone round. He answered by doing both! Unless of course it was coincidence.)
By linking their attack on WoF and Prosperity to their absolute certainly the gifts are no longer being given, I think MacArthurvile have shot themselves in the foot. The Hinns probably won’t listen anyway. Charismatics who badly need to hear such unbiblical stuff exposed won’t listen, they simply think this is from those who don’t believe in the supernatural at all. The belligerent and sometimes inaccurate cessationalism of say Fred Butler doesn’t help.
The reaction of biblical continuationists such as myself to the charge we don’t actually accept a complete canon is paradoxically that cessationalists seem to have a bible that is too large. Chunks of 1 Cor are ‘not for today’ which is bound to meet resistance unless they can show definitely this is the case.
Oh dear! I meant MacArthurville above, no intention to make rude comments ….
Brendt,
Haha, Clint better load up on “feck” before he continues…
Anyway whether John Piper and Benny Hinn are on the same “team” is really neither here nor there. I do see Piper as a shepherd in the church concerned about the serious error he sees with prosperity teaching and he has strongly spoken out against it. I wish he would do the same against abuses in the charismatic movement, which in the view of many including myself are of equally serious concern. And the preachers with the false prosperity message are most often charismatics.
Not trying to beat the horse dead but I still think the comparison you were making doesn’t hold. Yes back in 72 AD someone might have looked at the Way and judged them as strange from the vantage point of being an outsider to the movement. But today we are speaking of believers looking at what is going on within their own community and making sound judgment on it. This is a judgment we must make since Jesus told us that false teachers and antichrists would proliferate and try to lead people astray. Again what I have observed (and the SF conference spoke to this) is that even the scholarly continuationists seem much too relaxed about abuses that ought to be obvious to everyone as bad theological fruit.
Thanks to the ‘heads up’ I received from Brendt, I visited Costco this morning, just in case I need to open an industrial-sized can of ‘feck’ on Larry.
Inasmuch as Larry has given eloquent and repeated attestation to my nasty meanness, I want to say in all honesty that I don’t intend my manner of speech to be as deriding or abusive as he is taking it. I write in a style that employs colorful (and yes, sometimes sarcastic) analogies or other rhetorical flourishes. Obviously none of that makes my beliefs true or proves anything. Rhetoric has its place, as the ancients knew, but if I try to substitute mere rhetorical device for substance, I am nothing but a sophist. I employ this comedic style often in the classroom, & it is usually enjoyed & assists in keeping attention & fostering interaction. Of course much is lost in the distance & separation of this medium, what without any of the numerous facial & vocal cues that are important elements of communication.
And as I have said many times already, the televangelists bring out the ‘worst’ in me, if you perceive it as such. I dare say few groups will inspire a darker cloud of disapproval in my mind. Perhaps I let this get the better of me a little & laced my words with a little too much poison against them.
To the degree that I have offended Larry I sincerely apologize. He was never my target. I do not apologize for calling the message of the PWF teachers heresy. I use the word rarely and advisedly. I am being descriptive not vindictive when I use it of their message.
Larry continues to cast himself as the lone true expert in PWF theology, dismissing everyone else’s views of it as completely misguided & ignorant. We shall see. While we are waiting for him to regale us with a hearty defense of their orthodoxy, here is one of a billion brief examples of a world-class PWFer explounding the very system of belief I described in my previous post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZ9LU5sDRE
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself” –Proverbs 26:4. Um, Clint, have you noticed how much time you’ve spent going back and forth with this moron? Sorry about the name calling, but sometimes a man’s actions elicit something beyond his mere first name. Seriously Clint, you are wayyy above this guy. He probably has no friends, may very well not even be a Christian, and up to this point, after an endless stream of verbose drivel, still has not spoken a word that even shows he has a theology of any sort whatsoever. When we encounter someone like this online who hops into discussions with offensive hostility in order to instigate a fight, the best thing is to just ignore him. He’s had numerous chances to make his point. He is not going to say a single word of substance. I love Creedo House and I love this blog. Please don’t let a pharisaical, Biblically-illiterate little boy like this belittle the quality of this blog or this important conversation any further. I’m sure you have the power to do it, so why not shut this guy down? I’m quite certain he will quickly find another venue to spend his precious hours re-living his glory days on the high school debate team as he blogs endlessly from his mom’s basement. (Again, forgive the sarcasm; but this has gone on so long and aimlessly that I do think a little lite-hearted derision is in order). Blessings to all, yes even to Larry the blogger guy!
FYI, for anyone who followed (and/or misrepresented) the Driscoll kerfuffle:
http://theresurgence.com/2013/10/25/see-you-in-seattle-pastor-john-macarthur
Amen Eriich!
Larry is a bona fide aider and abettor of a false teacher. He has shown his true colors. He is full of deceit and evil. The fruit of his ministry is EVIL. Matt. 7:15-20 Treat him like the evil infection that he is. Consider time spent dialoging with him to be the enemy’s way of wasting your time and distracting from that which is good and right and pure. He is clearly not a a Spirit indwelt believer. I have learned over time that his style of argumentative engagement is part and parcel of a nonbeliever in dialog with Christians on spiritual matters. For me it has become a red flag to identify a nonbeliever.
@ Susan
In general Larry’s post have been responding in kind to the tone of Clint’s original and follow up posts. While Clint’s intent may not have been to be demeaning it is easy to understand how Larry would take them that way. This doesn’t necessarily excuse Larry responding in kind, however I understand his response. Furthermore the language you use to describe Larry isn’t really that different from what Larry has used.
I also don’t believe that time spent in dialogue is a waste. This isn’t a church, but rather a forum where ideas and opinions are exchanged. In the interest of seeking Truth I am willing to listen and dialogue with those of all opinions. If Larry is wrong it will be clear from his defense and the dialogue that this is the case. If you believe strongly that what Larry is going to present is going to be wrong then point it out – you have nothing to fear. Simply shutting down the discussion is best left to radical atheists and leftists. I’m actually a believer that if ideas are exchanged in a open, but organized (meaning free of rhetoric, name calling, yelling, talking over one another, etc.) manner the truth will come out. Unfortunately most of the “discussion” in the country these days amounts to a verbal bar room brawl.
Well, thought I’d check in for lunch (I run a company). Remarkable how common a theme really hateful language is here. Do I assume that this is simply a characteristic of Reformed speech? It seems too common to be an anomaly.
Michael, thanks for encouraging the dialogue but, no difference? Really? Remarkable.
I have described obvious behaviors (e.g. dishonest, subjective, rude, feckless, arrogant, boorish), I have not suggested that anyone was “evil”, “heretic”, “blathering”, “a fool”, a “moron”, a “jerk”, or other “colorful” expressions. Please tell me you understand the difference between the two.
Jesus addressed behaviors (as did Paul). He did not, however, refer to pharisees as a**holes.
Well, back to work. Looking forward to beginning substantive discussion this evening.
I’m assuming that there is no ability to change the word count upwards. That’s also too bad … will be tedious working within these parameters.
Larry,
1. I actually don’t see a difference in the sense that neither one furthers the discussion
2. Not that it is relevant to the situation, but calling people “white-washed tombs” a “brood of vipers”, etc. etc. etc. seems pretty close to calling them ***holes. In fact he actually calls them fools (and blind ones at that).
3. There is more than enough blame to go around. For instance you calling Clint “dishonest” implies that he is knowingly telling falsehoods. If one is following the principle of charity one would presume that one isn’t knowingly telling falsehoods or being misleading. Someone can be wrong without lying.
4. I am actually interested in a seeing a discussion play out, but if neither side is willing to let things go and not call names back and forth this is a waste of time.
Michael, I’m not in any mood to show nice-nice to Larry, and I don’t think God is either. Larry’s dialog with Alexander wasn’t sweet either.
All you have to do is stick with what God says about false teachers. In the Matt 7 text I mentioned above “ravenous wolves” appears. How about this:
2 Peter2:1-2 But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves. And many will follow their debauched lifestyles. Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation pronounced long ago is not sitting idly by; their destruction is not asleep.
Beware Larry! There’s still time for you to repent in full humility before a holy God.
As I recall the only thing Larry expressed regrets about in his time of working with Benny Hinn was not having said anything to Hinn’s wife when he thought she seemed down…and then later learning Hinn was involved with someone else. The other opportunities than the men surrounding Hinn might have had to correct him were missed, as Larry tells the story, because they feared to discuss these matters with Hinn. Most likely they were afraid of loosing their jobs and their piece of the cash wad.
I’m not in any mood to show nice-nice to Larry, and I don’t think God is either.
Choose whichever response you like better.
1) Oh yeah, that’s not narcissistic at all.
2) Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:4)
BTW, that second one is not an implication that I think Larry needs to repent. Just riffing off Susan’s post.
Pastor Clint Roberts’ blogpost title: Let this Strange Firestorm be a Lesson
From concluding paragraph:
“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. … turns the blogosphere into a holy war. Let this be a lesson to us all.”
Just a guess, but I’m thinking that Pastor Clint Roberts will probably say that lesson is applicable to himself as well.
Thanks everyone.
Michael,
Of course when Larry has described people’s comments during this discussion as “dishonest”, “obtuse”, “ignorant”, “sarcastic”, “feckless”, “rude”, “purposely ignoring evidence”, “untruthful”, “blinded by one’s script”, “toxic” and “hateful, you should recognize that he merely describes their behaviors quite objectively, and in using these admittedly strong words does not imply anything negative at all about their underlying motives or character. He certainly rises above name-calling.
And when he observes all the “hateful” language in this forum, by no means does he insinuate or assume that such is characteristic of all reformed folks (neither does he assume that everyone involved in the discussion is in the reformed camp in the first place). No, not at all! Actually he is living his life in the spirit of Galatians 6, gently restoring those in sin, and only engaging in doctrinal discussion so as to “minister life and yield liberty … revealing to us more fully the person of Jesus Christ.” How indeed could you miss that? Are you so “obtuse”? 😉
Brent doesn’t know the definition of narcissistic. He also missed my call toward Larry to repent while there is still time.
I don’t care to dialog with Brendt for basically the same reasons I will not dialogue with Larry.
Brent doesn’t know the definition of narcissistic.
Well, perhaps I used the wrong term. But it was the closest word I could think of that meant “I’m so right, even God agrees with me.”
He also missed my call toward Larry to repent while there is still time.
What was option #2 (and my clarifying comment after it) about then? You do realize, don’t you, that my comments are visible to everyone, so that when you bear false witness — by denying something that is so blindingly obviously true — evidence to the contrary is right there?
I don’t care to dialog with Brendt for basically the same reasons I will not dialogue with Larry.
Because you and God are homies?
He’s my Father, I’m his daughter.
Ps 97:10 You who love the Lord, hate evil!
Susan,
You do realize the other side sees you the same way you see them?? I have zero problem with someone generally criticizes things on their blog or from their pulpit as long as they are clear about who they are criticizing and why. However, when someone you likely disagree with shows up and claims that you are misunderstanding things it is completely unacceptable to just reject them outright and not even listen to what they believe or why they believe it. At that point you have lost all credibility and all rights to criticize and given the other side every right to say that you do not know what your talking about (you won’t even listen to them explain what they actually believe – how could you?). First listen to the other side present their case and only then, once you are sure you understand the position (even if you think you already know it), you can point out any errors. Remember that individuals are different than groups and there are no two people from the WoF movement that are the same, just like there are no two Calvinists who are the same.
I read the blog and every comment in this entire thread, yet you accuse me of not listening and then scold me? You don’t even know what you’re talking about, and you are being judgmental of me.
“You don’t even know what you’re talking about, and you are being judgmental of me.”
Susan, this is rather dismissive and judgmental….rather uncharitable and un-Christlike. I am simply asking that rather than having an angry emotional reaction to Larry, we listen to him tell us what he believes and why. Then point out the errors as need be. Until Clint’s post yesterday no one defined what they meant by WoF or Prosperity Gospel. When Clint did define it Larry, who is a follower of it, informed Clint that Clint’s understanding is not correct. At that point we have to listen to Larry explicate what it is that he believes and then discuss why we disagree. It is simply impossible to criticize Larry’s beliefs at this point because we do not know what they are or why he believes them.
Well, I’ve completed the introduction to our discussion, however, it’s far too much for the comments section here. I began construction on a blog earlier this year but never completed it.
There is clearly a great deal of ground to cover … it will require several days at least. I thought it best to provide a flyover and then begin to address the matter in greater detail over the ensuing days.
Again, I trust the site is functional enough for this effort. I’ll post the link at the end of this comment. After reading, comments and questions should be posted on this forum.
That seems the best solution unless the parameters of this comment section can be altered to accommodate much more than 2000 words.
Here is the link:
http://thejesusexperience.org/
Oops … this link is direct: http://thejesusexperience.org/archives/1
Wow! There you have it….a false gospel in black and white.
The power of positive thinking.
No recognition of the seriousness of our sinful condition before a holy God, of the pending wrath of God to come…no recognition of our need and how Jesus meets it. Instead, it’s all about learning how to manipulate God by controlling our mind in order to get things done.
So, Caleb “By assuring that Israel is well able to overcome, Caleb recognizes the objective truth that challenges exist but appeals to absolute truth in assuring his audience that victory is assured”
Uh, it think Caleb was trusting in God’s power not Israel’s power.
Where to begin with all of this…?
Larry, could you explain who you think Jesus is?
Well I don’t know about Clint, but I think it unreasonable that in order to have a debate here in reference to his original blog post, Clint is asked to go read an extremely lengthy article somewhere else, one that is apparently only the introduction by its author on the whole topic of Word Faith theology.
Larry’s article begins by mentioning Kenneth Hagin as father of the Word Faith movement so I suppose the entire article is supposed to be taken as representative of Hagin’s view, and in turn representative of the movement as a whole. It’s not clear though why one should accept the author as an authority who speaks for Hagin or the movement, as it also unclear what in the rest of the article is Hagin’s view and what is the authors. But I suppose for the sake of argument one can give the benefit of the doubt and accept that the article does represent the movement accurately. Still, it is just the introduction!
But in any case, I supposed from his previous comments that Larry was going to present– here in this forum– arguments in reference to his views on Word Faith theology, showing how he thinks Clint has got it all wrong. Though he did complain several times about the brevity of the word length parameters here– I figured in the end he would just adapt his answers to the forum. Remember, he asked Clint to answer 2 questions, “Question 1 – What are the essential tenets of WOF theology?” and “Question 2 – What denies them orthodoxy?” and Clint provided an answer that conformed with the word count restrictions here. So would it not be fair for Larry to do likewise? Besides it seems to me that the debate will be interminable unless the focus is narrowed. But I guess if Clint is game for an all encompassing discussion then it won’t be a problem.
I think a more productive debate would ensue if Larry answered his own questions in a concise way here, or responded here to what Clint has already written in response to the questions Larry posed.
Susan, I’ll await the questions and comments of those whose behavior is more rational, less rancorous than yours.
Only a particular feature of WOF theology was being presented tonight as a starting point for exploratory discussions. A rather obvious conclusion for anyone prepared for objective discussions. Something you clearly have no taste for now.
Our soteriology, while not Calvinistic is orthodox. But that is not under discussion tonight.
One more thing, Susan. I find your remarks, well, slightly unhinged. So, please direct your questions to others here, rather than to me. I really don’t wish to converse with you directly.