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: “Said another way, objective truth is a statement of reality from an earthbound perspective, while absolute truth is a statement of reality reflecting God’s perspective. When we choose to accept, as final authority, God’s perspective, we unleash His power to work revolutionary change in our lives and circumstances.”
Larry, what about this absolute truth:
Rom 6:23 For the payoff of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 7:23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members.
Larry, what about your sin and guilt before God?
You said, “We have an opportunity at such junctures to reconcile ourselves to whatever our circumstances or impulses and behaviors prescribe. Or we can begin acclimating ourselves to a new reality – one defined by the power and presence of a living and loving God. But, make no mistake – the choice is ours. Paul the Apostle wrote these sobering remarks concerning Israel’s choice to retreat from the challenges discovered in Cannan,”
“But with whom was he grieved forty years? Was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them, but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Hebrews 3:17-19, 4:1-2)”
“Clearly, it was God’s will that the children of Israel, delivered from Egyptian bondage, enter and enjoy the Promised Land; nevertheless, they did not. Indeed, Paul concludes that they did not because of their unbelief.”
Larry, what about their sin? Their sin and ours makes us guilty…
Alex … it should be apparent to even you that Clint knows next to nothing about WOF theology through anything other than poorly written third party critiques.
I chose to begin broadly in order to offer a distinction between extreme elements claiming to represent (or being claimed as representative) WOF.
Then I offered a basic idea of our approach to faith … in contrast to claims of eastern thought, new age spirituality or gnosticism. I also wished to address the additional falsehoods regarding prosperity.
Now, given that my discussion is with Clint, and unless you have a specific question with regard to what I’ve written, you may wish now to simply observe the discussion as it unfolds.
At least I certainly hope so, because to this point you’ve been remarkably annoying.
@Larry
I read the intro you posted and find it rather interesting. I have a number of questions, however I assume those may be addressed later so I will hold them for now. That being said I think Alex has a good point. I have been a reader of this blog for a very long time (at least 5 years). The reason a word count limit was added is that people were basically copying and pasting books worth of information. Since Clint responded within the word count (more or less – he used two responses) I think it is fair that one make their arguments and statements concise enough to fit within 2-3 posts. Think of it as similar to a time limit in a formal debate.
It also might violate the blog rules (not sure) to try to take things off the site like that and it is not something people are likely to follow as closely anyhow as they would this forum.
No, I rather doubt that the initial portion of this discussion can occur in so limited a format. Clint’s answers were short because they lacked any detail … any real substance.
I prefer something a bit more robust. If, as time, passes brief exchanges can occur, then this format will serve nicely I’m sure.
I look forward to your questions.
@ Susan
Please calm down just a little bit. I have the same questions you do but you don’t need to go shouting “false gospel” until you’ve asked those questions (in a polite way) and the other side has had a chance to answer. I would suggest something like this.
“I have read your introduction and it raises and number of questions and concerns. My most pressing concern is that it fails to address most of the central, core tenants of Orthodox Christianity. Some of these issues are listed below.
1. Who is Jesus?
2. What is the Condition of mankind?
3. What is the nature of sin?
4. What is the nature of salvation?
Could you please address these as they are quite central to the debate in addition to other matters? Thank You. “
@ Larry
1. “At least I certainly hope so, because to this point you’ve been remarkably annoying.”
Was that really necessary?
2. Like I said it may violate the blog rules and I simply doubt that the authors of this blog will be interested in getting into a debate off-site. Like I said a formal debate has time limits – a word limit seems reasonable.
No problem, Larry. As I said before I don’t care to dialogue with you.
Here is a little observation, however, for everyone else to keep in mind. Larry commented earlier that when he visited Benny Hinn’s home library “He [Benny] quickly and proudly pointed out that no titles authored by Hagin or Copeland were to be found among his collection. I asked why? “They are not evil men Benny” I noted. He quickly corrected himself, pointing at the bottom shelf were several were to be found.
I couldn’t help but laugh.”
I would see such a blatant lie as a red flag from a man who’s preaching God’s word to the masses. I experienced a pastor lying to me on several occasions over a period of years (but I kept giving him the benefit of the doubt). Over time, he shifted in his theology proving to be a false teacher who preaches a false gospel. Several hundred people have now left the church.
Lying is a reflection of Satan, not God.
Michael, thanks for the instructions. I understand your desire to dialogue with Larry, and realize that my announcing of what I just read as a false gospel will not warm Larry’s heart toward me, nor draw Larry to respond to my questions. The truth is I really don’t have time to engage.
“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”
Actually, I wasn’t at all angry or emotional as I posted any comments on this thread, but perhaps it is your gift to see these things on the other side of the screen. I’m actually more calm and level-headed than I’m sure you can imagine at this point, but I know a false gospel when I see one and I don’t have much tolerance for the perpetrator of one…after all that I went through at my former church of 42 years.
So, gentlemen, carry on!
Michael, frankly yes. I cannot think of an occasion in a forum of this sort in which I have encountered such pugnacity, such antagonism … or such immaturity.
Alex seems to be forever spoiling for a fight. My discussion is with Clint … if Alex wishes to join in constructively, fine. Other wise, I would prefer that the ill mannered young man who addressed me as “jerk” simply listen.
Again, I’ve enjoyed exchanges in which real disagreements were addressed directly but respectfully. Intellectual integrity and comity were abundantly in evidence.
I have never, never engaged in so unpleasant a conversation with fellow believers which were marked by such intellectual dishonesty, such belligerence, such uncouth behavior as I experienced here.
I’m not likely to run from such a place, nor will I roll over. I will confront people whose manners ought to be challenged.
@ Susan
I’m sorry for your experience and understand how this may have tainted how you respond to these things, however if you don’t have time to truly engage then why respond at all? Simply dismissing someone as a heretic or the purveyor of a false gospel does more damage than good. If you believe someone has these beliefs let them give their case and if they are in fact a heretic or a purveyor of a false gospel they will hang themselves with their responses. If you don’t do this it appears as if you don’t really know what you are talking about and, perhaps worse, are scared of meaningful discussion. At this point you’ve lost credibility, not just with those who are viewing things from the outside, but also with whomever you are disagreeing with.
@ Larry,
Perhaps I have just spent too much time on the internet, but I’ve seen fights 10 times this bad. What concerns me is that you don’t seem to think that you bear any responsibility for responding in kind. You could have said this to start out things.
“I just read this article and have known personally a number of the men and women who you cavalierly dismiss as heretics and heathens. I must say that I am deeply offended and hurt that you would address these people in such a way and find it rather un-Christlike. It is clear to me from this post that you do not truly understand these people or the WoF movement and the central tenants thereof. If you would like to discuss things further I would appreciate the opportunity to explain things.”
Now of course you may say that they deserve something harsher than that and you are probably right. However, if you ratchet up the rhetoric, they are going to ratchet up the rhetoric. Pretty soon all that is happening is name calling back and forth. So who is going to be the first to lay down their arms and turn the other cheek – in other words who is going to choose to be the bigger person and not respond in kind. This is the only way that any substantive discussion is going to take place.
Michael … you misunderstand. I don’t care what these chaps think of me. I’m not offended on a personal level. I find the behavior of Clint (and to the degree that Credo House affords him a platform) reprehensible because of the threat they represent to people desperate for God’s power.
These men present themselves as expert, their judgements as sound and reliable. Yet, I’ve witnessed the most cavalier and self absorbed fecklessness that I have witnessed first hand in a very long time … and worse, from a group that touts its theological expertise.
I have observed first hand the extraordinary difference Christ, through His power has made in the lives of those emboldened to believe … to trust fully in Him … in His promises for more than three decades, here and abroad.
To observe a doctrinaire, so apparently disinterested in the well being of others that he would employ the basest language and the most intellectually suspect rationale to rob them of faith is a monstrous injustice … one which which finds me rushing to offer hope to those who might otherwise accept such reckless lies without question.
Compounding that distress was the unremitting rudeness, crassness and disingenuousness of Mr. Roberts.
So please, save your counsel for those here who launched this unholy nonsense. Their professed dedication to doctrine seems wanting … and wholly disconnected from the needs of those they ostensibly serve.
Well, thanks again for your assessment of me, Michael. I will not grieve having lost credibility with you, but I have had credibility and respect on this forum for a number of years, with Patton as well. I don’t interact on blogs much anymore since I feel my time is better spent elsewhere, but the Strange Fire conversations have been of interest since I listened to most of the live streamed conference. I was somewhat dubious about the conference before it happened, but after listening I was impressed with the importance of the matters discussed and appreciated many of the talks. I think that MacArthur and Co. are right to take this very seriously and call attention to the corruption and false teaching in the mix. It has become a massive world-wide problem…with many different facets, brands and faces…some worse than others.
As I said, I no longer have time to engage, because it is now the weekend and my kids will be home from school. You think that disqualifies me from having made comments after reading Larry’s posting tonight? You think I’m perhaps fleeing out of fear? You do a lot of speculating, and you tend to be judgmental. If you knew how carefully, and prayerfully, and fearlessly I engaged with the elders and pastors at my former church! with careful respectfulness, you would perhaps not be so quick to wrap me up as a wacky wildcard. And you might be interested to know that in spite of my respectful, careful, biblical attention to the deletions of the pastoral staff, I was treated with abusive anger and lied about, and I wasn’t the only one. A number of elders left after similar attempts met with brutish intimidation.
I learned some things over those years. What I learned plays into my directness on this thread. You may not approve, but I think your long discussion to come will lead you to the conclusions I jumped to.
And please don’t assess my directness and intolerance as not being Christlike. Jesus was NOT tolerant of…
Larry,
I admit that my insistence that you not act hypocritically here may be annoying to you. I find your behavior here not without condemnation. First you came to this forum making the arrogant presumption that you’re correct in your view and thus immediately dismissed the author of the post as completely ignorant and totally uninformed– all this before even stating your own case, let alone, making it. Second, you’ve demonstrated incredible hypocrisy with continual putdowns and sarcasm in your remarks and tone, all the while claiming that you merely objectively critique actions and come with a spirit of gentleness and love. Do you not consider that any of your comments might be offensive to me and others?Third, in my view you’ve been exceedingly unreasonable to expect that people you’re well aware disagree with your stance nevertheless endure long testimonies of your personal anecdotes you fail to explain the significance of, and lengthy blog posts that will supposedly establish your case bit by bit, when what most busy people naturally desire is that you state your case concisely. I guess that since you believe the author was insulting and ignorant in his article and comments you may now insult in return, and that your correctness is so self-evident that only a dolt like myself can’t see it, and thus I must be blinded by my script. Perhaps you see all this as acting in a spirit of gentleness; I see it as highly uncharitable.
Larry, I would like to say that it has not been my intention to be ill mannered or rude, but I am interested in a productive discussion. In that light I apologize if any of my own comments have been offensive to you, that was not my desire when I began commenting.
@ Larry
“Michael … you misunderstand. I don’t care what these chaps think of me. I’m not offended on a personal level. I find the behavior of Clint (and to the degree that Credo House affords him a platform) reprehensible because of the threat they represent to people desperate for God’s power.”
If you don’t care what “these chaps” think of you I would think you would still care about those who might be observing think. You seem to have a vested interest in changing hearts and minds concerning WoF theology. This doesn’t help your case
“I have observed first hand the extraordinary difference Christ, through His power has made in the lives of those emboldened to believe … to trust fully in Him … in His promises for more than three decades, here and abroad.
To observe a doctrinaire, so apparently disinterested in the well being of others that he would employ the basest language and the most intellectually suspect rationale to rob them of faith is a monstrous injustice … one which which finds me rushing to offer hope to those who might otherwise accept such reckless lies without question.”
Clint and many others have observed damage on the opposite side. While not WoF I had a pastor who was a former Oneness Pentecostal whose church I attended back in undergrad. He recounted a story about being a intern and going to the house of a woman on her death bed with the pastor. The pastors counsel to the dying woman was that she wasn’t being healed because she didn’t have enough faith and that if she just believed she would be healed. Instead of slipping into the next life being a hopeful moment that she was going to see Jesus, it was one filled with fear.
Many, many pastors have had similar experiences recounted to them by people who left various Charismatic churches including WoF churches. It just seems that there is more than enough “damage” to go around. This is ultimately a red herring though as to whether or not something is true.
@ Susan,
Nowhere in the prior post was I making an assessment of you in a personal sense other than repeating in the first sentence what you yourself had already indicated. The rest of my post concerns the effect in an objective sense of responding to someone in any manner that effectively shuts them down before they’ve had a chance to give their substantive case.
Additionally I’ve been reading this blog for nearly 6 years now. I just haven’t been as active posting for the past few as I was earlier on. I’ve seen your comments and I was not implying that you have lost credibility with me. I was addressing how those viewing this discussion from the outside might view your credibility. This is something I think everyone should be concerned about. If you have no credibility how can you ever hope to correct those who have fallen into theological error or protect those who are headed in that direction from falling into error?
Michael, some of my comments were born out of reading 140+ comments of one of the most ridiculous discussions I’ve ever followed here. It seemed quite apparent that Larry wasn’t going to offer any substantive responses to questions being asked of him and everyone has been so busy correcting everyone else’s inappropriate comments that the discussion has been dominated by that to the point of ridiculousness. You will note that I haven’t been addressing the inappropriate comments and stances of others. When someone is unnecessarily demeaning on their comments to me it doesn’t take long before I see that discussion with them is futile, so I will not waste my time with them. There has been an abundance of futility here!
I must admit that I was surprised that Larry finally produced something substantive that can be examined and talked about, though as you and Alex point out it is a very long read and it would be better if shorter, concise argents were employed.
As I recall you are a lawyer? I understand your desire to hear all the evidence in a fair way before making judgements. From my perspective, if this man worked with Hinn or was supportive of his ministry( though I perhaps misunderstood the relationship between Larry and Benny), then I can’t help but attribute to Larry the same assessment of being a false teacher that I see in Hinn. I know that’s not very lawyerly of me.
At this point there is the new possibility that an actual discussion about theology might occur. That changes things. You may not pardon my assessment of Larry’s theology because of this, but honestly, reading what he posted caused a welling up of ‘righteous indignation’ in me. So, I responded out of that.
Michael, some of my comments were born out of reading 140+ comments of one of the most ridiculous discussions I’ve ever followed here. It seemed quite apparent that Larry wasn’t going to offer any substantive responses to questions being asked of him and everyone has been so busy correcting everyone else’s inappropriate comments that the discussion has been dominated by that to the point of ridiculousness. You will note that I haven’t been addressing the inappropriate comments and stances of others. When someone is unnecessarily demeaning on their comments to me it doesn’t take long before I see that discussion with them is futile, so I will not waste my time with them. There has been an abundance of futility here!
I must admit that I was surprised that Larry finally produced something substantive that can be examined and talked about, though as you and Alex point out it is a very long read and it would be better if shorter, concise arguments were employed.
As I recall you are a lawyer? I understand your desire to hear all the evidence in a fair way before making judgements. From my perspective, if this man worked with Hinn or was supportive of his ministry( though I perhaps misunderstood the relationship between Larry and Benny), then I can’t help but attribute to Larry the same assessment of being a false teacher that I see in Hinn. I know that’s not very lawyerly of me.
At this point there is the new possibility that an actual discussion about theology might occur. That changes things. You may not pardon my assessment of Larry’s theology because of this, but honestly, reading what he posted caused a welling up of ‘righteous indignation’ in me. So, I responded out of that.
“As I recall you are a lawyer? I understand your desire to hear all the evidence in a fair way before making judgements. From my perspective, if this man worked with Hinn or was supportive of his ministry( though I perhaps misunderstood the relationship between Larry and Benny), then I can’t help but attribute to Larry the same assessment of being a false teacher that I see in Hinn. I know that’s not very lawyerly of me.”
You are correct. I am a lawyer. Despite that in a general sense I would actually consider this acceptable just as if you are addressing someone who claims to be a Roman Catholic you would justified in claiming they have a improper mariology. However, when an individual whom you are having a conversation with claims that you either 1) misunderstand what their position is, or 2) in the case of a Roman Catholic, rejects that aspect of Roman Catholicism, one must stop and listen to what they actually do believe. Otherwise you risk burning straw men.
When it comes to my knowledge of the WoF movement I must admit that it either comes from what I see on TV (much of which is dangerous heresy) or what I have read in critical accounts by third parties. If someone appears to me in person (or on a blog) and states that those on TV do not represent the movement and the critical accounts by outsiders inaccurately portray the beliefs of the movement, if I am a charitable man I am obligated to at least listen to what they have to say.
This discussion has been interesting if contentious. I am glad that there is such passion about the topic, but as to the ongoing debate over what I’ve been calling PWF (Prosperity Word of Faith) teaching, I am increasingly skeptical about our prospects. One lesson I learned years ago is that some people cannot be reasoned with; fortunately reason is not the only tool in God’s greater arsenal, otherwise maybe all of us (and the world as a whole) would be in real trouble.
Nonetheless once it becomes clear that someone cannot be convinced “by Scripture and by plain reason”, to quote Luther at Worms, there is little else you can do by way of speech or written communication. They are in God’s hands, which obviously are larger, stronger & more capable than ours by an incalculable magnitude.
I will not by any means cease or desist in denouncing the PWF teachers as dangerous heretics prostituting the name of Jesus for their lavish and oily purposes. My cursory reading of Larry’s blog left me still wondering which of the PWF teachers he would defend & if his views are really theirs. The only name he mentioned was that of Hagin, a kind of Godfather to the movement. There is of course evidence aplenty from his writings and sermons that he represented all of the terrible theology we now see across the PWF spectrum. I can provided a hearty sample if needed.
So while I might have some critiques of the interpretation & application of some of the passages Larry cited, they would be minor by comparison with the more weighty & significant problems I (and all orthodox believers) have with the PWF teaching & practice. If in fact Larry has been beguiled by these shysters, as hard as that is for me to comprehend since I don’t think Larry is an idiot, then it would interest me to learn why he follows them & thinks they are anointed by God. Larry may have his own unique kind of theology that is not theirs, but if so I fail to see how he is an authority on the movement.
Michael, This is the second time you have indicated that Larry (or someone) has told me that I misunderstood their position. I don’t know what you are referring to.
“one must stop and listen to what they actually do believe. Otherwise you risk burning straw men”
That’s been the problem, until now Larry wasn’t giving us anything, and even now this article may or may not truly represent his own beliefs.
Perhaps you can read through 200 comments and be willing to wait patiently for Larry’s personal thoughts on specifics of WOF theology, but it isn’t looking particularly hopeful to me. But, keep asking those questions and perhaps he will answer, until then he’s guilty by association in my mind.
Clint,
“I will not by any means cease or desist in denouncing the PWF teachers as dangerous heretics prostituting the name of Jesus for their lavish and oily purposes”
I would not suggest stopping. As a pastor in a public forum you have a duty to denounce heresy as you see it. However, this doesn’t insulate you from having to engage with those who show up and assert that you misunderstand or misrepresent something in a reasonable manner. You are still open for criticism.
“I can provided a hearty sample if needed.”
Please do. Since that appears to be the person that Larry is initially latching onto.
“So while I might have some critiques of the interpretation & application of some of the passages Larry cited, they would be minor by comparison with the more weighty & significant problems I (and all orthodox believers) have with the PWF teaching & practice”
I agree with this. While I could critique the interpretation of the various passages and provide counter-examples, these questions are rather minor issues compared to the core tenants of Orthodoxy. These concerns simply were not touched on.
@Susan
“Michael, This is the second time you have indicated that Larry (or someone) has told me that I misunderstood their position. I don’t know what you are referring to.”
That has basically been Larry’s battle cry this entire time. That we misunderstand, misrepresent, and no nothing of the true WoF movement. I’m not sure this is the case, but I’m willing to hear him out if he is willing to explain what he believes, why he believes it, and answer challenges that are made to it.
“I don’t care to dialogue with you” but I’ll talk about you and every last word you say until I’m blue in the face.
By this shall all men know that you are my disciples.
Brendt, I must say I couldn’t stop laughing when I reread much of the thread last night and came to your ‘feck’ comment. That almost redeemed this entire ridiculous conversation 😀
I liked Clint’s blurb about “opening a can of feck”, though I think “opening a feckin’ can” works better… Sorry, the un-redeemed me… ;/
The endless opening of new fronts, the deployment of a vast army of straw men, the dedicated refusal to engage in factual, reasoned argument, malleable language, rhetorical sleight of hand and a continual stream of ad hominem attacks all culminating in a graceless and petty departure from the field of battle with claims of victory is not the province of modern liberals alone … it is the predictable dilemma/tactic of so many caught in the maws of a closed system.
Relying on circular reasoning in the manner living things rely on air, any introduction fact and critical thinking is met with open hostility. After all, circular reasoning cannot, by virtue of its very nature, long endure the scrutiny of reasoned argument. Because beliefs comprise no small part of our identity, the man or woman caught in the web of such a thought system, invested as they are, will ordinarily behave like a cornered animal … teeth bared, claws extended.
How unlike the picture of the thinking, reasonable men and women found in Acts 17:11 … “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”
Larry’s charges are easily refuted and could be charged against him in reverse, by anyone who’s observed the interactions here. “Factual, reasoned argument” requires an argument be presented in the first place. This Larry failed to do. He asked Clint two specific questions to begin debate. Clint answered them (see post #119). Larry chose not to respond.
So in the end, where is Larry’s argument? As anticipated by some, it has gone missing. But on the way out, he continues posturing and making a barrage of accusations (for which he also gives no evidence) and which to me seem designed to distract from the fact that he has given the forum nothing to respond to. Yes he did provide a link to his lengthy introductory remarks elsewhere, which are apparently his own take on the WOF movement rather than a strict defense of Word Faith theology as practiced by the people mentioned in the original post. How can such an article become the basis for further debate?
So despite not responding to specific answers given him in response to specific questions he himself raised, Larry is laying all the blame for the discussion not being “reasonable” on everyone else. He suggests that the discussion would have been more noble had others only followed the Berean example. He seems to overlook that fact that for this to happen, something at least must be presented for examination and discussion.
Alex, your absurdity is now deeply layered. Willingly blind, you see only what you wish to see. Because the truth is so destructive to your preferred narrative … you simply ignore and replace with freshly minted”facts” from your fertile imagination.
You are simply not to be taken seriously.
Now I have a craving for layer cake and some Altoids.
Larry you did not respond within this forum to the specific questions you asked Clint to answer and which he did answer. That’s fact.
All you’ve done here thus far is present lengthy personal anecdotes without showing what significance these may have to your arguments in support of WOF theology.
You did find time to be insulting to many. But of course, that was only with the noblest of intentions.
What I find “absurd” is the insistence that others follow your argument as it is slowly developed in lengthy blog articles elsewhere.
In any case your own article acknowledges that “much of “Christian Television” (is) unhelpful, tacky and misleading. Worse, while some programming provides sound teaching and encouragement, much of it seems geared to dangerous excess and error.”
Are not the programs containing the errors those of recognized leaders of the charismatic movement? How then do you argue that their errors are not representative of the movement and that this is “guilt by association”?
Alex, as I’ve said … you are simply not to be taken seriously. You ignore what you wish in order to further your own narrative. You have yet again misrepresented facts brazenly. You continue to behave in remarkably dishonest and immature fashion.
What you hope to achieve other than to avoid a serious discussion, I do not know … nor, at this point, do I really care. However, in moments of reflection you may want to consider why you would so outrageously misrepresent obvious facts as you have done here.
Is it the blindness of a closed system of thought? Is it simple human pride? Cowardice? Why? Alex is a question you ought to seriously consider.
In three decades of thoughtful discussions this is the first occasion in which I’ve dealt with so many in one group who behave so strangely, with such hostility and such intellectual dishonesty and yet believe themselves to be godly in so doing.
A truly bizarre experience.
Larry,
Alex is absolutely right here. You asked Clint two questions. Clint responded and asked you the same two questions. You haven’t responded as of yet. I really am interested in your answer to those questions. I honestly want to be wrong in my previous assessments of WoF/Prosperity theology. I don’t enjoy thinking of people as heretics almost to the fault of being more accepting of some things than I probably should be. Your introduction, while interesting, did not answer or even address the questions that are most pressing concerning the movement. I doubt that you are so in a bubble that you are unaware of the theological objections made against these movements. I would think you would be itching to dispel these as quickly as possible.
Popcorn anyone?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8gfMXEmCew4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8gfMXEmCew4
Alex, your comments ARE coming through to my email (since I am subscribed) but aren’t showing here.
This happened to me 2 or 3 times on this thread.
Well, at least the “not showing” half. A subscriber doesn’t get his own comments, so I don’t know if other subscribers saw them or not.
Alex, if you can read this, I got the message that you were experiencing problems trying to post. All I can think is that it is technical, since I know of no reason for it. Then again, it could have something to do with that fact that, like Beckett’s “Waiting For Godot,” your absurdity is so deeply layered.
If all else fails you could try sowing a $100 seed into the prosperity ministry of your choice, then simply name & claim technological wholeness.
Clint, FWIW, on his last post about all this, CMP had to roto-rooter the moderation filter when it ate one of my comments for no reason.
[This is just a test to see if my comment is now posting.]
Due to some unknown technical issue I’m unable to post here my final response to the nonsense of Larry. Maybe some of you subscribed to this entry have received the comment, which I posted more than once in various edits in an attempt to have it appear here. Sorry for all the repeats. In any case I think the comment would not have made much impact considering the huge plank currently lodged in his eye. I cannot say this has been fruitful but I have learned something nevertheless. I’ll leave it at that.
I’ve learned over the years that when someone argues like Larry, constantly baiting one with demeaning talk, doublespeak, false accusations and endless dishonest circular reasoning . Oh, and asking questions that take a long time to answer and when you take that time to respond thoughtfully, and then they twist what you have said and use it to accuse you of something ( and will continue in this tactic endlessly) ….I’ve learned to assume that I am speaking with one who is not indwelt by God’s Spirit. They are employing the tactics of the father of lies and playing me. I’ve had those sorts of conversations with atheists and with a few others who come here and pose as Christians in order to advance some personal agenda. I’ve learned to read this in the godless way a person engages and then to depart from letting them waste my time. There is evil in the mix, as I was saying.
You will not get a straight answer from Larry because he serves the Accuser. He has been a faithful servant of his master.
That you should consider Clint’s response an answer suggests that you are inured to such dishonesty, indeed, you appear now to be purveyors of the same. Clint has in no wise answered my questions … not by any reasonable measure. He reiterated his several ambiguous critiques, laced of course with adolescent jibes and ad hominem attacks (his idea of witty I suppose … or more likely as I stated earlier, his method of obfuscating his ignorance and bullying back any dissent) but never, NEVER answered my questions. That you should think he did is most revealing.
I provided an overview of WOF approaches to faith and prosperity (which was the focus of the discussion) to which Clint offered no credible response, instead … he fled from a discussion which might demand of him an acknowledgment of his errors. Cowardly and dishonest … again. Indeed, Michael, you made a point of underscoring his evasiveness in your own post … yet you now suggest differently. Odd behavior indeed.
Michael, you’ve swung into this debate as a self-appointed arbiter. A bit odd frankly and suggestive of a not a little hubris. If you have questions, or comments (you continue to suggest you do) then allow me to suggest that you break off from policing everyone’s comments (please!!!) and simply ask your own questions, offer your own comments.
Alex, you’ve found a soul mate in Clint … indeed, your styles and spirit quire nearly suggest that he’s your mentor. I urge caution.
So here we have it. Outrageous charges leveled both irresponsibly and dishonestly. A refusal to answer two fundamental questions or to retreat from reckless and mean spirited name calling and conflation. Then, a doubling down of the same. Yet, because, obviously, you are birds of a feather … you rush to Clint’s aid, insisting what a 12 year old would know better than to suggest, namely, that he has answered my questions. That is at best a careless excusing of a confederate … or a simple act of dishonesty. Gentlemen … allow me to remind you ……
Gentlemen … allow me to remind you … it’s all there in black and white.
Clint (aka Martin the Martian) engaged in dishonest, defamatory and just plain strange behavior … you have yet to address that. Given your perspectives it’s unlikely that you will. This has been an interesting experience in bizzaro world to say the least. If any of you should have a question, or would like to further discuss what I provided as a start to dialogue fine. Otherwise I’ve much more productive activities to tend to.
Hmmmnnn …. When words are many, transgression is not lacking, ….
Marvin the Martian has been a commenter on this blog for years, but since he asked Larry some simple, direct questions Larry now must maintain his arrogant high ground by calling him a phony deceiver. He had to think of some excuse to dismiss his questions.
Excellent and thoughtful analysis. Also reflects a solid grasp the current Charismatic landscape.
Well I sense that God is granting us the favor of a merciful wind-down of this trainwreck of a discussion. Larry, as eloquent a troll as the interwebs could produce, has managed to alienate everybody in the discussion and wear us all out with the never ending barrage of bluster. All heat and no light. No matter what I or anyone else may attempt to communicate, the reply will be the same: he’s a victim of our utter ignorance, our vile rudeness, etc. In his world, he’s the only ‘normal’ one in this discussion just as prosperity televangelists are the only true heralds of Christianity. Those two delusions run parallel in Larry’s distorted perspective.
To those of you who have weighed in on this, some attempting even to give Larry a lot of latitude & hear him out, I appreciate your patience. Some of you have suggested that my own sarcasm was too sharp and biting, & I understand why you say so. Maybe you’re right. Still I appreciate your attempts to play a role here & I apologize for your becoming immediate targets of Larry’s neurotic knee-jerk defensiveness.
It appears nearly impossible for any of you to get on his good side. If you so much as offer the slightest critique of the content or tenor of his posts, you at once are cast from his good graces & numbered among the ignorant bullies with the closed Calvinistic ‘system’ that is persecuting the godly saints soaring above us all in private jets en route to their next miracle crusade. At least most of you are acknowledged as actually existing, which is a greater implied compliment than Larry is willing to pay ‘Marvin the Martian’ as it turns out.
Hey Clint,
Larry must have received a Word of Knowledge that I was but a sock puppet channeling your thoughts….or something. 😉
To conclude …
I will chalk it up among the many & varied oddities of the world that there is a man so verbally capable and yet so blindly ensnared by the inanity of PWF teaching. And I reiterate my chief points yet again, which Larry doesn’t wish to acknowledge or address specifically. They pertain both the the teachings of the Prosperity/Word-O’-Faith club as well as to them personally.
Regarding their overall message, it is false & dangerous. It makes God beholden to our faith-power & to words themselves. It gives us strange metaphysical abilities to use our words to manipulate the natural world in order to make it yield to us the temporal goodies of money & perfect health. And along with this turd casserole are a feast of poisonous doctrinal side-dishes that atrophy rather than nourish the spirits of the hearers.
And the PWF televangelists themselves are by all accounts grossly immoral for loving money & their own fame, for duping people, for living like super high-rollers in the most gaudy and decadent excesses, by loving the spotlight & accepting the worship that comes with it. As James might say of them, they prey on widows & are pseudo-shepherds satisfying their lusts & appetites by feeding on the sheep who follow them in ignorance hoping for money, health, advancement in life, family, career. They are on the lowest moral tier, next to grimy Thai child-traffickers.
If there be any man prepared to demonstrate how I have wrongly assessed their behavior, lifestyle or message, let him show it. If I have assailed godly messengers & slandered genuine instruments of God, prove it. Convince me otherwise. Save all of your outrage & spare us the offended act. Just make with the facts if you want to defend these phonies. But good luck, counselor. You may as well be counsel for the commandant at Nuremberg, because you’re up against it on this one. We’ve seen enough of the Johnny Cochran routine. Enough sophistry & posturing. Make your case or stop…