I think Brown makes some good points:
MacArthur and Brown represent opposite ends of the spectrum, so this is, in a sense, Brown's unbalanced position counterbalancing MacArthur's unbalanced position. Brown puts the best face on Pentecostalism while MacArthur puts the worst face on Pentecostalism.
I think it's a mistake for MacArthur to refuse to meet with Brown. It's a mistake for MacArthur to constantly talk about charismatics rather than talk to charismatics.
How representative are charismatic excesses? Brown minimizes them whereas MacArthur maximizes them.
It seems to me that charismatic excesses are clearly more than isolated incidents. But I wonder if there's any reliable polling data from a sociologist of religion who surveys the prevalence certain teachings or certain phenomena in the Pentecostal/charismatic movement worldwide.
Some of the things Brown says are clearly just silly:
ReplyDeleteI have worked side by side with some of these fine men and women myself, precious saints who have risked their lives for the name of Jesus, giving themselves sacrificially to touch a hurting and dying world with the gospel, literally shedding their blood rather than compromise their testimonies—yet an internationally recognized pastor calls many of them “Satan’s false teachers ... spiritual swindlers, con men, crooks, and charlatans.”
Brown's description here could just as well apply to the famous Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, the antitrinitarian pastor who refused to compromise his (heterodox) faith under duress from the Iranian government.
So Pastor MacArthur, in writing and obviously with much forethought, is accusing hundreds of millions of believers of blaspheming the Spirit, thereby pronouncing them to be sinners damned to hell, since blasphemy of the Spirit is an unforgivable sin (Mark 3:29).
Words fail to express how grievous this is.
I'm sure a Roman Catholic who you pronounced to be under the anathema of Galatians 1 would say much the same thing. So what?
While attributing gross doctrinal error to charismatics—in a pre-conference video, pastor Steve Lawson claims the fundamental problem with charismatics is their lack of serious engagement with the Word—Pastor MacArthur himself is guilty of poor exegesis of the scriptural passages that point to the ongoing, miraculous work of the Spirit today.
This is, like much of what Brown says, question begging assertion. But, in my experience (which is British evangelicalism), conservative evangelical churches (whether continuationist or cessationist in doctrine) generally take the Bible more seriously than charismatic evangelical churches, though there is a spectrum. Likewise, the woolly left of evangelicalism which has capitulated on female preachers and is, I would guess, about to capitulate on homosexuality (Fulcrum speaks of "dialogue"; give it twenty years) has more charismatics than it does conservatives.
I agree with you that Brown overstates his case. He's a partisan, just as MacArthur is a partisan.
DeleteI think Brown offers some valid criticisms, along with some invalid criticisms. Both see the issue as opposing insiders. They see the issue within their respective frameworks and social circles.
What I find interesting is that, here in the UK at least, the charismatic/conservative split doesn't necessarily fall along continuationist/cessationist lines (although all charismatics are continuationists, as far as I know). I know there's a diversity of opinion in the church I attend on the continuationist/cessationist question, but there is no doubt that we're not a charismatic church.
DeleteThe big question is "what is at the centre of our meetings?" Is it the preaching of Scripture, or is it "worship" (by which most people mean "singing", an offence that should be punished with writing out Rom 12:1 10,000 times)? For conservatives, it's the word. For charismatics, it's the experience of worship. Brown certainly seems to reflect the latter paradigm, especially in the light of his frighteningly shallow interactions with Calvinism that I've heard in the past...
When weighed in the balance, JMac and the careful cessationists have the better of the case, or the better of the argument against the careful continuationists.
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that charismatic excesses are clearly more than isolated incidents."
It's conceivable that the Strange Fire conference will provide careful evidence establishing this claim.
My tweet convo with Dr Brown
ReplyDeleteI stand by what I said. I find it implausible in the extreme that Dr Brown has not seen these extreme things MacArthur is talking about.
Alan,
DeleteI've contacted Brynne, Savannah, and Tess Larson to cast the devil out of you.
We are many. It's gonna take a while. Bring 'em on.
DeleteIn case we need reinforcements, we'll bring in Bob. You'll be sorry!
DeleteAlso, your exorcism will be conducted at a pig farm. Lots of receptacles for Legion.
Not Redbeard Larson!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteqewhriwengnkawdkgnasdlgknqad;flkasdnf;laksngdfgnknknknkagndgnfkgnkfgfnknfknkkkkkkknnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Okay, well if you refuse Bob, then we'll have to switch to Plan B:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybptrE-nO1Y
For some reason this isn't allowing me to use my Wordpress ID, so this is Lyndon Unger - Mennoknight.Wordpress.com
ReplyDeleteHow about this. From what I understand, Brown hasn't picked up the phone and called GTY. He's issued open invitations to talk on his blog/website, but MacArthur doesn't even own a computer.
Phil Johnson and Fred Butler both deny that he's called. Who's lying? MacArthur has met with dozens of charismatic leaders that I know of, and he's not shying away from Brown.
I've documented several dozen prosperity gospel churches, all of which control church networks exceeding 10,000+ churches and account for millions of people. Are the goings on of thousands of churches "isolated incidents"? The largest churches in over 2 dozen countries are prosperity gospel churches that have all manner of insanity. I live in Todd Bentley's home town and that church is still going strong, and producing up-and-coming nutbars that make Bentley look tame. The Charismatic craziness is wide spread; Brown hasn't been in the middle of it since he was fired from Brownsville. He's no longer in the center of things and is 13 years out of touch. He even defends the screaming, convulsing, "Slain in the Spirit", "Holy Glue", etc. that happened at Brownsville as authentic manifestations of the Spirit. The Charismatic movement is drowning in this insanity.
And why do you need a polling data? What would that even look like?
"Does your church manifest unbiblical manifestations of the Spirit?"
"Dang it! They said 'no' again! This is going nowhere!"
How about we go to the scriptures and evaluate the claimed gifts of tongues, healing and prophecy against the current manifestations that claim authenticity? Do you guys even do serious exegesis? This question is settled exegetically, and it has been for a long time.
But seeing that the scriptures are insufficient for solving theological debates, or maybe not really worth studying on world-impacting issues of theology, how about this:
You guys need to get off your blogs and go on a little field trip, so I'll make it easy. John Crowder (the guy behind the "toking the ghost" phenomenon) is coming to Abbotsford BC on February 21st, 2014. Come and see it for yourselves. There's hundreds of people already registered to go, including dozens of local pastors. I can guarantee that there will be "manifestations" galore, and you can find out just how many churches are absorbing his brand of theological lobotomy. Bring your cameras. Any takers?
I love this comment.
DeleteDang that is awesome excellence, a ray of sanity.
DeleteI should say a few words so people know where I'm coming from. First, I don't at all entirely agree with Michael Brown on the issue at hand.
DeleteAlso, I appreciate and respect MacArthur. I respect his staff, especially Phil Johnson who once gave me a nice gift. I've visited Grace Community Church. I have a good friend who graduated from TMC. I could go on, but I think people get the picture.
Nevertheless, respectfully, I don't think mennoknight's comment is terribly "awesome excellence, a ray of sanity".
One problem is the way the comment is framed around Brownsville. But why bring up Brownsville in the first place? Why frame it this way? The debate isn't over Brownsville. A non-cessationist could agree Brownsville is entirely unbiblical. Rather, isn't the debate over whether charismata occur today? I suppose it's because Brown was formerly associated with Brownsville. However, mennoknight himself indicates this is no longer the case.
Moreover, if Brown was "fired from Brownsville [BRSM]," "no longer in the center of things," and "13 years out of touch," then this in and of itself would seem to indicate Brown isn't of the same mind as other charismatics at Brownsville. So why not treat Brown differently from other charismatics, even if to disagree with him? There may be good reasons for not treating Brown differently, but as far as I know no one has explained why so far.
Another problem is MacArthur himself doesn't "do serious exegesis" by which I mean exegesis on the level of someone like D.A. Carson, Gordon Fee, or Craig Keener. This doesn't mean he's not a good pastor. But he's no "serious" exegete. I trust he'd be the first to humbly agree.
Finally, with the "You guys need to get off your blogs and go on a little field trip, so I'll make it easy" advice to fly out to Canada, well, that cuts both ways. A non-cessationist could simply reply, why not fly out to certain parts of Africa or Asia, spend some time there, and see how this lines up to Keener's book Miracles for example. This sort of big talk may play well with the cheering fanboys, but it's hardly responsive to the real debate.
A non-cessationist could agree Brownsville is entirely unbiblical
DeleteI'd love to meet one. Do you know any?
if Brown was "fired from Brownsville [BRSM]," "no longer in the center of things," and "13 years out of touch," then this in and of itself would seem to indicate Brown isn't of the same mind as other charismatics at Brownsville.
Mennoknight's comments vitiate the relevance of Brown's comments against MacArthur. MacArthur is seeing things Brown doesn't, and yet that's odd.
why not treat Brown differently from other charismatics, even if to disagree with him?
I tried, and yet he wouldn't denounce such an obvious charlatan as Creflo Dollar. So that doesn't always turn out the way one would want.
A non-cessationist could simply reply, why not fly out to certain parts of Africa
No need to fly out there. They brought someone in.
mennoknight:
Delete"How about this. From what I understand, Brown hasn't picked up the phone and called GTY. He's issued open invitations to talk on his blog/website, but MacArthur doesn't even own a computer."
Does MacArthur have a public phone number that connects the caller directly with MacArthur? Seems unlikely. Since, by your own admission, he doesn't have email, the only way to contact him would be indirect. Isn that what Brown has done? Since you admit that both Phil Johnson and Fred Butler are aware of Brown's request, surely they could pass that on to MacArthur.
Have they or haven't they?
"Phil Johnson and Fred Butler both deny that he's called. Who's lying?"
That's a red herring. My post didn't accuse either side of lying.
Since, however, both Phil Johnson and Fred Butler are cognizant of Brown's open invitations, my point stands: why is MacArthur and/or his entourage apparently snubbing Brown?
"MacArthur has met with dozens of charismatic leaders that I know of, and he's not shying away from Brown."
Does that mean he's accepted Brown's invitation?
"I've documented several dozen prosperity gospel churches, all of which control church networks exceeding 10,000+ churches and account for millions of people. Are the goings on of thousands of churches 'isolated incidents'?"
Did I say charismatic excesses are isolated incidents? No. In the very post you're commenting on, I specifically denied that. So why do you act like you're refuting something I said, when I said the opposite?
You heard something I didn't say. Why is that?
Cont. "Brown hasn't been in the middle of it since he was fired from Brownsville. He's no longer in the center of things and is 13 years out of touch."
DeleteIf he's been out of the loop for such a long time, why do some MacArthurites accuse him of lying about Pentecostal abuses? You seem to be granting him plausible deniability. Yet other MacArthurites accuse him of knowing more than he let's on to knowing. Which is it?
"He even defends the screaming, convulsing, 'Slain in the Spirit', 'Holy Glue', etc. that happened at Brownsville as authentic manifestations of the Spirit. The Charismatic movement is drowning in this insanity."
If he's as bad as you say he is, why does MacArthur and/or his handlers seem so reluctant to debate him? Surely he'd be a target-rich environment.
"And why do you need a polling data?"
To establish how representative the abuses are in charismatic circles generally.
"What would that even look like?"
Demographically representative opinion surveys to find out how prevalent certain beliefs and practices are in charismatic circles worldwide. Since MacArthurites make sweeping charges, is there reliable evidence corresponding to the scope of the charges? Posting YouTube clips says nothing about the extent of the phenomenon.
"How about we go to the scriptures and evaluate the claimed gifts of tongues, healing and prophecy against the current manifestations that claim authenticity? Do you guys even do serious exegesis? This question is settled exegetically, and it has been for a long time."
That reflects the presumptuous, hidebound attitude of MacArthurites like yourself.
"But seeing that the scriptures are insufficient for solving theological debates, or maybe not really worth studying on world-impacting issues of theology…"
Your reflexive comments exhibit the subliminal conditioning of a personality-cult. You lack the critical detachment to assume the opposing viewpoint even for the sake of argument.
The question at issue isn't the sufficiency of Scripture. Rather, MacArthurites like you are making empirical claims regarding the extent of charismatic excesses. That means the onus is on you to document your empirical claims. It's called the burden of proof. Look it up.
"You guys need to get off your blogs and go on a little field trip, so I'll make it easy. John Crowder (the guy behind the 'toking the ghost' phenomenon) is coming to Abbotsford BC on February 21st, 2014."
Yet Brown specifically said:
Dr. Michael L. Brown @DrMichaelLBrown
15 Oct
@Phil_Johnson_ I've done radio shows renouncing things like "Tokin' the Ghost" & always addressed abuses. I just embrace the real too.
"Come and see it for yourselves. There's hundreds of people already registered to go, including dozens of local pastors. I can guarantee that there will be "manifestations" galore, and you can find out just how many churches are absorbing his brand of theological lobotomy. Bring your cameras. Any takers?"
What makes you think that's a representative sample of global charismaticism? Isn't that a blatant case of sample selection bias?
Rhology said:
DeleteI'd love to meet one. Do you know any?
Sorry, Rhology, but I think this misses the point. The point is about bringing up Brownsville in the first place. How is Brownsville necessarily representative of the whole?
No need to fly out there. They brought someone in.
Again, sorry, but I think this misses the point. The point is mennoknight's advice to people is on the unreasonable side. How would going to Abbotsford BC in Canada and witnessing all the "charismatic craziness" disprove anything? At best, it'd disprove anything occurs in Abbotsford BC.
It's not *necessarily* representative. It's just that thousands and thousands of people went there, and Michael Brown still upholds it as a great and awesome move of God.
DeleteHow would going to Abbotsford BC in Canada and witnessing all the "charismatic craziness" disprove anything?
I think we may be passing in the night here. The point is a challenge to come see all the bizarre circus that is one of these 'revivals' and laugh at the person who's like "Yeah, that's biblical."
Rhology said:
DeleteI think we may be passing in the night here. The point is a challenge to come see all the bizarre circus that is one of these 'revivals' and laugh at the person who's like "Yeah, that's biblical."
Hm, it sounds to me like mennoknight is saying more than this. But fair enough.
As far as what you say goes, I think non-cessationists like D.A. Carson have pointed out a lot of the "bizarre circus" antics as well. Heck, even John Piper has said there's chaff in these sorts of things, although he also thinks there was genuine stuff (e.g. see here).
Anyway, I don't see how dismissing something like Brownsville necessarily means anything more than, well, dismissing something like Brownsville. Oh, well.
It may be helpful to remind you that Brownsville stuff isn't limited to Brownsville. It happens a lot in a lot of different places.
DeleteI understand. But what I mean is the excesses don't in and of themselves disprove the genuine charismata. (Of course, this assumes the charismata are in effect today, which I realize is a point of contention. But at least we can imagine it to be the case for the sake of argument.)
DeleteDJP:
ReplyDelete"Dang that is awesome excellence, a ray of sanity."
Pull the string and Chatty Cathy utters her prerecorded exclamations.
"Pull the string and Chatty Cathy utters her prerecorded exclamations."
ReplyDeleteTalk about a "disgusting display of spiritual pride" (your words not mine). Taunting is childish.
Physician heal thyself.
Steve Wilson "Talk about a "disgusting display of spiritual pride" (your words not mine)."
DeleteMy words? Quote where I said that.
"Taunting is childish."
"Taunting" is your characterization, not mine. As far as that goes, the Bible contains taunt-songs. Is the Bible "childish"?
"Physician heal thyself."
Dan's modus operandi is to ridicule charismatics with snide, belittling one-liners. His behavior is intellectually contemptible.
Patrick Chan - "Of course, this assumes the charismata are in effect today, which I realize is a point of contention."
ReplyDeleteExactly, Patrick, and thank you for putting it really in the simplest of terms. We who are more on the Cessationist side (perhaps I should only speak for myself) believe the gifts of miracles, prophecies, and tongues were used by God in the early beginnings of the church to primarily authenticate the Gospel preaching of the Apostles and early prophets. Since we now possess God's full-inerrant Word in our present Bible these gifts are no longer necessary. I do believe that if God wanted to authenticate the Gospel preaching of a missionary, or some other believer who was trying to make inroads in a difficult field (gang-bangers perhaps?) I could see Him giving them a confirming display of His power for the sake of the Gospel. The problem with Charismatics and Pentecostals is two-fold: 1) They have no authority to condemn the extremes of the Benny Hinns of their world. If they believe God is still giving divine revelation today, then all Hinn has to do is tell them he has that authoritative revelation from God, and they have no response. 2) They worship personalities not Christ. They place the Holy Spirit above the Son. They place their experience above the Bible. That is what I object to.
Steve Wilson
Delete"They have no authority to condemn the extremes of the Benny Hinns of their world. If they believe God is still giving divine revelation today, then all Hinn has to do is tell them he has that authoritative revelation from God, and they have no response."
Your logic is retroactive. By that standard, OT Jews were in no position to condemn Balaam.
"They worship personalities not Christ."
Like the way you idolize MacArthur and Thomas?
Steve Wilson
Delete"They place their experience above the Bible. That is what I object to."
MacArthurites constantly resort to the argument from experience to attack Pentecostals.
My words? Quote where I said that.
ReplyDeleteYour own words quoted: “This also results in a distressing display of spiritual pride. Consider Dan Phillips' endless stream of smug, back-patting tweets–which receive self-congratulatory kudos from his fawning fans.”
"Taunting" is your characterization, not mine. As far as that goes, the Bible contains taunt-songs. Is the Bible "childish"?
It isn’t a characterization, Hays, it’s the truth (Taunt: to reproach or challenge in a mocking or insulting manner: jeer at) and that is the definition that adequately describes your modus operandi. As far as the Bible is concerned taunting the pathetic bleating’s of the unbeliever no doubt, but name me the Bible “taunt” songs that describe God taunting one of His children? You’re painting yourself into a corner on this and you know it.
Dan's modus operandi is to ridicule charismatics with snide, belittling one-liners. His behavior is intellectually contemptible.
Agreed, but we aren’t talking about Phillips, we’re talking about you, and your behavior. If you condemn his behavior, then why aren’t you condemning your own? You do the same thing.
Your logic is retroactive. By that standard, OT Jews were in no position to condemn Balaam.
Wrong again, my brother, the OT Jews didn’t condemn Balaam, God condemned Balaam through direct revelation via His voice, and via the miracle of Balaam’s donkey. The OT Jews didn’t have to guess as to whether or not God had spoken, He spoke to them loud and clear through His chosen prophets. And how did they know they were His and not some fakes, by the consistency of their words to what He had said previously (Hebrews 1: 1). Now, today, we don’t need prophets, or talking donkeys, we have the full, and complete, revelation of God in His Holy Bible. And it is with that complete revelation that men such as yourself, and MacArthur, and Thomas, and others, are able to authoritatively condemn the heresies and false teachings of the likes of Bart Ehrmann, Dale Tuggy, Randall Rouser, Benny Hinn, Rachel Held Evans, and many others that are a danger to the church of Christ. I am not saying Gordon Fee, Michael Brown, Chuck Smith, or Wayne Grudem are heretics, or false-teachers, but I am saying their reluctance to teach that the Bible as the final word from God is disturbing, and dangerous, and therefore must be challenged. But, I agree with you, the challenge must be with respect and honor for the good work they have done in the cause of Christ.
Like the way you idolize MacArthur and Thomas?
Another juvenile taunt; give me one statement, one sentence, one word I have ever written that would indicate, by any standard definition of “worship”, that I “idolize” those men? Put up, or shut up! Seriously, how old are you? You write like someone in their twenties not their fifties, which I assumed you were.
MacArthurites constantly resort to the argument from experience to attack Pentecostals.
Another bold assertion with no corroborating evidence.
Steve Wilson:
Delete"Your own words quoted: “This also results in a distressing display of spiritual pride…"
So you initially misquoted me. You originally said: "Talk about a 'disgusting display of spiritual pride' (your words not mine)."
You substituted "disgusting" for "distressing." Those aren't even synonyms.
"It isn’t a characterization, Hays, it’s the truth."
Actually, it's your tendentious assertion, masquerading as "the truth." You're on such a head-trip.
"(Taunt: to reproach or challenge in a mocking or insulting manner: jeer at)"
Like the stream of insulting remarks you've directed at me?
"As far as the Bible is concerned taunting the pathetic bleating’s of the unbeliever no doubt, but name me the Bible 'taunt' songs that describe God taunting one of His children? You’re painting yourself into a corner on this and you know it."
By your conduct on this thread, that would describe your own cornered position. Would you like some turpentine to clean your paint-stained hands and knees?
"Agreed, but we aren’t talking about Phillips, we’re talking about you, and your behavior."
You don't get to dictate what I walk about.
"If you condemn his behavior, then why aren’t you condemning your own? You do the same thing."
Unlike Dan, I present substantive arguments.
"Wrong again, my brother, the OT Jews didn’t condemn Balaam, God condemned Balaam through direct revelation via His voice, and via the miracle of Balaam’s donkey. The OT Jews didn’t have to guess as to whether or not God had spoken, He spoke to them loud and clear through His chosen prophets. And how did they know they were His and not some fakes, by the consistency of their words to what He had said previously (Hebrews 1: 1)."
They could apply the Deut 13:1-5 criterion to Balaam.
"Now, today, we don’t need prophets, or talking donkeys, we have the full, and complete, revelation of God in His Holy Bible. And it is with that complete revelation that men such as yourself, and MacArthur, and Thomas, and others, are able to authoritatively condemn the heresies and false teachings of the likes of Bart Ehrmann, Dale Tuggy, Randall Rouser, Benny Hinn, Rachel Held Evans, and many others that are a danger to the church of Christ."
Since OT Jews didn't have "that complete revelation," by your logic they were unable to "authoritatively condemn" OT false prophets. By your logic they couldn't distinguish true prophets from false prophets.
"Another juvenile taunt; give me one statement, one sentence, one word I have ever written that would indicate, by any standard definition of 'worship', that I 'idolize' those men?"
You've already done that for me on this very thread.
"Put up, or shut up! Seriously, how old are you? You write like someone in their twenties not their fifties, which I assumed you were."
I'm old enough not to be the least bit intimidated by pastoral thugs and bullies like yourself. You're an oppressive, abusive pastor who loves to lord it over the flock. Your tone of voice has no affect on me. Save that for the old church widows you can push around.
"Another bold assertion with no corroborating evidence."
Whenever MacArthurites point to YouTube clips of "holy barking," &c., they're resorting to an argument from experience to discredit charismatic theology.
Steve Wilson:
Delete"And it is with that complete revelation that men such as yourself, and MacArthur, and Thomas, and others, are able to authoritatively condemn the heresies and false teachings of the likes of Bart Ehrmann, Dale Tuggy, Randall Rouser, Benny Hinn, Rachel Held Evans..."
Actually, thuggish pastors like you are typecast for victim-mongers like Evans. It's a parasitic relationship.