Pages

Friday, August 09, 2013

Hypocrites chiding hypocrites


I'm going to comment on a self-interview by Frank Turk:


Permit me to lead with a disclaimer. I don't have a personal stake in this issue. I'm not Pentecostal. Likewise, I don't claim to be a healer,  prophet, or exorcist. I don't speak in tongues. I've witnessed no angelic apparitions.  

I do think their approach is very destructive to apologetics, which concerns me. But that's a different issue. 

FT: Well, it's Twitter.  You have to gauge the method by the medium.  Should DJP have rather posted a series of TwitLonger pieces on the faults of Charismatics and their theology so he was fully nuanced and well-measured?  Should that have been the trend?
What I think is this: when the so-called serious and sober Charismatics start policing their own and teaching their followers that one of the real gifts of the Spirit is discernment, and we don't charm the Holy Spirit by being gullible any more than we grieve Him by being critical of people using His name to get rich, I'll be more worried about being nuanced toward them.  I don't think it's unkind in the least to tell someone, however sincere, that they are at best being undiscerning and sloppy -- and at worst, they are actually harming other people with gullibility and spiritual chaos.
TPSP: how about we clean up a few items quickly to close here as a sort of speed round.  I'll give a topic or concern, and you give me the 50-word response.
FT: So, like Twitter?
TPSP: {glowers}
FT: I'm not bothered.
TPSP: There are a lot of credible men who are committed Charismatics. 
FT: I'd say that their commitment to Charismaticism -- especially their silence and acceptance of the rampant hooliganisms in the movement -- calls into question the rest of their track record.  Their otherwise-orthodox views don't make their approach to this stuff somehow rubber-stamped for acceptance.

Several problems:

i) There's a fundamental difference between attacking an individual representative, and attacking the belief-system he represents. If the Strange Fire conference wants to attack Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, et al., more power to them. However, that no more disproves charismatic theology or hermeneutics than the example of Paul Hill disproves Presbyterian theology.

In this respect, Frank Turk and Dan Phillips are just as dishonest as Joseph Smith and Paula White. Dishonest in a different way. They are cutting corners on the truth by acting as if they can discredit charismatic theology by discrediting some Pentecostal charlatans. That tactic is glaringly fallacious. 

If you're going to make an honest case against charismatic theology, you need to critique the best representatives as well as the worst representatives. And you need to critique arguments. It's morally and intellectually incumbent on you to engage the best exegetical case for charismatic theology, viz.  Craig Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power; The Gift and the Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today; Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.

Likewise, you need to engage important mediating positions, viz. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14.

Dan and Frank keep doing this bait-n-switch, as if attacking a charlatan is any substitute for engaging serious charismatic scholarship. 

ii) What does Frank mean by "policing their own?" Has Gordon Fee been "silent" on the excesses of Pentecostalism? Is Frank even aware of Fee's classic exposé: The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels? Isn't that a good example of "serious and sober Charismatics" policing their own? 

Once again, it looks as if Frank and his cohorts suffer from self-reinforcing ignorance. They accuse the "serious and sober Charismatics" of failing to police their own, but seem to be willfully uninformed of what "serious and sober Charismatics" have actually done in that respect.

If so, then this is just another instance of how Frank and his cohorts are no more honest than the charlatans they deride. Hypocrites chiding other hypocrites. 

What makes hypocrisy an insidious sin is that hypocrites don't view themselves as hypocritical. That wasn't the self-image of the Pharisees. They were only hypocritical to outsiders. Hypocrisy can blind you to your own hypocrisy. 

iii) "Policing" is a catchy metaphor, but it's not as if the "serious and sober Charismatics" can place a gag order or stop-work order on the antics of charlatans. 

iv) Finally, the church has always been a mess. The NT church is no exception. Just read 1-2 Corinthians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 1 John, Rev 2-3, &c. 

The church will always be a mess, both because Christians are sinners, and also because the visible church is, to some ineluctable degree, a mixed multitude of true and nominal believers. 

18 comments:

  1. Well, I had no idea Steve was such a defender of the charismatic faith.

    To point #1: unfortunately for Steve, I did say this
    [QUOTE]
    they can't demonstrate that these activities are necessary for the life of the church. They can assert and imply it.
    [/QUOTE]

    If he wants us to unpack the flaws of Carson and Fee after we have already unpacked the flaws of Grudem (years ago), that's fine - we can go there. But let's not pretend that a central part of any of those defenses of this stuff is that it's necessary for the life of the church.

    That's why we can have it both ways: we can say there are abuses and there is a lack of seriousness due to a lack of theological necessity.

    To #2: By "policing their own," I mean exactly what I said -- and sorry that I did not use the language of Titus 1 to express it. I mean that publishing one book once and letting it ride isn't pointing out that people are failing to, at least, address the issues in that book. In all seriousness: there's a monthly magazine called /Charisma/ and the charletans and the so-called serious people are always right there next to each other as if one can remedy to other by the gift of proximity.

    When /Charisma/ magazine becomes less a showcase for marketing and more a forum for the ups and downs of the movement and theology behind it -- even at a popular level -- them taking the average Charismatic more seriously than I take 76% of the comments on the internet will stake out a higher priority in my life. Why? Because the in-house conversation in that movement will demonstrate its own concern that Christ be first and the special effects, when actually present and not faked, point to him.

    to #3: I always enjoy when fellow apologetics types start employing the phrase, "I can't control what other people think and do," and all its cousins and half-sisters. Let's face it: if that's a governing principle, why does this blog exists, really? To air out random thoughts -- or to instead influence the shoddy thoughts of others? I reject the idea that people who care about discernment can stop caring when their own sacred cows are involved. I have myself be critical of men I deeply admire because I admire them and because I think it does make a difference. If it doesn't, or didn't, then apologetics as an endeavor is frankly a waste of time.

    To #4: As I said above, the funny thing about those messes is that somehow Paul doesn't find the employment of daGifts as any sort of a solution to the problems they faced -- and since we face the same problems they did because we are the same kind of people, it seems to me that we should employ the same solutions.

    But worse still for this objection: what if there are practices that can be demonstrated to actually make all those problems worse, and lead people farther from the solution in the Gospel? Shouldn't we redouble our efforts to use what God says is the solution rather than hoping for a more miracles to work it all out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Well, I had no idea Steve was such a defender of the charismatic faith."

      That's a significant swing-and-a-miss.

      A simple reading of Steve's opening contradicts and refutes this:

      "Permit me to lead with a disclaimer. I don't have a personal stake in this issue. I'm not Pentecostal. Likewise, I don't claim to be a healer, prophet, or exorcist. I don't speak in tongues. I've witnessed no angelic apparitions."


      Delete
    2. Well, you're saying this post doesn't defend charismatic faith/practices?

      You did read the rest of the post, yes? I think I like Steve because he's defending ideas he doesn't actually share because he thinks there's been wrong-doing. That's a pretty high intellectual ground to stand on.

      Delete
    3. "Well, you're saying this post doesn't defend charismatic faith/practices?"

      Actually, it's not only this post, but the whole series of recent posts that can be pulled up under the label "pentecostalism" where it's rather clear that Steve is not defending charismatic faith/practices.

      His recent posts could probably be summed up by the title of this blogpost:

      Hypocrites Chiding Hypocrites.


      Delete
    4. Frank Turk

      "Well, I had no idea Steve was such a defender of the charismatic faith."

      The point of the post is that if Frank and Dan are going to hold charismatics to basic ethical and intellectual standards, then Frank and Dan should hold themselves to the same basic ethical and intellectual standards. Sadly, Frank responds by doubling down on the same unscrupulous tactics that he and Dan are wont to use. Once again, he's resorting to unscrupulous methods to attack unscrupulous charismatics. 

"To point #1: unfortunately for Steve, I did say this: they can't demonstrate that these activities are necessary for the life of the church. They can assert and imply it."

      Unfortunately for Frank, he also said this: "you point out that Todd Bentley was a  fraud, and Paula White is a fraud, and Joseph Prince is a fraud, and Benny Hinn runs a finishing school for frauds, and Paul Cain was a fraud, and Annie [sic] Semple McPherson was a fraud, and on and on."

      Does Frank oppose Benny Hinn and Aimee Semple McPherson (among others) because he thinks what they do is "unnecessary for the life of the church"? No. He opposes their work, not because he deems it to be unnecessary, but because he deems it to be fraudulent. Quite a difference.

      As a cessationist, he doesn't think it's even possible for Aimee Semple McPherson to be a real healer.

      "If he wants us to unpack the flaws of Carson and Fee after we have already unpacked the flaws of Grudem (years ago), that's fine - we can go there."

      "Can" go there? What about *should* go there?

      "But let's not pretend that a central part of any of those defenses of this stuff is that it's necessary for the life of the church."

      And let's not pretend that debunking Joseph Prince or Paula White disproves charismatic theology, any more than the existence of false prophets like Balaam or Hananiah falsifies Isaiah and Jeremiah.

      "That's why we can have it both ways: we can say there are abuses and there is a lack of seriousness due to a lack of theological necessity."

      Does Frank think John Piper and Sam Storms lack seriousness?

      "I mean that publishing one book once and letting it ride isn't pointing out that people are failing to, at least, address the issues in that book. In all seriousness: there's a monthly magazine called /Charisma/ and the charletans and the so-called serious people are always right there next to each other as if one can remedy to other by the gift of proximity."

      Gordon Fee and Craig Keener are always right next to Paula White and Joseph Prince in Charisma magazine?

      Delete
    5. Cont. "When /Charisma/ magazine becomes less a showcase for marketing and more a forum for the ups and downs of the movement and theology behind it -- even at a popular level -- them taking the average Charismatic more seriously than I take 76% of the comments on the internet will stake out a higher priority in my life. Why? Because the in-house conversation in that movement will demonstrate its own concern that Christ be first and the special effects, when actually present and not faked, point to him."

      Does Frank apply the same standard to premillennialism? Should we judge the merits of premillennialism by the Left Behind series, rather than Darrell Bock or Harold Hoehner?

      "I always enjoy when fellow apologetics types start employing the phrase, 'I can't control what other people think and do,' and all its cousins and half-sisters. Let's face it: if that's a governing principle, why does this blog exists, really? To air out random thoughts -- or to instead influence the shoddy thoughts of others?"

      Notice how Frank acts as if "influence" is a synonym for "control." Why does Frank think Fee and Keener teach and write if not to influence others? But that falls well short of "control."

      "As I said above, the funny thing about those messes is that somehow Paul doesn't find the employment of daGifts as any sort of a solution to the problems they faced -- and since we face the same problems they did because we are the same kind of people, it seems to me that we should employ the same solutions."

      Reminds me of how Roman Catholics attack sola Scriptura, because it doesn't "solve" certain problems.

      "But worse still for this objection: what if there are practices that can be demonstrated to actually make all those problems worse, and lead people farther from the solution in the Gospel?"

      You mean, "practices" like the charismata in 1 Corinthians? But Paul didn't reject the charismata on those grounds.

      "Shouldn't we redouble our efforts to use what God says is the solution rather than hoping for a more miracles to work it all out?"

      Why assume miracles are supposed to be problem-soving devices in the first place? Why frame the issue in those terms?

      Delete
    6. Charismatic Michael L. Brown is constantly critiquing and correcting abuses in the charismatic world. Lately he's been addressing the "Hyper-Grace" deception both in video and his nearly daily articles like:
      A Dangerous and Deadly Deception

      Confronting the Error of Hyper-Grace

      Hyper-Grace Horror Stories

      Sex Symbols Who Speak in Tongues?

      Roger Sapp is also a charismatic who has addressed some of the abuses in the charismatic world.
      For example His books:
      Grace in the Gospel 2: The New Covenant Teaching of Repentance from Sin
      Grace in the Gospels 3: Understanding a Healthy Consciousness of Sin

      and Videos:

      Joseph Prince teaches that believers should not confess their sins

      Joseph Prince teaches that the Holy Spirit Does Not Convict of Sin

      Joseph Prince on Repentance Reviewed

      Joseph Prince Thinks Christ's Message is Mixed Law and Grace

      I don't agree with all of Sapp's positions on the Law and Covenants or his terminology, nor of Brown theology (who affirms that genuine Christians can fall away permanently). Both Sapp and Brown are examples of a charismatics critiquing and correcting their fellow charismatics errors and excesses.

      Delete
    7. So when you say Michael Brown constantly critiques and corrects abuses in the charismatic world you mean like correcting his good friend Cindy Jacobs? She outright lies to a congregation that she fed 3,000 people like Jesus fed the 5,000 and the offering they took that night miraculously doubled in the amount between when they counted it at the church and when they deposited in the bank. I do not believe either one of those stories is true. Do you? When I asked Dr. Brown directly via twitter if he rebuked his good friend's lying, he waved it off and said I had to talk with her.

      Why should I have to confront her when she is his good friend and he allegedly has a track record of correcting abuses in his on movement? Her lie disqualifies her from preaching in my mind. I bet you 10 bucks she is probably repeating similar lies to dozens of churches where she speaks.

      What about his good pal Mike Bickle who says in one video that 80 percent of the "prophecies" he gives are fake and are meant to stimulate the people? Is that an abuse that needs to be confronted. He is lying about prophecies?

      What about in several Brownsville revival videos I have watched where people are going "bah,bah,bah,bah,bah" and doubling over in seizure like pain? Why am I supposed to just accept that as a "move of the Spirit?" Is going "bah,bah,bah,bah" and pushing people over onto the floor a genuine work of God and filling of the Holy Spirit? Really? People mindlessly repeating "bah,bah,bah" is the real gift of tongues? Heavenly prayer language or something? Angels speak "bah,bah,bah" to each other in heaven? Honestly?

      Are those abuses that are regularly confronted by Michael Brown and Roger Sapp as false, because I see no such nonsense dictated in Scripture. I certainly don't see any so-called credible charismatic confronting it either. Hence it goes back to what Frank writes above, that their theology dictates their foolishness as "genuine" Christianity. And you want to jump on "cessationists" for being hypocritical and misguided with our criticisms?

      Delete
    8. ...world you mean like correcting his good friend Cindy Jacobs?

      I don't know how "good" of a friend Jacobs is to Brown. Nor do I know how true or false your allegations are. But let's say they're true. Maybe Brown is not discerning enough for his own good. He maybe a bit too gullible when it comes to other ministers. But that doesn't necessitate that Brown himself is compromised. He may not know all the facts of the situation. You might as well charge Dr. James White for hypocrisy because he has often appeared on the Bible Answer Man show and contributed to the Christian Research Journal even though there's a lot of controversy associated with Hank Hanegraaff (claims of abuse of power, plagiarism, financial mismanagement etc). I don't accuse Dr. White of hypocrisy because I understand it's not his primary calling to correct other organizations or ministers. That's secondary. Some will say that Dr. White is being inconsistent because he calls out the Caners but not Hanegraaff. But everyone has limited time and resources. You can't address everything. If you did, you'd spread yourself out too thin. We could also discuss the controversies regarding R.C. Sproul Jr, or C. J. Mahaney and the reluctance of some Calvinists to address it like myself. It's because I don't know enough about the situation to make accusations. Same thing applies to Brown. Brown's primary calling isn't to be the police of the church. That's a negative secondary thing he's called to. Not a primary and positive thing.

      She outright lies to a congregation that she fed 3,000 people like Jesus fed the 5,000 and the offering they took that night miraculously doubled in the amount between when they counted it at the church and when they deposited in the bank.

      This is not outside the realm of possibility. How do you know she's lying?

      I do not believe either one of those stories is true. Do you?

      Do you merely believe the stories are false, or do you have evidence? I'm disinclined to believe that the stories are true, but Scripture tell us not to accept an accusation without evidence (normally with 2 or 3 witnesses). Besides, there is Biblical precedent for such a miracle. And there are other post Biblical claims of God doing similar things. For example, the case of Corrie ten Boom and the bottle of liquid vitamins that lasted much longer than it should have. I don't know anything about Cindy Jacobs. Nor do I go about judging a movement as a whole by a few representatives. Just like I don't like it when people judge Calvinism by the "Calvinist" Fred Phelps.

      Delete
    9. What about his good pal Mike Bickle who says in one video that 80 percent of the "prophecies" he gives are fake and are meant to stimulate the people?

      If he's on video admitting that, then obviously that needs to be addressed. I personally would renounce him.

      What about in several Brownsville revival videos I have watched where people are going "bah,bah,bah,bah,bah"

      What does that have to do with Michael L. Brown? If you're merely saying that there are strange things going on in the charismatic world, I agree. Also, I assume you know that the "Brownsville Revival" is not named after Michael L. Brown.

      Are those abuses that are regularly confronted by Michael Brown and Roger Sapp as false, because I see no such nonsense dictated in Scripture.

      That assumes that's an abuse. Things need to be judged on a case by case basis. I haven't seen the video of what you're talking about. Nevertheless, Charismatics have written defenses of their various views on the gift of tongues. I would point you to them. If you're asking for my theology on the gift of tongues I could discuss that but it would take a long time and would go off on a tangent. Also, my views on the gift of tongues are tentative (some things being more firm than others). I'm not fully settled on some specifics.

      And you want to jump on "cessationists" for being hypocritical and misguided with our criticisms?

      I don't think I've "jumped on cessationists" for being hypocritical and misguided in their criticism. Especially since I agree with some of the criticisms. I freely admit there are abuses in the charismatic world like there were abuses in the Corinthian Church. But Paul didn't automatically denounce them and say they weren't Christians or that because of abuses they should stop seeking spiritual gifts. Or that the abuses automatically disqualified them from being or continuing to be ministers (et cetera). On the contrary, Paul encouraged them to seek the gifts EVEN MORE (1 Cor. 14:1) and to stop the abuses. I don't think I've called cessationists hypocritical. At the most, I think I called some of SOME cessationists inconsistent in their exegesis (e.g. Here). I wasn't even addressing all cessationists. BTW, I do think that financial and/or sexual abuse are grounds for being defrocked.

      Delete
    10. What about his good pal Mike Bickle who says in one video that 80 percent of the "prophecies" he gives are fake and are meant to stimulate the people?

      I don't know much about Bickle. I'd like to see this video. Is it on YouTube? Are you claiming that Bickle admits that 80% of his prophecies are knowingly fake, or that he admits that some of his prophecies or words of knowledge turned out to be wrong? Knowledgeable charismatics recognize that in the OT prophets like Jeremiah who heard directly from God and spoke directly for God nationally and publicly were either right or wrong. Such that if they were wrong, they were a false prophet who should be stoned. Prophecies in the OT weren't judged like NT prophecies were in 1 Cor. 14:29-33. Or in 1 Thess. 5:19-21 where all prophecies were to be tested and whatever was good to be held on to. Apparently, some of the past prophecies weren't good and it lead to some Christians in Thessalonica to despise prophecy and prophesying. That's why Paul had to say in verse 20 "Do not despise prophecies." That's also why in Rom. 12:6 Paul says, " Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith." Evidently, the degree of benefit (maybe even of accuracy) of a prophecy was dependent on the degree of faith a person with the gift of New Testament prophecy had.

      Delete
    11. No, he didn't say 80% of his prophecies are false. Here's the link.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=511_SiErw0U

      Delete
  2. I hit "publish" too soon.

    Thanks much to Steve for engaging. I hope the exchange is useful to those who read it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank Turk: "Thanks much to Steve for engaging. I hope the exchange is useful to those who read it."

    I echo this thanks. Further examples of Steve Hays' engaging this recent topic is found under the blog labels of "Frank Turk" and "Dan Phillips."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, a better label is "Pentecostalism". Steve has written a number of posts recently that engages the arguments of all the Pyros: Phil Johnson, Frank Turk, and Dan Phillips.

      Delete
  4. Ed Dingess, epistemic vagueness doesn't entail ontological vagueness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, now, Mr. Fletcher, you might call into question the legitimacy of Ed's membership at the EPS with comments like these.

      Delete
    2. Apparently so, he deleted his comment!

      Delete