Another, Final, Open Letter to Michael Brown

To Dr. Michael Brown;

Back in 2013, I wrote you an open letter regarding your words of support for false teacher and cult leader Mike Bickle. I had posted that open letter because, after sending a private letter to you through your website, I realized that I may not receive a response from you through that channel, other than maybe a passive aggressive reference through one of your written articles. As it turned out, and as I recorded in a follow up post, you refused to read my open letter at all. You claimed that you were getting a lot of responses and couldn't respond to all public challenges. You did this while spending about an hour chatting with me on Twitter, using up time that could have been used reading my article and glancing at the sources I provided. In the end, you challenged me to talk to IHOP-KC and its leaders yourself - something I then told you I'd actually done personally - while assuring me that you'd already looked into Mike Bickle and his teachings enough to verify them as being orthodox.

As I found out later, this was merely the tip of the iceberg. Later on, you defended Benny Hinn, and (like you had done so many times in the past) pretended to be ignorant of what precisely Benny Hinn was guilty of. When the criticism rose higher, you wrote an article playing victim and comparing yourself to Jonah delivering the message of God to Ninevah. At this point, Phil Johnson told you on Twitter that it was "getting hard to take you seriously" - and I had to agree with him on that.

Yet it's continued. You've repeatedly played ignorant on what false men teach. When people try to educate you, you assure them you're too busy to look at anything. (This, even though you told Phil Johnson, John MacArthur's right-hand man, to watch hours of videos affirming your views.) You've defended the craziest of things, including the "sneaky squid spirit" of Jennifer LeClaire, something which most clear-thinking Christians would recognize as incredibly insane - yet you still defended it, going so far as to say we shouldn't put down LeClaire since the Bible nowhere says there isn't a sneaky squid spirit. (That's a shifting the burden of proof fallacy, by the way.) In interviews, you kept diverting criticisms of false teachers to other people; listening to your interview with JD Hall was mentally painful, because you could not respond to a single contention without "but John MacArthur..." Only too recently, you announced you were going to guest host an episode of It's Supernatural, a Hyper-Charismatic nonsense show where a previous guest claimed to have met an angel that gave him "a 50 carat ruby from heaven."

Over time, I came to realize you repeat the same defenses and tactics over and over again. I was reminded of a humorous bit in the British comedy show Yes Minister, where Hacker, the eponymous minister of government, finds out from a former minister that his adviser, Humphrey, has a series of arguments and contentions he makes every time he opposes a decision. Hacker writes these down, then, the very next time he speaks to Humphrey, simply goes down the list, checking each one off. Whenever I see someone confront you online about a false teacher, I could literally reenact that scene with such a list. I know I'm not the only one to make one of these, but here is one of my own writing, from my own observations:

• You claim ignorance of what crazy thing the false teacher has done. (As I wrote earlier, you even tried this with Benny Hinn - and no one bought it!)
• You assure everyone that this crazy thing you're entirely ignorant about is actually completely orthodox and scriptural.
• You commit an ad hominem tu quoque (a logical fallacy that a ten-year old can identify), saying things like, "But people don't like what John MacArthur says either," or "There's crazy things happening in other movements, too."
• You tell the person to call in to your show. (Why would they bother, if you're just going to make all the same arguments?)
• You tell the person to read your book(s). (I can't help but notice you want everyone else to research what you believe, but you flatly refuse to research what they believe.)
• You try to divert the topic to Cessationism vs. Continuationism, even if that's not the topic of debate. (Not really surprising - your friend Allen Hood tried that too.)
• If all else fails, you try to take the moral high ground. You tell the person to pray about their misdirected anger, or spend more time with God. You may also claim to be the real victim, trying to make it appear that you're the one in the spiritual right.

So, when I saw that you and Justin Peters had gotten into a scuffle on Twitter, I couldn't help but notice that you committed a lot of the same tactics I outlined here. You told Justin Peters now was not the time to criticize false teachers... as if you would be much more agreeable during the right time. When Justin Peters brought up the bizarre claim by the Copelands that they could rebuke storms and control the weather through faith, you played damage control by trying to argue that Kenneth Copeland never claimed he could control all weather. (So it's just that Kenneth Copeland claims he can control some of the weather?! Is that somehow supposed to make it better?!)

H/T to J Maez

At this point, I felt I had to interact with you again, and so I did. Our topic soon turned to Lou Engle and Mike Bickle, two men I have written and spoken on before, and which I know you have defended in the past. You replied to me regarding these two men: "Lou Engle and Mike Bickle are dear friends of mine and committed, godly, servants of the Lord. I absolutely stand with them."

Saved for posterity

Over the course of our discussion, was I strong in my language? Yes, I was. Probably more than I would have been with other people. There are two reasons for this:

First, I know you are an intelligent man, and so I hold you up to the highest of standards. Contrary to what you may presume about your critics, I have nothing but good things to say for your intellectual ability. I've heard you in debates against leftists, Anti-Trinitarians, and others. I've heard you on the Dividing Line explaining Isaiah 53 and other passages. I had purchased one of your Answering Jewish Objections books. Point is, I firmly believe you're a sharp man when it comes to thinking. I've heard you speak on the subject of transgenderism and homosexuality, and I know you can identify faulty arguments. That's why, when you completely faceplant when it comes to the NAR and other Hyper-Charismatic movements and personalities, I hold you even higher than I would someone who might otherwise be a weak or young Christian in the faith. It's like how I hold my daughter to a tougher standard for things she's smart enough to know about, versus things she might be ignorant about due to her age. Similarly, when it comes to theology and logical fallacies, I hold you to a higher standard because I know you're supposed to know better. When I hear you make something so obviously fallacious as an ad hominem tu quoque, or I see you shifting the burden of proof, I know that you're aware of how childish such an argument would seem if it was coming from one of your debate opponents, rather than your own mouth. To hear Michael Brown the Debater, then hear Michael Brown the Charismatic, it's like listening to two entirely different people, and that can be very frustrating, because there should be no difference.

Second, I have personally known people affected by these movements - both through online interaction, as well as face-to-face known. I've seen what the NAR does to people. I've seen firsthand how Mike Bickle's teachings have destroyed lives. I've seen how people can suffer under these men. I've had mothers whose children abandoned them for IHOP-KC email me to share their stories. I've spoken to people who left IHOP-KC and shared with me the subtle threats given by leaders to those who might leave the ministry entirely. Forgive me, therefore, if, after seeing what horrors these monsters of heresy and error can unleash, I get a little hot under the collar when someone with a respected name in apologetics gets on his radio show or goes online and, with a smile, assures everyone that Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Rick Joyner, and all these other madmen are servants of the Lord and great men of faith. Forgive me if that doesn't make me just a little bit ticked off with righteous anger. When you do this, you are precisely like those false teachers in the Old Testament who told the church "peace, peace," when there was no peace (Jer 6:14; 8:11; Eze 13:10, 6).

By the end of our conversation, what did you with me? You claimed that I had "slandered men of God who love His Word and honor Him with all their hearts," and therefore I had "disqualified" myself from "serious interaction."

And then you blocked me.

Before today I had seen that you wanted to delude yourself about the error of your NAR friends. Now I saw firsthand that this delusion went even so far as interaction with other believers.

You accused me of slander. The use of the word slander would mean that I told "an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed." As anyone will see by taking a cursory glance at my blog, which I link to on my Twitter page, I have written and spoken extensively on Lou Engle and Mike Bickle. I have backed up my statements that they are false teachers and doctrinally unsound, and have done so from their own sermons and from their own writings. Over the course of several years, I have examined their use of scripture. I have examined their claims. I have shown how they rely more on their dreams and personal revelations and experiences than the true context of God's written word. If I had made untrue statements about fellow believers, it might have behooved you to have demonstrated what those untrue statements were. If you believe I am bearing false witness against my neighbor, then you should have confronted me and showed me how, so that I could have been properly rebuked and hence repented.

But you didn't do that. Because you can't. Because you never interact with what the other side says. You never own up to what false teachers say. You say the insanity of Charismatics is only in the fringe groups... then you proceed to defend the fringe groups. When confronted you deflect, divert, and engage in irrational argumentation. You avoid having to come to grips with what the other people say about your buddies in the NAR movement. You refuse to watch even a two-minute video that might challenge your views. You refuse to even glance at one blog post which might record and document all the errors those in the NAR are committing. You might have some discussions on the matter with your friend James White (a man I deeply respect and admire, even if I wish he was harder on you), and you or your supporters (or even Dr. White, unfortunately) will use that to claim that you have responded to all legitimate criticisms, and hence don't need to defend yourself further. Nonetheless, in the larger scheme of things, you thrive on remaining ignorant of what is being sent your way.

And yet you accused me of slandering "men of God."

This, despite the fact that you yourself admitted during our conversation that you didn't know who I was, let alone what I was referring to. You clearly made no effort to see what I had written on the subject, or to ask me what specific examples might come from all this. You had no basis to accuse me of slandering other Christians other than your own superficial, knee-jerk disagreement. Contrary to how you usually think and operate when dealing with others, this wasn't a rational response. This isn't scholarly debate. This was battening down the hatches, throwing up the shields, slapping on the blinders... whatever appropriate metaphor you want to use. This was the sort of reaction I receive from Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, and even some atheists when the truth slaps them right in the face... this isn't the sort of reaction I expect from a professing believer.

All this only reveals your heart, and where it is directed. You are so ingrained in your fellowship with false teacher and false doctrine that you yourself slander and cut off other Christians. We are commanded by the apostle Paul to "keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them" (Rom 16:17). You should turn yourself away from a man like Lou Engle, whom I have never heard exposit a passage of scripture rightly, and who guides himself by his wild dreams and visions rather than the plain word of God... yet you do not. You should turn yourself away from a man like Mike Bickle, who distorts the word of God based on personal revelation from God about an end-times ministry centered around himself, and whose followers, behind closed doors, talk about him the way Mormons do Joseph Smith... yet you do not. Both these men, in the way they handle scripture, stand against everything the Reformation attempted to do, and would have been resoundingly condemned by the Reformers... yet you claim they follow sola scriptura, and you call them "dear friends" and "committed, godly servants of the Lord."

Who do you turn yourself away from? Those who try to bring up their errors to you. You slander and block those who point out the errors of your friends. You would rather cut off fellowship and dialogue with another believer than even dare entertain the idea that the NAR and its leadership might be wrong. You would rather accuse a brother in Christ of slander, and declare him disqualified for conversation, than even dare to consider Lou Engle or Mike Bickle have demonstrated themselves utterly unqualified for pastoral leadership.

You talk well against many enemies of the faith, and you argue well against those who wish to redefine marriage or gender - and for that, you'll probably always have fans and supporters. However, as far as truth is concerned, especially in regards to your camp of Charismatic thought, you engage in doublespeak, self-delusion, and deception. When you're called out on this, and people aren't as nice or understanding as people like your friend James White, you double down and engage in self-defense. You've accused me of slandering believers, but I know this isn't the first time you've done this. Remember when people found out about homosexual choir leaders at Hillsong NYC, and you accused fellow Christians of lying and spreading internet rumors? But all those supposed lies and internet rumors turned out to be true, Dr. Brown. But since it was Hillsong, and they're Charismatic, you were willing to believe their initial PR reports, and you were ready and willing to label other Christians as dishonest and engaging in disunity. Like a Jehovah's Witness hearing an attack against the Watchtower Society, you threw away all intelligence you had so that "the cause" could be defended, even if it meant isolating anyone you supposedly considered on your side of the fence.

I write this article knowing, most of all, that you will most likely never read it, because, as was cited at the beginning of this post, you don't read open letters or public statements. It would be fantastic if you would read it, and perhaps feel convicted (by God's grace) to review how you really have been handling things... but I know you won't, and I know that others like myself have tried to reach out to you, both kindly and bluntly, to no avail. The truth of it is, at the end of the day, you're really not interested in engaging in the truth. You continue in self-deception and fork-tongued rhetoric if it benefits your side, and defend your Hall of NAR Heroes. If anyone dares to break through that bubble of yours, you push them away and treat them like unbelievers. Many have said that the NAR, or at least certain parts of it, are either cult-like or full blown cults, and you demonstrate that you are definitely engaging in cult-like behavior by your attitude here.

The apostle Paul tells us to "reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). By your choosing to remain in fellowship with false teachers, false prophets, and men who warp and twist God's word, and bring unspeakable damage to the body of Christ, you label yourself as one self-condemned. If you do not repent of your associations and fellowship with false teachers, then you will one day stand beside all those men whom you admired and cherished so much, and with them you shall hear the words of Christ: "I never knew you" (Matt 7:23).

All the same, I pray that doesn't happen.

Bickle to IHOP-KC Leaders: "You are Bound to This"

Back in November of last year, I received an email from an IHOP-KC staff member who had served for severals years. They realized in the last two years of that time period that IHOP-KC's use of scripture was flawed and their theology, dangerous, and have since left the movement. They told me about how there's an "underground church" at IHOP-KC, made up of people who are not convinced by Bickle and others, and who are beginning to realize that there are problems and contradictions within IHOP-KC's theology and the Prophetic History.

This contact provided me with two documents, which are transcripts of meetings held with Mike Bickle. These staff meetings apparently "alarmed a lot of people there and kinda woke them up" (the person's own words). Why is this? Because the staff were essentially told that, if they committed to IHOP-KC, they were in it for the long haul. Why? Because IHOP-KC was, after all, set up and organized by God. God Himself commanded that it be set up. The double language, of course, was still there: "This isn't about Mike Bickle, but honor the private revelation and commands given by God through Mike Bickle"; "You can serve any part of the ministry in the church, but if you've committed to the forerunner ministry, you're committed"; etc. Nonetheless, many realized what the real language of Bickle and company meant.

Most notable about these documents are two things:

1) The emphasis placed upon the prophetic history of the movement. The contact even wrote:

All staff meetings, worship team meetings, leadership meetings are all about prophetic history. For many it has caused them to question...why is this the means for encouragement and not the work of the cross or the bible?...Over the years hundreds have approached Mike on his usage of scripture and obsession with the "prophetic history". He views them as the "barking dogs" (Bob Jones vision thing) and they are trying to talk him out of the call of God, etc. I've had conversations with the main leaders, and none of them want to see it. The hunger of being apart of a "great move of God" has blinded them. They're all nice moral people but are definitely deceived. They are allegiant to Mike.

2) The subtle language of placing divine judgment and authority upon those who would leave the movement. To again quote my contact:

IHOP is obsessed with teaching about "not quitting" and not "giving up". They equate faithfulness with committing yourself to something for decades. Yet in the same sentence they cover themselves by saying..." this doesn't mean doing ihop. It's living wholehearted, seeking God". The big problem is EVERYTHING is vague. Mike doesn't really use Biblical language in context so he says things like "i want a vibrant heart. I don't want to back down from getting all I can in God". Young believers therefore here... do IHOP. IHOP and the prayer room then become your means for keeping you saved. disaster.

And likewise:

Mike makes his "non confrontational approach" seem more holy. He will make remarks on how God is his defender so he doesn't need to defend himself. He is very good at playing the victim and rarely takes responsibility for any wrongs on his part. In fact, if you do approach a leader and say, "you hurt me when you did this". They'll usually respond with a, "Well God chooses the weakest people to be his leaders and God's imperfect leadership is His perfect leadership". In the transcriptions I send you I'm pretty sure Mike when he is talking about people leaving says "they're just licking their wounds" "they didn't get what they wanted". He will always make others out to be the bad guy to protect himself. Very manipulative...

And you know Mike's monastic influence "living a simple lifestyle" is a huge part of IHOP's commitments...it is impossible for [one employee] to get a job because he has to do 50hours a week to be on full time staff so he can play on a team. But if he "quits" he is seen as missing it, or giving up on his assignment, or whatever...So the leaders manipulate people to stay even through the hard times, but Mike is getting 90,000+. That's pretty shady to me.

Below are links to the documents sent to me:

First link. This is a transcript of a staff meeting held in August of 2013.

Excerpt:

I’m just giving you a little bit of this experience. Here is what the Lord’s mandate to him then which is to you. This is a mandate to you....

Here’s my point. Is that just a good story? No. When God does this. Here's the point I want you to   put your seat belt on. When God gives signs in the Heaven to back up words that have to do with a global purpose and he invites you to do it. You are now accountable for it and you will talk to him at the judgment seat of Christ about it...

Honestly, I went ahhhh and the Lord said I’m not really asking your opinion I’m pointing my finger and saying "do it"...

I wold [sic] just rather have a little ministry on the side and do this and that and the other like a bunch of my friends are doing out there. The Lord said you don’t get to choose any of that. I sent signs in the heavens. I raised up prophetic voices. I went out of my way to establish it. You are bound to this or we are going to have a serious talk...

...it’s a purpose God really cares about and again years later looking back I can’t negotiate it, but neither can you. That’s the point I want you to see. I want you under the weight of that. It’s not that mike is bound, you’re bound. You're sent here, you’re bound. Not to this city. Not to the way we do the ministry ut [sic] to the message and the values. If you were sent you’re bound. All your days to do this...

And when you talk to the Lord on day he’ll say where is your family at? Where are you at? Did you do it? Not for a summer, not for a month, not for 3 years for the rest of your life. I called you to this are you and he, talking to your husband or wife, your children, are they doing it? Well no I got my   missionary stipend I come to most of my prayer meetings well I didn’t make all of them, but most of them I got sick a lot and couldn’t make it and ya well no one really knew but hey it seemed to work. I mean I did it for a few years and the Lord says what?! I sent you there and that’s your answer to me? I raised up this movement with supernatural signs and wonders raised up prophetic voices and a global reality and that is your answer to me?!...

Second link. This is a transcript of a staff meeting held in October of 2013.

Excerpt:

24/7 prayer. Now this is not something that is just we do because it's kind of neat. I know we know that. But the Lord went out of his way - I'm saying that tongue in cheek - I'm saying that as a phrase, He went out of his way to tell us how serious he was about night and day prayer. He's really serious about this. It's not optional for us. He didn't say "build the church, engage in the Great Commission, and do a little prayer." He spoke thunder from heaven, "I am calling you to do this."...

When I stand before the Lord on the last day, he's going to hold me accountable for the whole written word of God. I mean, all of us are, we're accountable through the lens of His grace for our primary calling of building the church and engaging in the great commission, but the Lord is going to ask me in a very particular way: "I went out of my way" (again, I say that as a figure of speech) "to make this clear to you that this was important to me. I invested in this. I raised up prophets, I had a storyline unfold, I trained you, I trained them, I brought it together, I gave special supernatural exclamation points to show you how important this was to me". So when I stand before Him, it will be an issue of accountability. It's not an issue of strutting or being special above other folks. He didn't give it to us so we'd feel special. We feel special because Jesus called us and drew us to Himself and calls us His bride and we're children of the Father...

They join the vision, they join the family, they now the storyline, they build the church, they are engaged in the great commission, we're not drawing back from the reproach of the 24 prayer, we're not drawing back from the rigors of the 24 prayer, we're not drawing back from the challenges, economic and other, of 24 prayer, because the   Lord says "I really really really want you to do this 24 prayer"...

Is your church a cult of personality?

The following is a good article from the Gospel Coalition website, and is addressed to pastors on how to avoid turning their church into a cult of personality centered around them. In this day and age when many churches are becoming such places, this is definitely something to seek to avoid.

An excerpt:

How do you handle criticism? Are people punished for criticizing you? Do you provide avenues for feedback? Do you request feedback from people who love God, love his Word, love you, and do not fear you? Do not wait for criticism but habitually plead for feedback. Make it a regular practice when you meet with church members to ask, "Do you have any feedback for me?" This example models humility, puts them in a position to share honestly, and helps you grow in ways you have not yet considered. 

If you never receive healthy criticism or punish those who do, you might be establishing a cult of personality.

Full Article: How to Avoid a Cult of Personality

What makes a cult?

The following quotes are taken from Walter Martin's monumental work Kingdom of the Cults, and are what I quoted in the podcast Is IHOP-KC a Cult? They are all taken from the 1985 printing, which I own (the 2003 printing, which I borrowed, was used in the podcast - the only differences are the page numbers). As I said in the podcast, I use these because many times websites present identifications of a cult that are far too specific, or are tailored towards the specific cult the author is speaking about. Also, I do not believe Walter Martin to be the be all, end all source on cults, but because his work on cult groups is so well respected and thorough, I believed it to be a good source for grounding our understanding.

The first quote we will look at:

[Quoting Dr. Charles Braden:] “A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture.” [pg. 11]

From this, we discern regarding a cult:

1) It differs from the "normative expressions of religion" in our "total culture." As I noted in my podcast, this is not argumentum ad populum; that is, "If you have a nation that's 99% Sunni and 1% Shia, the Shia Muslims are a cult because they aren't as large as the Sunni." Rather, Braden is arguing that, if you have a set standard on the core issues for a religion's beliefs and how a religion is to be practiced, and another group detracts from all that, it can be considered a cult. For example: the Ahmadi Muslims believe that their founder fulfilled the end-times Islamic beliefs, and the promised Messiah and Mahdi awaited by Muslims, and that Jesus moved to India and was buried there, none of which the Sunni or Shia hold to be canon. For this reason, orthodox Muslims look upon the Ahmadi in the same manner that orthodox Christians look upon the Mormons. The latter breaks away from the "normative expression" of Christianity because, in upholding doctrines regarding man's deification, inheriting planets with spirit wives, etc.

After quoting Braden, Walter Martin immediately adds, in his own words:

I may add to this that a cult might be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are, for the most part, followers of the interpretations of Charles T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford. The Christian Scientist of today is a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy and her interpretations of Scripture. The Mormons, by their own admission, adhere to those interpretations found in the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. [pg. 11]

So we learn:

2) Instead of solely being gathered around the expressions of the religion based on the teachings of their founder or holy scripture (or both), a cult is grounded upon the interpretations of those documents by their leaders or governing authority. A cult may use the Bible as their primary document, or may claim that they follow what scripture says, but their interpretation of that scripture is grounded upon not serious biblical study or the plain meaning of the text, but rather what their leaders or religious authority tell them. If you were to remove Joseph Smith from history, Mormonism would not exist. If you were to remove Charles T. Russel from history, the Jehovah's Witnesses would not exist. If an individual in a cult were honest, he would have to admit that his interpretation of passages of scripture his organization depends on would only be read in such a way if his leader or interpreting authority told him it was to be read in such a way.

Continuing on, going into the psychological structures of cultism:

First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by close-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational, cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist’s mind and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization. [pg. 26]

Hence:

3) A cult's belief system, or its effect on its members, is to engage in logical inconsistencies, with the facts and method of thinking interpreted by the organization's authority. This means that the cult members' sense of reality in his mind, and the sense of reality given him by the organization, are two different things, sometimes at odds with one another; in order for this inconsistency to survive, the cult member has to engage in some form of intellectual or logical inconsistency. Muslims, for instance, will uphold two different standards for their own religion and Christianity, or non-Muslim religions in general. One example: some Muslims will deny the Bible based on variances between the manuscripts, even if they're "just grammatical"; however, they will shrug off the variances in manuscripts of the Quran because they're "just grammatical."

Continuing on:

Second, cultic belief systems are characterized by genuine antagonism on a personal level, since the cultist almost always identifies his dislike of the Christian message with the messenger who holds such opposing beliefs. The identification of opposing beliefs with the individual in the framework of antagonism leads the cultist almost always to reject the individual as well as the belief, a problem closely linked with closed-mindedness and one that is extremely difficult to deal with in general dialogue with cultists. [ibid]

Hence:

4) A cult member's identity with the cult becomes attached to who he/she is. Attacking the organization is seen as attacking the individual. In the case of many cults, it might be seen as attacking God Himself. Even if someone wishes to attack the error and not the erring, the erring will take the attacks against the error as an attack against themselves. This is why, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses respond to criticism or critical thinking with hostility, as if the individual is questioning their own sanity. Likewise, many in Hyper-Charismatic cults will become so engulfed in the teachings of their church and teacher that any attempt to question the legitimacy of the ministry will be seen as kind of an attack from the devil against God (even if the person may not openly say this is the case).

Continuing on:

Thirdly, almost without exception, all cultic belief systems manifest a type of institutional dogmatism and a pronounced intolerance for any position but their own. This no doubt stems from the fact that in the case of non-Christian cult systems that wish to be identified with Christianity, the ground for their claims is almost always supernatural. [pg. 27]

While some might argue here, "Surely all religions have a form of dogma?", Martin goes on to explain:

...cult systems tend to invest with the authority of the supernatural whatever pronouncements are deemed necessary to condition and control the minds of their followers. Thus it is that when Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, and his successor, Brigham Young, wished to implement doctrines or changes of practice in the Mormon Church, they prefaced their remarks with proclamations that God had revealed to them the necessity of such doctrines or practices among the saints. [ibid]

Hence we learn:

5) A cult's dogma and doctrine may not only be founded upon the supposed scripture of its base religion, but in the personal revelation and "divine commands" granted to its leaders or founders. As Mr. Martin pointed out, this includes any serious changes made to the orthodoxy of the religion, or with any claims that might be made regarding the interpretation of a passage of scripture, or direction which will be taken by the organization. There are, in essence two authorities: the authority of their base religion (whether it be their holy writings or the sayings of its founder); and the authority of their leadership structure, claiming to speak with divine authority or guidance. Mormons, for example, are not only dependent upon scripture for their guidance, but upon the pronouncements of Joseph Smith and his successors, which are all claimed to come from God.

Continuing on:

The fourth and final point in any analysis of the belief system of cults is the factor of isolation. [pg. 28]

By "isolation," Mr. Martin does not mean merely living on an island somewhere and ignoring the world around you, ie., social isolationism - rather, he refers to rational isolationism. He explains later on that this is the "isolation or compartmentalization of conflicting evidence or concepts."

Hence we learn:

6) A cult's belief system, or the tendency among its believers, may lean towards an understanding of the truth and contradictory evidence, while at the same time there are irrational excuses made for it. This means that while a cult member may be aware of contradictory evidence, they will not read it or rationalize from it as a non-cult member will. As an example, Mr. Martin brings up the fact that many knowledgeable Mormon historians and scholars are aware that there exist thousands of differences between the first edition of the Book of Mormon and the current edition, and that these changes were made not only by Joseph Smith but his successors as well; however, they believe both the revisions and the errors are divinely inspired! Some in the more extreme circles of KJV-Onlyism have made a similar argument, recognizing that there are differences between the earliest manuscripts of the Bible and the manuscripts used by the KJV translators, but at the same time stating, amazingly enough, that those changes were divinely inspired.

Cult Lessons from Boy Meets World

My wife and I recently watched this episode of Boy Meets World, and, aside from how well it seemed to handle the issue of cults or cult-like organizations without going too over the top, I was amazed at how it also didn't sacrifice the idea of God and truth. I couldn't help but think of a few organizations or leaders I've run into or studied while watching it.

Another thing that fascinated me: this was made in the mid-1990's, barely twenty years ago, and it's hard to imagine a show today featuring a character asking another "Did you believe in God?", or featuring a character praying to God at the climax. For certain, it doesn't necessarily take the side of a specific religion (ie., Sean doesn't pray to Christ or anything like that), but nonetheless it would be bold for today's standards.

By the by, I probably sympathize with Mr. Feeny the most in this episode...

Podcast: Is IHOP-KC a Cult?

The following is my latest podcast, asking the important question: is the International House of Prayer a cult? I've been hesitant to give any definite answer in the past, but here I finally come to a definite conclusion.


This link provides an example of how IHOP-KC is defended by some of its members.

This link provides a testimony about someone's time on IHOP-KC's intern staff.

This link provides a testimony of someone who became involved in the house of prayer movement.

This link has the post with Mari's response in the comments page (mentioned in the podcast).

This link has the post featuring my open email to Mike Bickle and IHOP-KC.

How I Affected Wave Church's Blog Combox

How did I affect Wave Church's combox? I essentially helped it cease to exist.

How did this come about? Well, I was reading the post regarding the second day of Wave Church's Daniel Fast, when I saw what I perceived to be an erroneous application of Matthew 21 to try to teach somewhat therapeutic theology. Thankfully, I saved a screenshot of my comment, and I'll post the pic below:

Unfortunately, what I didn't save was a brief conversation I had with one person who responded and said that we "put 2 and 2 together" [sic] and learn that we move the mountains of our life. I responded by pointing out that Christ is talking about a literal mountain here, and that he's simply referring to a mountain to show the disciples that a fig tree is nothing when it comes to deep faith in God. When I went to the blog later on, I saw that not only had the whole conversation been deleted...but that all comments had been disabled for all posts.

As I discussed in my second podcast, Steve Kelly compared offense in Christ to offense in lead pastors, and the idea of even just honestly questioning your lead pastor was seen as the highest sin, one for which God will spit in your face. People have been disciplined or kicked out of Wave Network churches for simply questioning their pastor on a decision or statement. Clearly, what I did here was offend Der Fuehrer...I mean...God's anointed.

Steve Kelly and Wave Church - Cultic Teachings on Leadership

The following is a link to my podcast reviewing the sermon "Is Your Destiny Connected to Your Leader?", by Steve Kelly of Wave Church in Virginia Beach, VA.


This link leads to the email exchange between myself and Wave Church Associate Pastor Clayton Ritter on December 30, 2012.

The following is a copy of the email sent to me by Frank Rue (shared with his permission).

from:		Frank Rue
to:		Tony-Allen
date:		Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:58 PM
subject:		Re: Greetings; Wave Church Tony-Allen - We were given an audio cassette (it was a while ago, haha) of "Your Destiny is Connected To Your Leader", and it was much more direct than the more recent one you've mentioned. The more recent one is a lot more tame. I wish I could dig up the old one, but it is not available anymore. My wife was the Executive Administrator for our church in New Jersey, and our church was the church in the Wave Network that was responsible for making most of their materials, including the Network Church Handbook. I still have copies of the handbook, electronically, and it contains the requirement of listening to the original "Your Destiny is Connected to Your Leader" language. This requirement is for leaders of the church (pastors on down through small group leaders). The handbook is certainly something I can dig up, if you think it would be worth the time. When our pastors in New Jersey were caught in adultery, Steve Kelly himself came up and gave a "talk" wherein he said anyone who went against him or the elders was using witchcraft and manipulation to divide the church, and to have nothing to do with them. Also, when I had a disagreement with the pastor earlier in my time there, my wife and I were shunned until we "repented" and apologized to the pastor and then publicly for having "gone astray". No, we didn't sin—we literally just disagreed with and spoke up about it to the pastors directly. For that we were branded "rebellious" and "arrogant", and people were told we were "working through things" and we "needed to be left alone". Further, our pastor's wife (also considered a pastor) spoke on being a "Prodigal". She equated the story of the Prodigal Son in the bible to the idea that a person sometimes makes bad choices, turns away from the church (read: gets kicked out), and cannot be contacted at all until they are pitifully begging for forgiveness, at the end of their rope and totally broken. My wife personally was contacted by a former church member once (who we did not know was kicked out) and, upon asking her small group leader about what to do, was told NOT to respond to the former church member and to ignore her so she wouldn't be "sucked into her hurtful world", or something of that sort.  I know of a particular ex-military leader who once participated at many Wave Network events as a speaker. He once questioned something Steve Kelly said whilst at a Network Pastor's Breakfast, was reprimanded, and then was ostracized by all of the pastors in the network over the next 6 months. Effectively, no one had him speak any longer at any of their events or churches, and he was forced to find another outlet for his ministry. When he called to ask Steve Kelly what happened, he was gruffly refused by the administrative staff and told that Steve Kelly didn't have time for his phone calls. This is all common practice among the Wave Network churches (and Hillsong churches, for that matter), Wave itself, and our former church. It is almost exclusively the reason for the label "cult", frankly, though there are a number of other reasons which more than qualify the "churches" for such a moniker. Hope this helps! Frank

This link sends you to Frank Rue's Disconnect Church blog. It mostly covers The Connect Church, which is part of the Wave Network, but many of the issues are the same.

This link sends you to Frank Rue's Diakonos blog. Plenty of posts here are well worth the read. Of particular interest, in regards to this topic, is his Cult of Personalities post.