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.

Lou Engle and Esther

Recently I saw Lou Engle's Twitter account posting tidbits on Esther. Soon after, people began using the #IAmEsther hashtag. I went to Lou Engle's website, and found an article that explained this new movement coming from his group. The article is entitled For Such a Time as This; the title is taken from Esther 4:14b, in which Mordecai says to Esther, "And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?" As I looked into it, I realized it was mishandling of scripture which may cause confusion, heartache, and exhaustion among its adherents, and so I felt compelled to write a response.

As I've done in the past, any direct quotations from the article will be colored purple for visual organization. I'll be quoting the article in full, albeit in chunks, but feel free to click on the link and read through the whole thing first.

The Story of Esther

Before we jump into the article, I think it's important to pause and discuss the story of Esther, and how it relates to believers.

The story of Esther takes place shortly after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which was conquered by the Medes and Persians. The Jews are still in captivity. The king, Ahasuerus, after several days of drinking, sends for his wife Vashti to come before him to show off her beauty. Vashti refuses, causing the king to not only be angered, but his advisers to worry that this conduct will encourage other noblewomen in the empire to act similarly (Es 1:12-18). Therefore, the king calls for select virgins to be brought before him, and the one he likes best will become the new queen (Es 2:3-4). At the same time, there lives in the capital Mordecai, a Jew who is caring for his late uncle's daughter, Esther, a "young lady" who is "beautiful of form and face" (Es 2:7). Esther ends up being taken to the palace, where the king eventually falls in love with her, and appoints her queen (Es 2:17). Mordecai gains the king's favor after uncovering an assassination plot, and ends up increasing in rank as well (Es 2:21-23).

At this point enters Haman, a high-ranking Persian official. Haman gets into conflict with Mordecai, due to the latter's refusal to bow.

All the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and paid homage to Haman; for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage. Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why are you transgressing the king’s command?” Now it was when they had spoken daily to him and he would not listen to them, that they told Haman to see whether Mordecai’s reason would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew. When Haman saw that Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage to him, Haman was filled with rage. But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him who the people of Mordecai were; therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. [Esther 3:2-6]

Haman's hatred towards Mordecai was not only based on pride, but most likely on ethnic lines as well, since he was ethnically an Amalekite (this may also explain why Mordecai refused to bow). Haman attempts to use his influence on the king to get revenge on Mordecai and his people.

Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of all other people and they do not observe the king’s laws, so it is not in the king’s interest to let them remain. If it is pleasing to the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who carry on the king’s business, to put into the king’s treasuries.” Then the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. The king said to Haman, “The silver is yours, and the people also, to do with them as you please.” [Esther 3:8-11]

Haman plans a specific day by drawing a lot (or pur). News of the impending genocide reaches Mordecai's ears, and hence the Jewish population, and a general state of grieving begins (Es 4:1-3). Esther herself discovers the plot. She knows of a possibility to enter the king's inner court and plead their case, but also knows that anyone who enters unannounced will be executed for it, unless the king pardons them by extending his golden scepter - and, as the king has not summoned her for thirty days, there's a chance he doesn't like her as much, and may just have her killed off (Es 4:11). Mordecai rebukes her sharply:

Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?” [Esther 4:13-14]

Esther resolves to intercede on behalf of her people. Before doing so, she calls on Mordecai and the people to prepare for the day, so that all would go well.

“Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.” [Esther 4:17]

As it so happens, the king doesn't kill Esther, and lets her touch his golden scepter. Esther in turn plans a banquet, which both the king and Haman will attend (Es 5:6-8). Meanwhile, Haman, feeling indignant towards Mordecai continued refusal to bow, builds a giant gallows to hang Mordecai from (Es 5:14). On the day of the banquet, Esther intercedes before the king for her people, begging them to be spared, and identifying Haman as the culprit (Es 7:3-6). Haman discovers that the king has turned against him, and goes to Esther to plead for mercy. The king, finding Haman with Esther, misinterprets it as attempted rape and orders Haman hung from the very gallows he had built for Mordecai (Es 7:7-10). Mordecai ends up with Haman's job, and Esther asks the king to rescind Haman's order, which he does (Es 8:1-8). The Jewish population celebrates, and turns on those who had planned their genocide; most are put to the sword, while Haman's ten sons are hung (Es 9:2-16). Mordecai orders further celebration on the anniversary of this victory, which to this day is the Purim ("Lots") festival in Judaism (Es 9:20-22).

Since Esther is both the titular and main character of the book, Esther (along with Ruth) has become a role model for women in the "You go girl!" sections of modern Evangelicalism. However, it carries far greater spiritual implications:

1) It demonstrates God's providential love over His people, by organizing situations to preserve them from complete annihilation. This is especially amazing, given that, within the book of Esther, there are no astounding acts of God like the parting of the Red Sea, nor any great displays of prophecy as is so often seen in the other history books - in fact, God is not even directly mentioned, nor does He directly speak to characters. Regarding all this, Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary:

But, though the name of God be not in it, the finger of God is, directing many minute events for the bringing about of his people’s deliverance. The particulars are not only surprising and very entertaining, but edifying and very encouraging to the faith and hope of God’s people in the most difficult and dangerous times. We cannot now expect such miracles to be wrought for us as were for Israel when they were brought out of Egypt, but we may expect that in such ways as God here took to defeat Haman’s plot he will still protect his people. [source]

2) It is a story of selfless, believing womanhood. Esther is ready to die for her people, for if she goes to the king and she does not hold his favor, she will be executed. Her words to Mordecai, "If I perish, I perish," are the words of a woman who loves her fellow believers more than even her own life. Esther was a proper woman of God who, unlike many other women, did not permit her rise to wealth and power to corrupt her moral life.

3) One could, in many ways, see shadows of Christ and our own redemption within the story. Esther, like Christ, intercedes for the people, and saves them from certain death. Some have associated the three days of fasting, followed by Esther going to the king and obtaining her people's salvation, to Christ's three days in the tomb, after which He rose again and secured the redemption of His people. One might compare Esther's torment over her potential death, but eventual acceptance of the possibility, with Christ's struggles in Gethsemane. Haman, with his intent to kill the Jews, is a proper symbol of the eternal enemies of the church, and his eventual demise, coupled with the complete and utter victory of the Jews at the zero hour, is a fine compliment to the last few chapters of Revelation, foretelling the complete victory of Christ and His church on the earth.

Lou Engle's Use of Esther

With the book of Esther and the narrative within it better understood, let's examine how Lou Engle applies it.

Esther said, “I and my young women will also fast as you do. Afterward, though it is against the law, I will go to the king…and if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16)

There are moments in history when a door for massive change opens. Great revolutions, either good or evil, spring up in the vacuum created by these openings. In such divine moments, key men, women and entire generations risk everything to become the hinge of history—the “pivot point” that determines which way the door will swing.

This is the exact same rhetoric Lou Engle employed with his Nazirite DNA presentation, and others he's done in the past: he precedes any call for action with revolutionary language, talking about how in dire moments throughout history, great men and women rise up to save the day. It's certainly a powerful image, and one that can easily rile up emotions, especially among the young or emotional. In this day and age when it looks like society as a whole is becoming more and more degenerate and hostile to the Christian worldview, this sort of language is seductive. It tells people who may be unguided, or may have untempered passions, to do something with their emotions. It takes a confused heart, battered about by the passions of the day, and tries to direct it down a clearer path. It presents a guiding hand to those who may otherwise feel blind.

The only problem is, in many situations, that guiding hand is owned by a false teacher, and hence it is literally the blind leading the blind (cf. Mt 15:14).

The Esther Hour

Esther is a prototype of history’s hinge—a courageous woman who humbly and artfully spoke truth to power. Facing witchcraft and dark conspiracies at the highest levels of Persia’s power base, Queen Esther found herself providentially positioned (right place, right time) to risk everything for the love of her people and their future. Armed with little more than her dignity and the secret arsenal of corporate prayer and fasting, her courageous actions spared an entire nation from annihilation.

Three years ago in a leaders summit in Fredericksburg Virginia our meeting was sovereignly hijacked as the Lord shifted our focus toward the hidden taproot of strength in the godly women of America. We began to envision something of a million women gathering on the mall in Washington DC, similar to the Promise Keepers gathering, that would be a last-stand breakthrough to hold back darkness in America. Those hours of corporate intercession were as strong and clear as any prophetic moment I have ever encountered in 30+ years of prayer, but at the time we could not see how it could be brought to pass. Habakkuk's statement seemed to be the counsel of the Lord to us, “Though the vision tarry wait for it, it will surely come.”

Note two things Lou Engle does here:

1) He introduces the notion of spiritual warfare: he says that Esther was "facing witchcraft and dark conspiracies at the highest levels of Persia’s power base." Read the book of Esther from beginning to end, and ask yourself this: is there any kind of "witchcraft" or spiritual "dark conspiracy" seen at the "highest levels" of Persia? There isn't. Where, then, is Engle getting this? We'll discover this answer later - for now, keep this fact in mind.

2) He takes an event in the Bible - namely, Esther's story, and specifically her fasting - and applies it to us and something we need to do right now. This is likewise something Lou Engle regularly does: he will take descriptive story, and turn it into a prescriptive call. Sadly, he will even do this for passages about Christ. For example, while teaching Dominionism, he took Isaiah 9:6, about the coming Messiah, and said that we have to raise sons to "bear the government upon their shoulder" (see my blog post here). In fact, in many of these New Apostolic Reformation movements, it's common to hear of a leader calling for a "[insert biblical character] fast," or a "[insert biblical character] anointing."

Is the story about Esther about an "Esther hour" or a special "Esther fast" that we need to do? Not at all. This was a particular fast, held during a particular time, and done by particular people. Does that mean we should never pray and fast? Not at all. I don't want the reader to misunderstand that I am saying prayer and fasting is foolhardy. I'm not saying Christians shouldn't pray and fast. The issue here is that Lou Engle is using a passage of scripture to spiritually compel people to do something, in return for a move from God. He's telling people (as we'll soon see) that there is "a cataclysmic battle for the soul of our nation," and this is our only answer.

What's more, as we shall soon see with greater clarity, he is abusing scripture, and teaching false theology, in the process.

The Truly Empowered Woman

That moment arrived January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump, as hundreds of thousands of women took to the streets with the purported aim of “empowering women.” In the vacuum created by 1) the election, 2) historic women’s injustices, and 3) sadly, President Trump’s past hurtful statements towards women, a pretender movement seized the American stage. Like a false heiress to history, this alternate narrative sought to forcibly reframe our daughters’ and granddaughters’ identity and future. Even so, the truth was immediately plain for all to see: this was about power, not empowerment. To the degree that the Women’s March railed against injustice while refusing to acknowledge God’s exalted view of women and her glorious purpose, it was a misleading, even dangerous attempt, to swing the hinge of history away from God. Hundreds of thousands of women watching the March simply could not identify with the vitriol and radical ideology being shouted from the stage, claiming the right to define womanhood apart from the Bible. Deep in their hearts, women across the country declared, "This is not my revolution!”

Now, like Esther, those same women are rising “for such a time as this.” An instinctive, corporate yearning has gripped the nation for true empowered women to demonstrate how the meek (i.e. strength-filled humility) possess the earth. It’s time for this corporate Esther to frame a better, more hopeful, God-centered future for our nation by taking her place in the public square like never before. We need an entire generation—a movement—of grandmothers, mothers and daughters to be boldly visible, persistent in persuasion, and to demonstrate the humility of our national appeal to Heaven in prayer.

Here we see the connection Lou Engle is trying to make: just as Esther entered "the public square" to "frame a better, more hopeful, God-centered future" for her nation, so too must "an entire generation" of today's women do likewise, demonstrating "the humility of our national appeal to Heaven in prayer." This has to be done by a "corporate Esther." Like Esther, the women who take part in this are here "for such a time as this."

It gets into more detail in the next section.

Fasting through Purim

Shockingly, the Women’s March was only a first shot across the bow. In reality, an alliance of spiritual anarchy is presently being unveiled in full defiance of a “We The People” electoral result and biblical truths that undergird our nation. With a disturbing brazenness (and the consent of the media), the dark underbelly of anarchy issued a global summons to employ witchcraft and curses against President Trump, his cabinet, and those aligned with a biblical worldview. Like a veil being torn so a deeper secret could be revealed, suddenly, the public controversy was elevated to a global spiritual dimension. This made plain what we have known from the beginning: Spiritual battles cannot be won on the playing field of protests and political arguments. Only the Church has the answer to such an unprecedented manifestation of witchcraft. If we do not employ spiritual strategy to overcome this steely-eyed challenge of the powers, the days ahead will be dark days indeed.

Esther gives us clues. According to Derek Prince, the Persian advisor, Haman (the adversary in the Book of Esther), practiced divination through the casting of lots, thus clearly aligning himself with demonic spiritual powers in his plot to destroy the whole Jewish population in the earth. Esther’s response, a 3-day, no-food-no-water fast, was the nuclear option of her day. It was an act of desperate dependence on God, the only thing capable of breaking the dark powers being channeled by Haman’s witchcraft. “Esther and her handmaidens” led the whole nation in an intense period of fasting and prayer for three days leading up to Purim. Amazingly, dark schemes at the highest levels of government were exposed. Esther’s fast effectively reversed the curse and shifted the whole public policy of the Persian Empire in favor of the Jewish people. I cannot stress this enough: we are in a similar day and a cataclysmic battle for the soul of our nation. We cannot live the same way we lived yesterday.

Earlier we asked where Engle got the notion that there was spiritual warfare going on in the book of Esther. Here, after referencing the news story about witches planning to enact curses against Trump, he talks about Esther having to face "divination" from Haman and his channeling of "dark powers" against Esther and the Jews. To justify the idea that Haman was using dark powers, he cites Derek Prince, the late Biblical scholar, as arguing Haman "practiced divination through the casting of lots, thus clearly aligning himself with demonic spiritual powers." Since Engle himself doesn't tell us where Derek Prince said it, I actually went and found the original source.

This story has given rise to the feast which the Jews call Purim. Purim means "lots." The feast is so called because Haman cast lots to determine the day that should be appointed for the destruction of the Jews. Casting lots was a form of divination. Haman was seeking guidance from occult powers. He relied on unseen spiritual forces to direct him in exterminating the Jews. This placed the whole conflict on a spiritual plane. It was not just flesh against flesh; it was spirit against spirit. Through Haman, Satan was actually challenging the power of God Himself. Had he succeeded in the destruction of the Jews, it would have been an everlasting reproach to the name of the Lord.

But when the decree for the destruction of the Jews went out, Esther and her maidens accepted the challenge. They understood that the conflict was on the spiritual plane, and their response was on the same plane. They agreed to fast three days, night and day, neither eating nor drinking. They arranged with Mordecai that he would gather together all the Jews in Shushan, the capital city, to unite with them in fasting for the same period. (Notice in Esther 2:19 that once again, in the hour of crisis, we find God's people were "gathered together," just as in the days of Jehoshaphat.) Thus, all the Jews in Shushan, together with Esther and her maidens, fasted and prayed three days - seventy-two hours - without eating or drinking.

The outcome of their collective fasting and prayer is described in the succeeding chapters of the Book of Esther. We may summarize it briefly by saying that the whole policy of the Persian empire was completely changed, in favor of the Jews. Haman and his sons perished. The enemies of the Jews throughout the Persian empire suffered total defeat. Mordecai and Esther became the two most influential personalities in Persian politics. The Jews in every area experienced a unique measure of favor, peace, and prosperity. All this can be directly attributed to one cause: the collective fasting and prayer of God's people. [Prince]

It might be interesting to note that the cover of the book advertises a "foreword by Lou Engle of The Call." We probably shouldn't be surprised Lou Engle is harping on this as a source, then. I find it even more interesting that Lou Engle cites Derek Prince for what he is promoting as a uniquely all-women event, when Prince himself says, on at least two occasions, that this involved "all the Jews in Shushan." Yes, on the page for this event, there is a note at the bottom that "men are welcome and encouraged to join," but again, Engle is harping on the fast held by Esther and her maidens, and does not mention at all that the other Jews, men included, fasted and prayed.

In fact, refer back to the quotation of Esther 4:16, at the beginning of the article. It's not actually a full quotation - the verse actually says, in full:

"Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish."

Even the verse that Lou Engle refers to at the beginning of an article attempting to portray Esther's fast as a "woman only" thing says that "all the Jews" participated in the fast. Esther adds "I and my maidens also will fast in the same way." Yes, Esther and her maidens were fasting, but in conjunction with the rest of God's church in the area. She wasn't "leading the nation" so much as "joining in."

Either way, the reference to the lot, and hence Haman's use of "dark powers," is found shortly after Haman's anger against Mordecai:

In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, Pur, that is the lot, was cast before Haman from day to day and from month to month, until the twelfth month, that is the month Adar. [Esther 3:17]

And again later on, in a recap:

For Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the adversary of all the Jews, had schemed against the Jews to destroy them and had cast Pur, that is the lot, to disturb them and destroy them. [Esther 9:24]

Most biblical commentators agree that this lot-casting, a common one in ancient eastern cultures, involved some form of pagan belief behind it. At the same time, it's worth noting there were lots used by the Jews as well (Num 26:55; Jos 7:14), and even by the apostles (Acts 1:26), albeit not with an appeal to pagan spirits. Scripture also teaches that every lot outcome proceeds from God's providence (cf. Pro 16:33), as often did happen in scripture, even with lots committed by the heathen (cf. Jon 1:7). No doubt here, God providentially used the lots to give enough time for Mordecai and Esther to discover the plot and unravel it.

Yet Esther 3:17 and 9:24 are the only mentions of lots in the book of Esther, and hence the only possible reference to any influence from spiritual powers. Furthermore, the only purpose it served was to determine the dating of Haman's planned genocide. This one momentary mention is exaggerated by Mr. Prince to say that "the whole conflict" was now "on a spiritual plane"; it is exaggerated even more by Mr. Engle, who says that Haman was "channeling" witchcraft, and that Esther had uncovered "dark schemes at the highest levels of government." In fact, Haman wasn't even targeting the entire Persian government, just God's church in Persia; for Mr. Engle to transform this into a need to pray for the United States as a whole is confusing ecclesiology with nationalism.

Jewish histories and traditions also seem absent of any serious kind of "witchcraft" on Haman's part. Rabbinical traditions speak of his use of astrology, but more in regards to symbolism than spiritual power.

Haman was also an astrologer, and when he was about to fix the time for the massacre of the Jews he first cast lots to ascertain which was the most auspicious day of the week for that purpose. Each day, however, proved to be under some influence favorable to the Jews. He then sought to fix the month, but found that the same was true of each month; thus, Nisan was favorable to the Jews because of the Passover sacrifice; Iyyar, because of the small Passover. But when he arrived at Adar he found that its zodiacal sign was Pisces, and he said, "Now I shall be able to swallow them as fish which swallow one another" (Esth. R. vii.; Targ. Sheni iii.) [Jewish Encyclopedia; source]

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, when he speaks on the story of Esther (Book XI, 6), he doesn't mention the lots at all, let alone any sort of spiritual warfare.

What is especially amusing by Lou Engle's highlighting this is that he seems to forget that the King of Babylon was a pagan king, of a pagan nation, which probably regularly committed pagan acts of worship. If Esther's opine to the king had been, "Haman uses pagan rituals," the king probably would have shrugged and said, "So do I." That's not to say pagan rituals aren't false, or that Esther and Mordecai approved of them; only that Engle, Prince, and others are exaggerating the role that pagan rituals and practices held in this narrative. Haman briefly used one methodology to pick a date, and that was it; it's not like Haman was slaying virgins to summon demons to attack the Jews.

Given the truth on Haman's so-called "witchcraft," one might ask why Lou Engle is exaggerating the role pagan spirituality played in the story of Esther, and why is he emphasizing our need to combat it? Why does he need to rework the Esther story to say all this?

Here we enter into the stranger realm of Lou Engle's theology - namely, Lou Engle sincerely believes that non-Christian religions are able to release "spiritual power" into the atmosphere, and hence combat the church. If the church doesn't pray enough, they will "lose the heavens" and permit evil to gain more power. In case you think I'm exaggerating or unfairly representing his beliefs, here's a direct quote from him:

The Lord spoke to my heart out of this, that the church must become not just a prayer meeting - it must become a prayer culture if it's going to contend with the prayer culture of Islam. How can a prayer meeting that very few come to in the church can contend with a Muslim prayer meeting that's praying five times a day then fasts forty days in Ramadan that releases spiritual power into the atmosphere. [...] The will of God is being resisted by principalities and powers. Friends, there is only one people that can remove that kind of resistance. It's not politics, it's not education, it's the praying church. It is our responsibility that we lost the heavens because of our lack of prayer... [Transcribed from "Highlights to the Nationwide Call to Prayer Conference Call"; TheCall Official Podcast; emphases mine]

Those who are curious about this can likewise listen to my podcast on IHOP-KC and prayer power; I play a clip of Lou Engle talking about a dream he had where a Buddhist house of prayer was overcome by a Christian house of prayer because the Christian house of prayer prayed more. When he speaks of "spiritual warfare," he's not only speaking about the general idea of God versus Satan, except where God is sovereign over all conflict (as most orthodox Christians would understand it); Lou Engle literally means "warfare" in the sense that the forces of God and Satan are combating on equal terms. Therefore, when Lou Engle hears that witches are casting spells against Trump and the church, he sincerely believes that witches have the complete power to do that.

Lou Engle claims that God spoke to him about this, and hence we have to presume this notion of prayer power comes from God. Scripture testifies differently. In fact, scripture testifies that foreign religions, while being under the influence of demons, have no power. Those who worship idols and false gods do so without releasing "spiritual power" into the air.

Consider, for example, the long satire and mockery of pagan faiths by the prophet Isaiah:

Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile, and their precious things are of no profit; even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so that they will be put to shame. Who has fashioned a god or cast an idol to no profit? Behold, all his companions will be put to shame, for the craftsmen themselves are mere men. Let them all assemble themselves, let them stand up, let them tremble, let them together be put to shame. The man shapes iron into a cutting tool and does his work over the coals, fashioning it with hammers and working it with his strong arm. He also gets hungry and his strength fails; he drinks no water and becomes weary. Another shapes wood, he extends a measuring line; he outlines it with red chalk. He works it with planes and outlines it with a compass, and makes it like the form of a man, like the beauty of man, so that it may sit in a house. Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, “Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire.” But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image. He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god.” [Isaiah 44:9-17]

Consider likewise the words of the apostle Paul:

Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. [1 Corinthians 10:18-20]

There is no scriptural evidence for the idea that when Muslims pray during Ramadan (which isn't forty days, by the way), or when Hindus pray, or when Buddhists pray, they are "releasing spiritual power" that will swallow up the church if we don't pray enough.

In fact, is such a notion found within Esther itself? On the contrary. Let's look again at what Mordecai tells Esther:

"Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?" [Esther 4:13b-14]

Mordecai actually had faith that, even if he and the Jews of Susa perish, God's people within Persia would not perish in toto. Mordecai knew that God would keep His promise and preserve a remnant, even during the worst of struggles. His warning and advice to Esther was basically: "Your being the queen won't save you. God will preserve His people somewhere, somehow, but you're right there where the enemies of the Jews have the most power and influence, so you're the most likely to get killed, even if you don't intercede. Maybe God put you in this most precarious position precisely because you could intercede for your people?"

The point here is that Mordecai didn't hear about the problem and think, "Oh man, if we don't combat this spiritual power from Haman, we're all gonna die! We better pray and fast!" He knew God's people would persevere, even if in scattered parts of the empire, or from a source other than Esther. That didn't lessen the danger all the Jews were facing, of course - but Mordecai didn't think this was something that required fasting and praying or else.

Recently, two women contacted me and asked me to use my influence to call for a 3-day Esther Fast to answer this challenge. Immediately after, I experienced a life-changing dream where I saw a nation-wide Esther movement arising that alone could break a major spiritual power of death. I knew then that I was to take my place as a Mordecai and call for Esther and her handmaidens, even the entire nation, to boldly become the hinge which this hour of history requires. The Jewish holiday Purim celebrates God’s deliverance of the Jews through Esther’s fasting, sacrifice and courage. This year, Purim begins on Saturday evening, March 11th. Therefore, we are seizing this sudden moment for 3-day Esther Fast from sundown on Wednesday, March 8th through the evening of Saturday, March 11th to counter this witchcraft, pray for the President, and contend for this uprising of an Esther movement in America that will, among many things, reverse the decree of ‘73, Roe V. Wade, just as Haman’s decree was reversed and hold back the rising tide of anti-Semitism.

Let the women arise as Esthers for such a time as this and take their place in the courts of heaven and in the public courts of man to shape history in this hour. If your heart burns, mobilize this fast to all your connections. Blow the trumpet in Zion! Call a fast!

Lou Engle

Founder, TheCall, Inc.

I must say it's rather astounding that Lou Engle sees himself as a modern Mordecai, especially since he says that makes it his duty to "call for Esther and her handmaidens" - is he aware that it's actually Esther who calls for the fast, not Mordecai? Mordecai's only call for Esther was "to go in to the king to implore his favor and to plead with him for her people" (Es 4:8b). Therefore, shouldn't Lou Engle be calling "Esther and her handmaidens" not to fast and pray, but rather to "go in to the king to implore his favor"?

I'm also interested in how the "Esther movement" is supposed to "reverse" and "hold back" Roe vs. Wade, anti-Semitism, etc., when I was fairly certain that the Nazirite DNA and other "movements" Lou Engle has become involved in were likewise supposed to do that. It's not that I'm knocking Christian movements in general, even impassioned Christian movements; it's simply that it's rather interesting how all of these "do-or-die" spiritual movements seem to keep repeating their goals over and over again, with new names. How many times has Engle spoken of a "life-changing dream" where he was called by God to raise up a movement "that alone could break a major spiritual power of death"?

Concluding Thoughts

Let's try to remember a few key things about the fast called by Esther:

• Who was fasting? All the Jews in the city of Susa (Es 4:16).
• What brought about the fasting? Esther was preparing to confront the king, and there was a possibility she might die for her troubles (Es 4:11, 14).
• Why was Esther confronting the king? Because Haman was planning to kill all of God's people (Es 4:7-8).
• Why was Haman planning to kill off the Jews? Because of Mordecai's refusal to bow to him, and Haman's personal hatred of the Jews (Es 3:6).

This is what the text says regarding the fast. Engle avoids all of this by not addressing the context of what is being said. Instead, he hones in on the fact Esther and her handmaidens fasted prayed, avoids any real exegesis, instead falling back on what one commentator said regarding Haman. From all this, he presents to us a situation in which witchcraft and dark forces are taking over the Persian government, and this is only averted by the women praying and fasting. He makes it seem as if, because Esther and the women prayed, the "spiritual power" was pushed back and undone, and everything changed.

As we saw from our earlier review of the book, the narrative is a little more involved with that. The fasting was not to bring about the change directly, but rather to call upon God to make certain Esther's confrontation with the king would go well. It was her dealings with the king, and God's providence therein, that saved the Jewish people. Esther is a noble woman in the history of the church, yes. Esther has many traits Christian women could seek to emulate, yes. However, there is no command to fast and pray like Esther, and there is no evidence from scripture that Esther was locked in a giant spiritual struggle which was only defeated by fasting and prayer. No honest reading of the text could ever come to such a conclusion.

What's even more alarming is that Lou Engle uses, just as he has so many times in the past, strong spiritual language to add weighty authority to an abuse of scripture based on his heretical ideas on prayer. Some might contend here that he's never said, "You're not saved if you don't take part in this movement," or, "If you're a Christian, you need to get involved." Nonetheless, the wording he uses is quite clear: it is this movement "alone" which can "break a major spiritual power"; we literally "need" an "entire generation" of women to take part; if we don't "employ spiritual strategy" against this, then "the days ahead will be dark days indeed"; women must "take their place in the courts of heaven and in the public courts of man to shape history in this hour." This is spiritual manipulative language that is, in essence, placing a yoke upon others under the disguise of pious activity.

I've been told that Lou Engle's a nice guy in person, and I'm sure, deep down, he sincerely believes he's doing some good. The problem is he's constantly abusing the word of God, centering it around his personal dreams and visions. He uses these misrepresentations of God's word to command other Christians to commit acts in the hope that God will return the favor. This is especially sad given that, as stated earlier, the story of Esther is a beautiful one that can point to the church's preservation and even the cross. Instead, it's being pointed to in order to command, "Do." It takes a passage that should point us to God and His glory, and instead points it to us and places upon us a command and work.

With his reliance on dreams and his mishandling of scripture, Lou Engle is like those false prophets God warned of when He said:

"The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the Lord. [Jeremiah 23:28]

Things like an "Esther hour" or "Esther fast" are nothing more than spiritual straw. Let every Christian seek their answers from the word of God, and do their best to avoid it, or warn others about it. If we wish to fast and pray, even as a body, then let us fast and pray - but let's not mishandle scripture to compel others to do it, and let's not claim divinely inspired authority to make such claims.

God bless.

***

Work Cited

Prince, Derek. Shaping History Through Prayer and Fasting. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2002. Print.

This Week in Review - 3/3/2017

Here's another roundup of highlights I found throughout the week.

What Did the Jewish Historian Josephus Really Say About Jesus? from Jonathan Morrow - Good article on the sections of Josephus regarding Christ that scholars dispute. As it turns out, when you remove the questionable parts, it still says a lot about the historicity of Jesus.

Eschatology Comparison from Five Solas - This isn't a cool piece of artwork like a lot of eschatology comparisons are, but it goes into detail about what various groups believe, how they differ, and what variants exist within the individual camps.

Leaving the NAR Church: Sean's story from Pirate Christian - A testimony from South Africa, where the Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel, New Apostolic Reformation heresies are all thriving. I was reminded of the podcast I did with Kofi over that very subject.

The Cure for a Lack of Fruit in Our Christian Lives from Ligonier Ministries - A simple article discussing salvation, and how we can have an assurance of...well...assurance.

Does the Bible Tell Christians to Judge Not? from Answers in Genesis - A good article that not only refutes the commonly held myth that Jesus said we shouldn't judge anyone ever, but also talks on our own personal need for self-reflection and personal repentance.

Why Christian Kids Leave the Faith by Tim Challies - Obviously from a purely theological standpoint, it would be easy to throw 1 John 2:19 at the problem and call it a day. In a more practical, applicable standpoint, Tim Challies presents four prominent reasons, found in a study, as to why people left the faith, and what we can focus on to prevent, by God's grace and blessings, that such a thing happens to our children. It is definitely something on the minds of Christian parents (including myself).

5 Ways to Help Keep Your Kids From Becoming Secularized Worshipers from Natasha Crain - Guest author Alisa Childers gives some solid advice on how to help integrate your kids into your worship life. This includes living a God-centered worship life in front of them and teaching them to be discerning in what worship songs are actually saying.

This Week in Review - 2/24/2017

I decided to start posting interesting links, or things I've found to be edifying, in a sort of hodgepodge post. I hope to make this a weekly thing. It was inspired by some other people who I have seen done this. It was also inspired by the very real problem of finding nuggets on social media, faving or liking them, and then forgetting all about them later, or thinking about them later only to realize it's hard to get back to them.

So without further ado, here are the highlights of this week.

Live Action, Snopes and Planned Parenthood's "Prenatal Care" from Truthbomb Apologetics - A review of the claim from Snopes that the words of Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, were taken out of context. It proves that any dignity Snopes used to have are now gone, and they're basically another piece of leftist propaganda.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ Salary Has Gone Up a Whopping 265% to Almost $1 Million from LifeNews - In addition to the last link, just a little reminder of how rich you can get running a supposedly non-profit, for-the-good-of-the-people organization.

The “Telephone Game” Myth: Has the New Testament Been Changed Over Time? from God from the Machine - A neat little response to the "telephone game" charge lodged by some internet atheists. Basically a summary of manuscript evidence and textual transmission, especially compared to other works of antiquity.

Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures? from Answers in Genesis - A good read on the idea behind the evolution of man, and the so-called evidence used today in an attempt to prove the missing link. (There's a good reason it's still missing.)

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? from Christian Research Institute - As this article shows, there is a cult-like culture within the scientific community where, just as if you question global warming, you will be mocked and ostracized for holding contrary views to what is accepted as the norm.

Radio Free Geneva: A Nearly Three Hour Examination of “Traditional” Anthropology from Alpha and Omega Ministries - James White reviews a response from Leighton Flowers regarding Calvinism. As the title suggests, it's a long listen, but it goes in depth on common charges against Calvinism, as well as philosophical arguments against it.

Hall of Contemporary Reformers from Monergism - A collection of modern Reformed apologists and scholars.

Red Letter Jesus from Sheologians - An article written by Summer White (daughter of James White) on how feminist and leftist heretics who argue "Jesus didn't say that specifically!" are basically committing the Red Letterism error.

Predest1 from weecalvin1509 - The first part in a four part series on whether or not John Calvin taught double predestination, and for what purpose Calvin believed people were sent to hell.

Skeptic Challenge: God Condones Rape from A Clear Lens - A response to the (surprisingly commonly made) charge that God condones rape in Deuteronomy. It looks at the different Hebrew words used in the entire section of scripture, and comes to the same conclusion many commentators have throughout the centuries.

Leaving the NAR Church: Jared's Story from Pirate Christian - One man's sad story about the experiences of him and his wife with a "deliverance counselor" who attributed everything to demons, and never once gave them the Gospel.

Six Scary But Important Words Every Christian Parent Should Say to Their Kids About Faith from Natasha Crain - Spoiler alert: the words are "Don't believe just because I do." However, the reasons given for why you SHOULD say those words make this article worth the read. As a parent myself, I found this edifying.

3 Key Things Skeptics Will Say to Shame Your Kids for Being Christians from Natasha Crain - A guide on how to ready your children for the charges that will be thrown at them for simply being believers.

5 Signs You’re Forcing Your Religion (or Atheism) on Your Kids…and 5 Signs You’re Not from Natasha Crain - A good guide for believers - and non-believers - to use to make certain they're actually trying to raise their children to be true, confessing believers, rather than just so-called Christians mimicking their parents.

And in the humor corner...

Rob Bell Runs Out of Doctrines to Deny at Babylon Bee - A satirical article on a true "end of an era."

Common Charismatic Arguments Against Discernment

Recently I was notified of a book review for Heaven is for Real, written from a Charismatic perspective. Aptly named Heaven Is for Real – A Charismatic’s Perspective, it is written by an individual going by the name of "TheBitterPastor". I had previously written an extensive review on the book, and done an episode of my podcast where I reviewed Eastern Orthodox writer Frederica Mathewes-Green's defense of it. Reading this review, I felt inspired to write it, not only to give a response to it (since, as we shall soon see, it actually deals very little with the book and movie Heaven is for Real), but to address several of the arguments made in the chapter. My goal here is to try to attempt to respond to contentions that are made often from the Charismatic and Hyper-Charismatic side, and to attempt to call my Charismatic brothers to reason. It is not meant as a personal attack against anyone in particular, especially the author. Many of these arguments are those I have found in Charismatic and (especially) Hyper-Charismatic circles, whenever someone starts to question so-called signs and wonders and miracles.

To visually differentiate between the review's text and anything else (quoted sources, bible verses, etc.), all quoted text from the review will be in purple. Everything else will be normal colored. All Bible translations, unless otherwise noted, will be from the New American Standard. With all that established, let's begin our review:

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, I’ve had the pleasure of reading different tweets and blog posts regarding Heaven Is for Real, the so-called account of Colton Burpo’s trip into heaven. Although the book has been out for a while now, the film has recaptured its popularity (or infamy) within certain church circles. Most of the commentary I have either heard or read has been relatively negative and predominately spouted from Baptist circles, those trained in Baptist seminaries and those who identify themselves as Cessationists. One influential critic of Heaven Is for Real who fits the bill in every one of these categories is John MacArthur.

One of the things I enjoy about being a part of The Anon Church is that we can interact with each other concerning differences, similarities and opinions of our like-minded faith. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that I, being charismatic, would challenge people to be very careful before they rail accusations against those who have experienced supernatural things on the account of the Gospel. Many people who have criticized Colton Burpo’s heavenly account are those who have rarely if ever encountered any sort of supernatural activity in their own life—which is strange because the kingdom of God is all about the supernatural—not dead theology with only words and no substance to back it.

The biggest thing that stuck out to me in this opening section was the charge that "many people who have criticized Colton Burpo’s heavenly account are those who have rarely if ever encountered any sort of supernatural activity in their own life". The argument is therefore made that we must somehow first experience the supernatural before we criticize it. Logically speaking, before we criticize x, we must first experience x, and then we will be able to have a better grasp on x to comment on it.

This position is a popular one among some Charismatic circles...however it is an incredibly fallacious one, and for this simple reason: you do not need to make a truth statement based solely or heavily on experience. Do I need to take meth before saying that meth is bad for you? No. Do I need to get pregnant before I can say abortion is wrong? No. Do I need to be a black person before I say Jim Crow-style racism is wrong? No. Do I need to partake of the occult before I start to say the occult is wrong? No. To summarize, in order to make a truth statement regarding all of these questions and dilemmas, experience is not necessary, only the facts at hand.

So when someone shares their supernatural experience, is it absolutely necessary to partake in the supernatural before commenting on it, or having a valid opinion on it? Absolutely, positively no. We do not need to experience anything before commenting on whether or not it is right or wrong. What we can do is hold it up to a set standard, and discern from there. An example can be seen in the fact that I can say "Meth is bad" because all medical and scientific evidence demonstrates that meth is harmful to the body and produces terrible side effects, as well as leads into harsher social evils.

In regards to supernatural experiences, the one constant we have is the written word of God. By this, we are able to see what is and isn't an act of God, and by what standards we are to hold the teaching of an individual teaching from the word of God. It is precisely why the Reformers rejected so much of the nonsense coming from the Roman Catholic mystics of the Middle Ages: because, despite all the so-called signs and wonders that they performed, and all the supernatural experiences they had beheld...in the end, they contradicted God's word, and taught doctrines well beyond it.

Let me pause here a moment to clarify that I am not a "hyper-cessationist". The common continuationist straw man against cessationism is that cessationists believe God never acts supernaturally, or never does anything miraculous or out of the ordinary, which is simply untrue, and few cessationists I know think in such a way. I do not believe that is the norm for God to act, but it is not below God to act supernaturally, and it is not impossible for supernatural things to not occur. I myself have had supernatural experiences which I cannot fully explain; however, I do not hold those experiences to be the determining factor in how I perceive God to operate, or how I perceive He should operate, nor as what God desires me to base my life around. To quote Jonathan Edwards, "God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule."

The supernatural and a “living” testimony are important aspects of the Christian faith. If you recall, that is one reason the Pharisees and Jesus did not get along. The religious leaders were stuck in a rigid, dead theological perspective surrounded by tradition, rules and regulation that allowed for zero testimony and zero power. The ministry of Jesus shook things up because it challenged dead theologians and their legalistic views of Scripture.

It is a bit sad that, this far into the article, we have already had "The Pharisee Card" pulled upon the critics of Burpo's book (Todd Burpo himself accused his critics of being Pharisees). The Pharisee Card is really the Christian equivalent of Godwin's Law: in Godwin's Law, the longer a debate goes on, the greater the chance someone is going to be compared to the Nazis; with the Pharisee Card, the longer a Christian debate goes on, the greater the chance someone is going to be called a Pharisee.

However, let us put that aside and examine this charge about the Pharisees: it is said that "the religious leaders" were "stuck in a rigid, dead theological perspective surrounded by tradition, rules and regulation that allowed for zero testimony and zero power." The author likewise states that Christ's ministry "shook things up because it challenged dead theologians and their legalistic views of Scripture."

In truth, this is only half right. It is certainly attested to by history and scripture that the Pharisees were heavy on tradition, and were likewise legalistic in their view on scripture's commands. This is the testimony of most of the gospels. It is precisely why Christ promised rest for those who were "weary and heavy-laden", and asked them to take on his yoke (Matt 11:28-30). The Pharisees were those who tied up heavy burdens and laid them upon the shoulders of men, but were unwilling to "move them with so much as a finger" (Matt 23:4). They relied heavily upon the Law and their own Jewish lineage to save them (Matt 3:9), and hence emphasized the works of man over and against God's grace and mercy.

However, that the Pharisees denied the existence of miracles or the works of the supernatural is blatantly false. We see this especially in the charge Christ lays at those Pharisees who said he cast out devils by the power of the devil, when he says to them: "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" (Matt 12:27a; Luke 11:19a). The point of Christ's rebuke here was to ask the Pharisees just who their own sons (that is, followers and members) cast out demons, if he did it by the power of the devil. What this means is that even those among the Pharisees performed some kinds of signs and wonders, and yet the Pharisees did not condemn them. If the Pharisees really were hyper-cessationists who didn't believe in any kind of supernatural occurrence, then Christ's argument would make no sense, and the Pharisees could have easily refuted him with, "Uh, they don't cast out demons. What in the heck are you talking about?"

Some sources that discuss this (all speaking on the verse from Matthew):

The latter (people of your own school; see, in general, note on Matthew 8:12) are exorcists who have even pretended actually to cast out demons (Acts 19:13; Josephus, Antt. viii. 2. 5, Bell. vii. 6. 3; Justin, c. Tryph. p. 311), who have emanated from the schools of the Pharisees, not the disciples of Jesus, as the majority of the Fathers have supposed. [Heinrich Meyer's commentary; source]

The children are the disciples of the Pharisees, who either really possessed the power of casting out evil spirits, or pretended to have that power. In either case the argument of Jesus was unanswerable. [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; source]

...[Christ] means, some among themselves, who pretended to have a power of exorcising and ejecting of devils, either in the name of Jesus, as some of them did, Mark 9:38 or in the name of their kings, righteous men, prophets and patriarchs, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and which practice, perhaps, they took up and made pretensions to, in imitation of Christ and his apostles; so as Christ healed men possessed of devils, they also affected to do the same. A story is reported, 'concerning Ben Talmion, that a miracle was wrought by R. Eleazar bar Jose, who healed a king's daughter at Rome, in whose body the devil entered, whose name was Ben Talmion...'" [John Gill's commentary; source]

It is also important to note how the Pharisees reacted to all of Christ's miracles. They never once contend against them with "miracles can't happen" - rather, they always argue about the circumstances around the miracles. Some examples:

• When a man with a withered hand comes near Christ, the concern of the Pharisees is not whether or not the man can be healed supernaturally, but if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath (Matt 12:10).
• When Christ exorcises demons, the Pharisees do not contend whether or not exorcisms can take place, only that Christ was doing it by the power of the devil, not God (Matt 9:34).
• When a paralytic comes to Christ for healing, the contention of the Pharisees is not "Healings don't take place", but rather that Christ, by saying the man's sins are forgiven, is blaspheming (Mark 2:6-7).
• When the lame man is healed by Jesus, the Pharisees do not get upset at him with "What are you talking about? Healings can't take place!" Rather, their anger is directed at the fact that the man was carrying his bed on the Sabbath, and Christ was healing on the Sabbath (John 5:10, 16).
• When the Pharisees interview the man born blind, their contention is not that such a miracle could never take place, but that Christ, being a supposed sinner, could not have been the one to make the miracle (John 9:24 - by the way, this point will be relevant later).

The point of all this is that the idea the Pharisees were somehow hyper-cessationists is simply untrue, and hence is a completely erroneous position to take.

Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that it is right for contemporary Christians to change the Gospel. However, you need to recognize that the Bible does not mention everything concerning the supernatural, or our like-minded faith. There are going to be things that we encounter that aren’t specifically mentioned in Scripture, or are otherwise obscure in the text. This is why we always need to be ready to pour new wine into new wineskins, so to speak. We need to be able to adapt to what God wants to do today. If we’re being completely honest, this was the Achilles heel of the religious leaders in the days of Christ.

Of course there are certain things God will do today which may not be specifically mentioned in scripture, but once again how do we discern what is and isn't the work of God? How do we know God is behind something, or something that God "wants to do today"? In fact, if something goes beyond the word of God, it might be worth pausing and simply examining to see if it goes against or contrary to what scripture tells us. For example, anything in which a person loses control of their ability to move and causes them to act against the will of their body - which was always a sign of demonic possession in scripture (Matt 17:14-15; Mark 5:5; etc.) - is most likely not under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps it can be put another way. In scientific experiments, you tend to have two groups: your constants, and your variables. Which is your standard for understanding how something operates? It is the constant. Constants are always the same, hence the name; variables change - again, hence the name. Scripture presents us with these constants, and the variables are judged by them.

The issue is that many in Charismatic circles desire other Christians to throw out those constants and experience and believe what goes well beyond the constants, and instead rely on the variables. Imagine a conversation like this:

Person A: "Hey man! I froze my water at 98°F!"
Person B: "Uh, that can't be - water typically freezes at 32°F. I think you got something else going on there, and that's why your water hardened."
Person A: "Look, you just live by cold, dead science! Get out of your facts and figures and just embrace this new science!"

This conversation wouldn't make any sense on a scientific level, of course. Most would recognize Person A is ignoring the constants of his field and is trying to dance around it by inventing new, undiscerning standards. Yet for many in Charismatic circles, it is precisely what they are desiring to happen within the church, only with the constants of God.

Jesus was big on supernatural acts and encounters. He was big on the demonstration of the power of God. This is something that is lacking in the church today–something that was not lacking at all in the early church. Jesus stated emphatically concerning the demonstration of the power of God:

"If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:37, 38 ESV)

Jesus made the declaration that works (meaning his supernatural works) were just as important as the teachings coming out of his mouth. It always amazes me when teachers like John MacArthur write books on subjects they have zero experience in. I’m curious: when was the last time a guy like John MacArthur cast a spirit out of someone, healed the sick, or demonstrated a miracle in his ministry?

The reason Christ performed many "supernatural acts" was because it was foretold the Messiah would perform such acts. This was precisely why Christ referred to the prophecies concerning the Messiah's miracles when John the Baptist's disciples asked if he was indeed the Messiah (Matt 11:2-6). Christ's signs and wonders were part of his mark as the Messiah, and confirmed just who he was.

The author's appeal to John 10:37-38 is also problematic. He concludes that Christ is saying supernatural works are just as important as the teachings coming from his mouth, and applies this to criticize Cessationists who have performed no miracles in their ministry. However, Christ is referring to his works as a proof of his Messianic status...as well as his divinity. In John's gospel, Christ's use of phrases such as "the Father is in me and I am in the Father" are in reference to the unity of the act of God the Father and God the Son in harmony within the Trinity. Remember that this is the same chapter in which Christ states: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:29-30). For this, the Jews pick up stones to stone him, because he, being a man, was making himself out to be God (John 10:31, 33). Again, Christ's use of "supernatural works" here is not the same thing as so-called supernatural works in Charismatic theology - unless, of course, the author wishes to state that we are also divine like Christ is.

Note, also, the repetition of the fallacious presupposition of "You need experience in something to criticize it". Our author states: "It always amazes me when teachers like John MacArthur write books on subjects they have zero experience in". If John MacArthur were arguing "I have experience in this, therefore I can criticize it," that point might be legitimate - however, that is not what Mister MacArthur says. Again, if I wanted to write a book on how bad meth was on the human body, would I have to go and experience meth for an extended period of time before I even thought about opening up a Word document? Absolutely not.

Yes, the religious are so quick to point out that Christians aren’t the ones doing the miracles—”It’s Jesus who does them!” True, but that’s exactly what the Pharisees said when a blind man claimed Jesus healed him (John 9:25). They said, “Give glory to God.” They were so incensed that supernatural power was existent in Jesus’ life that they wanted to put him in his place. It’s called religiosity.

The citation from John 9 is a bit misplaced, since (as we established earlier) the Jewish leadership was only hesitant to give any glory to Christ because they believed him to be sinner rather than Messiah, and were opposed to his ministry. You see this in the part of the verse which was not quoted: "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner" (John 9:24 - not verse 25). There is also a follow up comment they make to the formerly blind man, when they say: "We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from." (John 9:29). Their contention with this healing was not merely that the healing occurred, but rather the healing occurred on the Sabbath (John 9:14), and hence, to the Pharisees, that made Christ a sinner. A sinner like Christ, they reasoned, could not perform such miracles (John 9:16). Therefore, it was not that the Pharisees denied miracles could exist - rather, it was whether or not Jesus could perform miracles.

I’m always leery of ministers who seem to know a lot about God and the supernatural, yet they’ve never encountered anything supernatural about God. These people think they know a lot about Scripture–holding conferences and seminars blasting those who are moving in God’s power–yet they greatly err in their theology because they don’t know the Bible or the power of God as well as they think (Matt. 22:29).

Once again, we have to ask: is experience necessary in a position or topic before stating whether or not the subject or topic is erroneous? Should I give birth to a few babies before I say abortion is murder? Should I be forced to endure 1950's Jim Crow laws before I go to a Martin Luther King Day parade?

In my life, I have encountered a great deal of supernatural incidents, both godly and demonic. I remember a couple of trips to Jamaica when our teams held revival meetings in which many people were healed of physical injuries and relieved from demonic influence. This kind of thing is very common in third-world nations where people practice higher levels of spirituality. Consequently, there are more supernatural encounters in these places.

However, there are also those in third-world countries such as Jamaica, who practice the black arts including Voodooism and Obeah. Many of these people attend Christian meetings either because they’re intrigued by Christianity or they plan to disrupt the meetings. Strangely enough, when the Holy Spirit is manifested in such a powerful way, these demon-possessed people begin to act out. Consequently, we saw people slithering on the ground like snakes, barking like dogs and just plain acting like a bunch of idiots.

What did we do about it?

Well, we didn’t go back to America and report how “ungodly” and “demonic” the meetings were. We didn’t go and write some silly book called Strange Fire where we rip apart and insult the power of God because we were too ignorant to recognize what was going on. Instead, we exorcised the spirits out of these people and introduced them to our Lord who was actually responsible for setting them free. Amen?

We didn’t stand there like a bunch of saps in a theological discussion and mull over how barking like a dog and slithering like a snake was not “godly.” We didn’t close up shop and head home because our nice, quiet little church service was being disrupted by the forces of evil. We dealt with it just like Jesus would have and just like Paul would have.

You got all that?

Of course, some of you may wonder how we were so sure that the spirits were actually cast out of people…

Well, when 20 out of 20 people all vomit up the same white foam out of their mouths, suddenly stop acting like a bunch of idiots, and begin praising God–that’s generally a good indicator.

Remember, if you will, that this is listed as a "Book Review." At this point, one has to wonder if this is more of a thinly veiled attempt to strike at John MacArthur and the Strange Fire Conference, since little has been mentioned about Heaven is for Real up to this point (and the author himself will admit this in a moment). I have to also admit that it is a bit strange to ask one side to show grace towards those who have experienced the supernatural, and yet turn around and call them "a bunch of saps." In fact, it is very ungracious.

Now, I am not going to enter a game of "who's side is more meaner", because I'll freely admit there are cessationists out there who are very ungracious. However, from extended personal experience, I have found - whether it be a random guy on the internet, or the pastor of a large church, or someone high up in a major ministry - that the Charismatic and Hyper-Charismatic response to discernment and criticism will often quickly devolve into ad hominems, personal attacks, snide remarks, etc. The minute you start to say "I don't think this is biblical" or "So-and-so is abusing scripture based on his personal experiences", you get the Pharisee card, you get accused of not really listening to God, etc. Again, I am not saying there aren't kind of rational Charismatics out there, but (again, from extended personal experience) whenever I and others encounter this kind of vitriol from the opposite side, we can only say, "Well...here we go again..."

Putting this aside - it is certainly true that there seem to be "more supernatural encounters" in "third-world countries", but as I spoke with my friend Kofi of Fiery Logic on a podcast episode about the state of African Christianity today, the very reason there are more supernatural encounters, and why Charismatic churches catch on so quickly, is because the paganistic rituals and the so-called "supernatural encounters" found in many circles of Charismatic churches are one and the same, or at least very practically identical. The "higher levels of spirituality" are not productive. I would suggest listening to the podcast, as we go into more detail there on the subject than this blog post permits.

The church in America has seen a move of God a few times in recent years, and many ignorant Christians have seen these “strange” manifestations described above and automatically concluded that these meetings “must be of the devil” because they don’t understand the spiritual dynamics going on. Of course, it is also safe to say that some of the Christians in attendance at these meetings didn’t understand it either and ended up attributing some of these demonic manifestations to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Being a person of faith in Jesus means being able to discern both demonic influence and the power of God. Paul did this very well in his ministry when he and Silas encountered a slave girl who was actually praising them for being “servants of the Most High God” (Acts 16:16-18). Paul recognized that it was demonic activity influencing this girl and not some righteous zeal for the faith.

The issue is, once again, there is very little sign of this in mainstream Charismatic thinking, or in much of what calls itself Charismatic theology. That is not to say there are no discerning Charismatics (they do exist, and God bless 'em), but while it is one thing to say we should accurately define what is and isn't the work of God, we need to see if such a notion is carried out in application. For example, the International House of Prayer would probably say they discern spirits...so why do they think a girl shaking uncontrollably for two whole hours is a sign of the Holy Spirit?

On a side note, it is interesting that our author claims "being a person of faith in Jesus means being able to discern both demonic influence and the power of God"...but again, how do we go about this? It cannot be by a special gift of the Holy Spirit, for the "distinguishing of spirits" (1 Cor 12:10) is listed by Paul as one of the "variety" of gifts (1 Cor 12:4), which God sends out "to each one individually just as He wills" (1 Cor 12:11), and which Paul makes quite clear, throughout the rest of the chapter, not every single Christian has (this passage also refutes the notion that all Christians are supposed to be able to speak in tongues).

The answer, once again, is by the word of Almighty God. As the prophet Isaiah said concerning mediums and spiritists: "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20).

Yes, you may have noticed that I have not mentioned one thing regarding the film Heaven Is for Real. That’s because I don’t have much to say about it. I’ve read the book and saw nothing out-of-bounds with it. I’m of the strong opinion that if supernatural encounters point people to Christ and/or produce the power and manifestations of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture, then I generally tread lightly. This does not mean that I completely agree with people’s recollections of their supernatural experiences. We’re human. We make mistakes. But I would rather err on the side of caution than on the side of bordering on blasphemy.

Frankly, I was utterly flabbergasted that our author says he "read the book and saw nothing out-of-bounds with it". I will refer once again to my review of it, where I believe I demonstrate there is quite a lot that is "out-of-bounds" within the book, particularly when it comes to the resurrection.

Our author states: "I’m of the strong opinion that if supernatural encounters point people to Christ and/or produce the power and manifestations of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture, then I generally tread lightly." This is the classic logical fallacy of arguing from pragmatism; that is, if someone provides a benefit, then it's a good thing (or at the very least, it's a tolerable thing). In this specific scenario, we have two problems:

First, there is little emphasis on scripture and its authority in this book. Yes, it claims that Colton Burpo's encounters can be backed up with scripture. Yes, Todd Burpo goes on interviews and says his son's account back be backed up with scripture. However, I invite my readers to sit down and really examine what scripture says about a lot of the things Colton talks about - especially those passages quoted by the Burpos. You will find that, the vast majority of the time, scripture is twisted and turned so that Colton's experiences can fit in there; in one situation (Todd Burpo's citation of Acts 6:15), a specific translation was employed so that a specific reading would give Todd Burpo exactly the interpretation he needed. It becomes quite clear that Colton's experiences were placed over scripture, rather than seen in light of it.

Second, much of the emphasis here is not on what scripture teaches and what happens on scripture, but rather on therapeutic concerns and desires. What happens to your family members after they die? What happens to the unborn, or babies, when they die? Do animals go to heaven? These questions and others are the main focus in Heaven is for Real. When you look at scripture, there is very little concern about what happens in Heaven, or what will really happen after we die (that's not to say it's never talked about, but it's not the focus). Rather, the focal point of most of the Bible (especially those "theological" parts) is our sin, our need for redemption, and the coming resurrection and glory. Heaven is for Real, and most books like it, distract people from those things, and focus instead on factors that are meant to tug at our heart strings...and hence there is the real seduction.

Could God have saved some people through providential use of the book? Maybe. Perhaps. I won't deny that possibility. However, nothing and no one alone saves a person - rather, God alone saves someone. That God can "draw a straight line with a crooked stick" does not mean the crooked stick itself is somehow blessed, nor should it be considered profitable for a Christian. I know some believers who were saved reading the New World Translation; that does not make the NWT a translation blessed by God.

Our author follows up his previous statement with: "I would rather err on the side of caution than on the side of bordering on blasphemy." Our author is apparently of the mindset that, if one critiques the book or just flatly ignores it, might be erring towards blasphemy. Many, in fact, make these kinds of arguments in regards to supposed messages or revelations from God. However, we are forgetting that those who would readily accept what might be a fabrication are likewise erring towards blasphemy, and in fact would be breaking one of the ten commandments: using the Lord's name in vain, and "the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain" (Exo 20:7). If you want to know how seriously God takes using his name in vain, here are two other passages as examples:

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." [Deuteronomy 18:20]

“So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, that you may know that I am the Lord God.” [Ezekiel 13:9:]

"Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who are prophesying in My name, although it was not I who sent them—yet they keep saying, ‘There will be no sword or famine in this land’—by sword and famine those prophets shall meet their end!" [Jeremiah 14:15]

The idea of "using God's name in vain" does not merely mean stubbing your toe and shouting "G' d' it!" It's likewise saying, "The Lord has told us this..." when really, the Lord never spoke, or you are twisting what the word of God says. Therefore, anyone who wants to support someone claiming to have witnessed or been told things by God - and it is actually absolutely false - are, in fact, erring on the side of judgment.

At this point, our author seems to have placed us, logically, between a rock and a hard place: do we err on the side leading into blasphemy, or err on the side leading into judgment? Let me present a quote from Diadochos of Photiki, a fifth century bishop:

We have now explained the distinction between good and bad dreams, as we ourselves heard it from those with experience. In our quest for purity, however, the safest rule is never to trust to anything that appears to us in our dreams. For dreams are generally nothing more than images reflecting our wandering thoughts, or else they are the mockery of demons. And if ever God in His goodness were to send us some vision and we were to refuse it, our beloved Lord Jesus would not be angry with us, for He would know we were acting in this way because of the tricks of the demons. [On Spiritual Knowledge, 38; The Philokalia, Volume I]

Diadochos of Photiki was not concerned with "erring on the side of blasphemy", because he fully realized that demonic deception was a very real thing. We are warned in scripture that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), and if one studies the tales of monastics in the desert, many of the demonic temptations they speak of (whether you want to give credability to them or not) involved devils appearing as angels, and presenting messages that would appear, on the surface, to be mostly harmless. One has to also consider the countless Roman Catholic mystics who had visions and apparitions of Christ and the Virgin Mary that told them things which were simply heretical, or taught things that clearly did not come from God. There was good reason that the Reformers rejected these visions.

Therefore, if we ever encounter a situation in which we are unsure if Christ is truly involved - especially when it involves contradictions in scripture, or adding to the word of God - then it would be far safer to avoid it, and flee from it.

I’ve also listened to David Platt’s teaching on the Heaven Is for Real debate and thought he brought up some important points. However, I think he is mistaken on his interpretation of John 3:13 which reads, “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” It is strange to assume that Jesus is referring to heavenly encounters seeing that Enoch was taken from his earthly existence to be with God (Gen. 5:24), and both Moses and Elijah appeared to some of the disciples in glorified bodies, which indicates that they came from heaven (Matt. 17:1-5). Most likely, what Jesus was referring to was his actual physical ascension into heaven after his physical death and physical resurrection because no one has ever physically risen again and ascended into heaven. However, that interpretation is debatable.

I am not going to argue for or against David Platt's teaching on Heaven is for Real, since, at the time of this writing, I am not familiar with it

Many people have criticized some of the things Burpo claimed to have seen such as the Holy Spirit, who is apparently “blue” in color. This seems rather odd and deserves some questioning. However, you cannot disregard some of the other things that he witnessed that cannot be explained away, or even criticized such as seeing certain relatives in heaven whom he had never physically seen before, etc.

With all due respect, this is like a state prosecutor telling the jury, "I know some of the evidence suggests this man isn't guilty...but you can't disregard the evidence that says he is!" If there is evidence Colton Burpo did not hear from the true God, chances are he did not.

It is likewise problematic trying to bring up examples of relatives he saw in heaven that he formerly did not know about; mainly because it is similar to the argument made by those who support the doctrine of reincarnation. What I mean is, there are those who refer to the phenomenon of young children who suddenly begin making references to names, places, locations, etc., which they have no way of knowing...and yet can be found through research and documentation. Those who support the idea of reincarnation point to these examples and say, "See? You can't explain these things away. They're too fantastic. This must be evidence that reincarnation is true!" If we were consistent with how we are arguing in favor of Colton Burpo, we would have to argue that those who support reincarnation are likewise bringing up a good point.

However, whether it be children who supposedly know a random, insignificant person who died in the 1940's, or it's a four-year old boy claiming to have visited heaven, it is wrong to say that such things "cannot be explained away," since there is a very real and very real possibility, and one we mentioned before: demonic deception. The sad truth is that it is very possible for someone to have what they believe to be a legitimate spiritual experience...and yet which is an absolute forgery. Scripture gives such examples of such things happening:

Your prophets have seen for you false and foolish visions; And they have not exposed your iniquity so as to restore you from captivity, but they have seen for you false and misleading oracles. [Lamentations 2:14]

"Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said, ‘The Lord declares,’ but it is not I who have spoken?" [Ezekiel 13:7:]

Note very carefully: these prophets saw and experienced something. They weren't just making things up on the fly, nor going into the occult and asking advice from other gods; they thought they had experienced legitimate prophecies and visions from the Lord. If you want to see an application of this in the Bible's narrative, go to 2 Chronicles 18, where the prophet Micaiah speaks of seeing the throne room of God, and hearing God's plan to intentionally put lying spirits into the prophets, so that they will prophesy incorrectly and lead Ahab and his armies astray. Again, most of Ahab's prophets truly believed they had visions, or something prophetic to offer the war council, but they had all been deceived spiritually.

If I may be frank, this is something I notice lacking very much in many Charismatic circles: a sincere interest in looking out for demonic deception. If our attitude is one in which we think it is better to believe than be concerned, then we are naive about the workings in the spiritual world.

We need to be careful about what kinds of accusations we lay at God’s door because one day we will answer for it. If God wants to show a 4-year-old boy the glory of heaven and use his experience to confound the wise theologians of the world—then that’s his prerogative and there isn’t anything you can do to change that. Besides, how do you know that Jesus didn’t specifically choose a 4-year-old on purpose so that even the most stubborn person would recognize the fact that the youngster had no motive, no agenda and nothing to gain from peddling a “near death experience?” And don’t go accusing Colton Burpo of making millions off of his “vision” because he had no idea that a book deal and a film would come out of it being 4-years-old. I’ve even read tweets from people who mock the idea that Christians should even be entertaining what a “little boy” has to say about heaven.

Oh, the irony…

We are told: "If God wants to show a 4-year-old boy the glory of heaven and use his experience to confound the wise theologians of the world—then that’s his prerogative and there isn’t anything you can do to change that." I am not aware of any "wise theologians" being "confounded" by Colton Burpo's testimony (most have provided biblical arguments for why it's wrong, and have merely been met with "You're a Pharisee!"). Likewise, while it is true that God could want to do that, the question is did he. I'm sorry to say, Colton Burpo's testimony either adds to God's word (at which point, we have to accept it as extra-scriptural revelation), or it contradicts it (at which point, we have to consider it false). When we see this happening, we have to go with the conclusion that Colton Burpo did not have a legitimate spiritual experience.

Also, it has never been my personal position that Colton or Todd Burpo have done anything merely for profit. It could be the case on Todd's part, or it could be both father and son think they are doing good. However, even if both have honorable desires, it is best to remember that the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," not "the road to heaven." When Muhammad began to preach against the idolatry and social corruption he saw in Mecca, he and his followers thought they were doing good - that didn't make it automatically right. Noble intentions do not equal right intentions.

Some of you would do well to read John 9 over and over again until it sinks in. You’ll notice how Jesus played a little game with the Pharisees—almost to the point of mocking them through his supernatural power. This chapter provides clear evidence that sometimes God bends our strict rigid traditions and rules in order to make a point. The message in this chapter is simple: Those who are blind will see the truth and those who think they see, will become blind.

The point of John 9 is that Christ has power over spiritual blindness and sight. That is why Christ called the Pharisees blind at the end: not to mock their opinion on supernatural signs and wonders (which we've already established is an erroneous argument), but rather to mock their view of themselves as saved and secured of God. Consider the last part of John 9:

Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him. And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains. [John 9:35-41]

Even after he had endured, the blind man had only one desire regarding the man who healed him: to believe in him. When Christ reveals who he is, the blind man falls down and worships him at once, showing his faith. Christ's statement that he came into this world for judgment, so that "those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind," he is referring to spiritual sight, and spiritual blindness. The Pharisees, who had called the blind man "born entirely in sins" (John 9:34), had believed themselves to be righteous above others. It is similar to Christ's words regarding why those who opposed him did not understand the parables: "to you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted...therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matt 13:11, 13).

John 9, in short, has nothing to do with "bending our strict rigid traditions and rules in order to make a point."

No, you don’t have to believe the testimony in Heaven Is for Real in order to keep your salvation (even as ironic as that sounds), but what I would like you to do is to be more careful before making a critical judgment regarding testimonies that have to do with our like-minded salvation–especially when it involves something that God may be doing. Don’t get me wrong, there have been supernatural encounters that I have heard about, which I have questioned. However, I do not have a blanket policy of willfully rejecting any and all supernatural encounters just because I feel like it.

If I did, that would make me no better than a Pharisee.

And the "review" ends as it began: with the Pharisee Card. This is based upon, as we established earlier, the utterly incorrect notion that the historical Pharisees had "a blanket policy of willfully rejecting any and all supernatural encounters," and they opposed Christ simply because he enacted supernatural feats and wonders. As we established before, the Pharisees were not hyper-cessationists, and therefore to in essence argue that you should be gracious towards spiritual revelations and experiences or you're a Pharisee is simply contrary to the Biblical and historical facts.

We are told that we won't lose our salvation if we don't believe in the testimony, although earlier we were told: "we need to be careful about what kinds of accusations we lay at God’s door because one day we will answer for it" (emphasis mine); and those who might criticize the book "err on the side...of bordering on blasphemy". We are even told (after the salvation comment) that we need to "be more careful before making a critical judgment...when it involves something that God may be doing." This is not new to our author - it is often how Hyper-Charismatics and some Charismatics argue in regards to revelations given to individuals. On the one hand, it's OK to disagree; on the other hand, it is ungracious, un-Christian, etc., to oppose these individuals and their teachings. In some cases, your very salvation may be questioned.

To my Charismatic brothers, I must be honest: this kind of thinking is an example of compartmentalization. The fact is, if Colton Burpo really did hear from God (and he's never claimed "this might be true"), and, as Jo Anne Lyon, General Superintendent of the Wesleyan Church, says in the recommendations page for the book, "God has chosen to speak to us in this twenty-first century through the unblemished eyes of a child, revealing some of the mysteries of heaven", then Colton Burpo speaks with God's authority. As we saw in the passages we reviewed, there is no middle ground with "thus sayeth the Lord." Either Colton Burpo really did hear from God, and those who oppose him will, one day, answer for their sins; or Colton Burpo did not hear from God, and he and his family need to repent for speaking in the Lord's name when the Lord has not sent them.

As I said before, this was not meant to be merely an examination of a single post, but to address common arguments made against those who discern so-called revelations and supernatural acts. When this discerning happens, it is done out of love for God's word. I have had experiences in the past where people online pretended to be family members, trying to get financial "help" - just as I was eager to discern this to check for deception, so too do I want to discern to avoid spiritual deception. If anything, we should be far more concerned with spiritual deception than we should be with earthly identity theft.

No matter what our emotions may desire, and no matter what we think may pragmatically be beneficial, we must hold to the word of God. Let us say, with the Psalmist, "I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word" (Psa 119:16).

****

UPDATE - JANUARY 22, 2015: It has come to my attention that the article was taken down at the original website. I have not found it on the author's Medium page either (where it was formerly listed as well). I have not received any real explanation for this dual disappearance, though I do find it interesting.