Talking about IHOP-KC and Scripture: My Second Appearance on the Long for Truth Podcast

I was on the Long for Truth podcast again to talk about the teachings of Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer. This time, we specifically focused on whether or not IHOP-KC truly holds scripture up as their standard. As we discussed and explained, Mike Bickle and company do not, in fact, hold scripture up as their final standard.

The link to their original blog post can be found here.

The podcast can be listened to below:

Listen to "Mike Bickle and Scripture: With Tony- Allen" on Spreaker.

Talking about IHOP-KC: My Appearance on the Long for Truth Podcast

Recently I was asked to come on the Long for Truth podcast to talk about the teachings of Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer. We talked about a variety of topics, from Bickle's teaching of a Kenotic Jesus to what IHOP-KC teaches on the power of prayer, as well as a bit on prophecy and what Bickle teaches it means. I pray that God uses to reach out to His sheep and save them from false doctrine.

The original blog post can be found here, over at the Long for Truth blog.

The podcast can be listened to below:

Listen to "The Dangers of Mike Bickle Part 2 With Tony Allen" on Spreaker.

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.

Over-Importance of the End Times

There was recently an article posted on the IHOP-KC blog entitled: Why We Can’t Know the Day or the Hour: the Commandment to Know the Generation of the Lord’s Return. It was written by Adam Wittenberg, who serves on IHOP-KC's marketing department. I wanted to write a response to it, not only because of some of the erroneous teachings it bears, but also because it makes an amazing statement regarding eschatology which I felt convicted to address.

As I often do, all quotes from the article will be in purple. I'll be quoting the entirety of the article over the course of the blog post, but feel free to read the blog post in full before reading this blog post.

We know from Scripture there’s a storm on the horizon. It’s already here in many ways, and it’s going to increase. Darkness will intensify in the generation of the Lord’s return, and the more severe the darkness gets, the closer His return gets.

We find this tension and paradox in the end times—there will be the most intense darkness, and yet the greatest measure of the Spirit’s power and glory will be released. Both dynamics will be operating on the earth at the same time.

Scripture offers us many reasons to hope, yet without a solid understanding of the biblical narrative, we are left with a secular narrative, which will lead to confusion, fear, and offense.

Note that this article starts off with the presupposition that IHOP-KC's eschatology is correct, and takes it for granted that all the evil we see in the world is what is described in scripture as what will happen in the end times.

Obviously, any group, theologian, etc., is going to take certain beliefs for granted. The relevancy here is that this eschatology is grounded upon Mike Bickle's complete abuse of scripture, whether it's interpreting Haggai to mean the building of IHOP-KC (see my post here), or how Psalm 2 is a major end-times prophecy, even though the New Testament writers interpreted it as a prophecy of the death and resurrection of Christ (see my podcast here). Therefore, the presupposition here is important to note, since we will soon see Mr. Wittenberg commit a false dichotomy between IHOP-KC eschatology and secular thinking.

This applies to believers. There are many in the church today who say things like, “I love Jesus, but I’m not into the end times.” Instead of trying to search the Scriptures, they’re content to live off of someone else’s understanding.

I stop here because this is perhaps the most ironic thing someone can write on an IHOP-KC website. We shouldn't "live off of someone else's understanding" of the end times? That's precisely what happens at IHOP-KC: everything is grounded upon the teachings and personal revelations of Mike Bickle. This has been attested by those who were former members and experienced this cultic veneration of Bickle's authority firsthand (see my blog post here, as well as the post here). This is likewise attested by the simple fact that, the minute IHOP-KC supporters stray from Bickle's teachings and are forced to deal with scripture's context, and how the church has interpreted passages throughout history, their entire position falls apart (see, for example, my blog post here).

I invite any IHOP-KC supporters reading this blog post to attempt this themselves: without appealing to Bickle, or anyone else at IHOP-KC, try to look at the original context of scripture, and try to teach that there will be an end times, night-and-day prayer forerunner movement based on John the Baptist. I can promise you that you will come up with zero justification for such a doctrine.

Yet there are more than 150 chapters in the Bible that talk about the generation and events surrounding Christ’s return. God wants us to have more than a basic understanding of this.

Contrary to what some say, it is intensely practical—and relevant—to learn about the end times. Because without knowledge we are left with human logic, reasoning, and the secular narrative to interpret these events, and that will not help us amidst the intense pressures.

I have to wonder about that "150 chapters" number, given, as we saw earlier, Mike Bickle will apply eschatological interpretations of non-eschatological passages (eg., Psalm 2). There's also a tendency for IHOP-KC to take many passages regarding the church at large, and read the end-times prayer movement into it (for example, Isaiah 62:6). One can't help but wonder how much that 150 number would drop if all those chapters received a much more serious study.

More importantly, note what Mr. Wittenberg says here: it is important to know about "the generation and events surrounding Christ's return," because without that knowledge we are left with "human logic, reasoning, and the secular narrative to interpret these [current] events." This is the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier; that is, either we know the generation and events around Christ's return, or we're left being no better than atheists trying to make heads or tails of world events.

On the contrary, not having a dramatic narrative of the end times akin to Left Behind (though IHOP-KC denies the pre-tribulation rapture) has not caused much trouble for people of other eschatological mindsets. Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, and others have never been too troubled by current events, even with a denial of special knowledge regarding "the generation and events" regarding Christ's return. Those who see the moral decline in our current society can point to Romans 1, and say that the writers of the New Testament saw firsthand how a society could decline. Those who see the rise of false religions know such things were spoken of in the New Testament times. Even those without a scholarly understanding of Revelation are perfectly capable of comprehending the book's central theme, which is that, no matter what may happen, God still wins.

What gives such people peace, if they don't have the same elaborate knowledge which Mike Bickle and company do? It's the fact that Christ is sovereign, that our King is already set on His hill, and still reigns. This is why countless Christians have faced persecution and certain death for dozens of hundreds of years. The people who suffered under the Roman Empire, facing brutal torture and death, did so without any knowledge of the "generation and events" regarding Christ's return. Why do we suddenly need to know this to "help us amidst the intense pressures"? An honest and balanced review of various eschatological views, as well as even a cursory study of church history, shows we don't.

One of the greatest misconceptions in the church is that since Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour of His return, except the Father (Matthew 24:36), we can’t know the season either. But Jesus commanded His people to know the generation. He said that those living in the generation of His return would know it.

In Matthew 24, after laying out the signs of His return, Jesus says, “So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors” (Matthew 24:33)! That’s not a suggestion; that’s a command—know these things, because “this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (vs. 34).

Mr. Wittenberg interprets Matthew 24:33 as a command; we are commanded to know the generation. Is the verse a command? There's nothing deriving from the text itself to suggest it is. The NASB reads: "when you see all these things, recognize that He is near." Even if IHOP-KC wishes to say that "recognize" must be a command, it's not to be taken as one at face value. Christ is simply saying that if the acts he is describing happen, then the people will recognize what's going on - they'll have a logical inference from the state of things. It'd be like if I said, "When the low fuel light comes on, know that it's time to fill the car." That's not a command to fill the car, that's just a logical conclusion from the situation. Likewise, when Christ says "when you see all these things, recognize that He is near," that's not commanding all believers to study about "the generation and events surrounding Christ's return"; Christ is simply stating that, if we see all these things, we'll then know that it's close to other events about to unfold.

But Wittenberg states that "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place," referencing Matthew 24:34. He's obviously applying it to a future generation, outside of Christ's immediate audience. Is such an interpretation possible?

We need to remember that, earlier in the chapter, Christ had spoken of the destruction of the Temple (Mt 24:2), which would eventually come about in 70 AD by Roman armies under General (later Emperor) Titus. As they sit on the Mount of Olives, the disciples ask, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt 24:3). Matthew then records that Jesus said "to them" (αὐτοῖς - plural), "See to it that no one misleads you (ὑμᾶς - plural)" (Mt 24:4). Christ is directly speaking to the disciples who had asked that question. Immediately we recognize that Christ's audience are the disciples, and hence everything Christ says would have to be somehow relevant to the disciples and the very first believers. This is likewise clear in the language of verse 33: "you also," from Mr. Wittenberg's translation, or "you too" in the NASB. The point is, Christ is clarifying that he is speaking to his present audience. In my conversation with Allen Hood, I asked him if he believed Christ could return that very minute, as we were speaking, and he replied no. According to such logic, and according to IHOP-KC's interpretation of Matthew 24:33, Christ saying "you too" to the disciples was completely nonsensical.

After much of Christ's description about coming events, we get to the part where Christ speaks of "this generation."

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." [Matthew 24:34]

Christ, speaking to the disciples, says that "this generation" (γενεὰ αὕτη) will not pass away before the events he describes will take place. Within the Gospel of Matthew, Christ had used "this generation" before, and in all occurrences, it references the generation at that time (cf. Mt 11:16; 12:42, 45; 23:36). This isn't counting the other times Christ uses the word "generation" in reference to that current generation (cf. Mt 12:39; 16:4; 17:17). Within the teachings of Christ, and especially within the Gospel of Matthew specifically, we can only assume that the γενεὰ Christ is speaking of are those believers who lived at the time of Christ. For certain many interpreters have stumbled over the meaning of "this generation" (not just Bickle), but I would argue this stems from a tendency for man to read his eschatology into verses, rather than letting the verses form his eschatology.

In brief, Christ does not speak here of a special, future generation during which several specific events will take place. That would make the use of "this generation," as well as Christ's use of "you," completely nonsensical in this context.

What, therefore, is Christ speaking of? I actually hope to write a longer post on this, but I would argue it is a future judgment against Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jewish nation, which would be seen from the mid-to-late 60's AD, culminating in the destruction of the city and Temple in 70 AD. This would mean it happens at the tail-end of "this generation," and indeed many of the disciples listening to Christ (for example, John) were still alive. If one studies the events around Jerusalem's destruction, and the events described by Christ, you find a near perfect parallel. It likewise makes sense given Christ's language of approaching judgment upon the Jewish nation,

I know by saying this I've stepped on a lot of people's toes - not just IHOP-KC's, but brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope, however, this will not distract them from my larger point: 1) Jesus does not "command" Christians to engage in studious eschatology regarding an end times movement; 2) when one interprets Matthew 24, they must do it with the realization that Christ's words were relevant, somehow, to the believers present, not just believers 2000 years down the road.

We are very likely living in the early days of that generation. It’s not too early to prepare ourselves, and our children, for the return of Christ.

For the first time in history, all of the signs leading up to His return are increasing on a global scale at the same time. Various signs have been present since Christ ascended, but we live in a day and hour when they are rising globally.

What signs and wonders? Much of this is based on Mike Bickle's poor handling of Acts 2 and Joel 2, especially in the way he divides Acts 2:19 into two separate parts (see my blog post here). Many other supposed signs and wonders either didn't happen or were exaggerated and changed over time (for example, Bob Jones' drought prophecy).

Notice also "we are very likely living in the early days of that generation." IHOP-KC here, and many times in the past, has openly stated that Christ is coming back soon - whether in several decades or less, they don't know. (They don't make the same error as Harold Camping.) They literally believe they are part of an end times movement. The wiggle room of "we are very likely" here is interesting, however, as I've heard IHOP-KC personalities (such as Allen Hood) explicitly say that we are in the early days of that generation. One has to wonder if IHOP-KC may be getting a little bit anxious.

In these days, we need to gain more understanding of what Jesus said will happen in that generation. We need to study Scripture and to grow in knowledge of our Messiah who is coming.

Jesus warned that deception is one of the greatest threats to believers in the end times (Matthew 24). In light of this, we need to fill up on God’s truth like never before.

When you know what the Bible is referring to by all of these things, you’ll act differently. You’ll live differently. You’ll make different decisions.

Those who speak His truth will be lights in the darkness, helping turn others from death to life and keeping believers on the path.

Here is the crux of these end times movements: they place a high importance on eschatology, to the point that it nearly eclipses the gospel. Note that Mr. Wittenberg says "when you know what the Bible is referring to," you'll "act differently," "live differently," and "make different decisions." These are all things which, throughout Christian history, have been said of the Gospel.

One strong passage in this regard:

Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. [Colossians 3:1-7]

It is through the Gospel, and the sanctifying work by the Spirit, that we find we begin to act, live, and make decisions differently. From Christ's work on the cross, we are made new creatures. It is all owing to the salvific work of the Trinitarian God.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. [Ephesians 2:8-10]

It is never any wonder to me that, when I encounter people from IHOP-KC or similar movements, a common trait I find is they struggle with the Gospel. They have issues with depression, or doubts about their salvation, or show a lack of knowledge in regards to God's work of redemption. It's not that you would never hear anything close to the Gospel at IHOP-KC, Bethel Church, or anywhere else in the New Apostolic Reformation movement; it's just that something else is tacked onto the Gospel, and something else is made of equal importance. You are told that, now you are a Christian, something else is expected of you, and you are made to focus on that even more than the Gospel.

Am I saying Christians can't study eschatology? Not at all. Eschatology can be interesting, and sometimes (if done properly) it can nurture your understanding of the Gospel. Yet when we make eschatology as important as the Gospel - or we make eschatology serve the same purpose as the Gospel - we in essence create another form of Law. For those involved in IHOP-KC, or other New Apostolic Reformation movements, a heavy burden has been placed upon them, and for many it is too much to bear.

If you’re seeking greater knowledge of the end times and how to recognize the generation of the Lord’s return, check out Mike’s newest book, God’s Answer to the Growing Crisis: A Bold Call to Action in the End Times from Charisma House. Gain a fresh biblical perspective on the agenda to secularize and de-Christianize America; what the upsurge of secular humanism looks like; the rise of ISIS and Islamic extremists; and the looming financial crisis. Readers will overcome fear and confusion in the last days and learn to pray effectively for this nation and the world.

And herein is the cognitive dissonance I mentioned earlier: after being told we shouldn't "live off of someone else's understanding," we are in essence told live off Mike Bickle's understanding. I once spoke with a former IHOP-KC member who took a class studying a passage of scripture, and it was based solely off of Mike Bickle's commentary. When asked why they weren't looking at anyone else's commentary, the man was in essence told, "Who are you to question Mike Bickle?" I've walked into the bookstore at IHOP-KC, and I was shocked to find literally wall-to-wall copies of Mike Bickle's teachings on various subjects. If anyone thinks that IHOP-KC's teachings and doctrines aren't somehow grounded upon Mike Bickle's teachings and his person, then they are living with a spiritual blindness.

This article, though brief and perhaps not as detailed as other articles we've looked at, is but one example of the scriptural mishandling which happens at IHOP-KC, but more importantly why IHOP-KC's doctrine is so dangerous. It seduces people by promising a higher sense of spirituality, as well as a chance to make sense of what is going on. As I mentioned before on a podcast explaining forerunners, IHOP-KC promises order and sense to those who might be struggling with rising sin during this era. In the end, however, it only latches chains onto those who should be free under their King.

Do we need to know an end times narrative in order to feel peace with the world? Do we need to know this narrative in order to act, live, and think differently? No - as we saw before, from the very pages of scripture, all we need is the Gospel.

I hope and pray this article serves the body, and serves to awaken some within IHOP-KC to this error. God bless.

IHOP-KC Supports "The Shack"

Recently, on the International House of Prayer's website, an article was posted about the new movie The Shack, based on the book of the same name. It was written by Jono Hall, COO of IHOP-KC, and is entitled Is the Film, The Shack Heresy? I'll be quoting the article in full, albeit in chunks, but feel free to click on the link provided and read it in one go before continuing here. For the sake of visual organization, any part quoted from the article will be typed in purple.

Before we begin the article proper, I want to, in the immortal words of Prince Humperdinck, "skip to the end," and address a section added at the end of the article:

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the International House of Prayer.

Whoa, wait a minute, IHOP-KC! This isn't a guest-post you permitted someone from another organization to put up; this was posted on your website, shared by your Twitter account, and was written not only by one of your staff members, but your Chief-Operations-Officer - in other words, someone in high-ranking leadership. That's not to mention that, according to his biography, he is "an instructor at IHOPU in subjects such as church history, basic christian beliefs, and media production," and his wife is "Director of Forerunner Media Institute at IHOPU." My point is, don't post something by one of your top and most influential leaders, go out and advertise it, then try, at the same time, to distance yourself from it, or leave some wiggle room to escape if this backfires. This is your baby, IHOP-KC - own it.

As we dig deeper into the article, the discerning reader will see just why IHOP-KC might want some wiggle room.

Across the country this week, church pastors and teachers will stand before congregations, open their Bible, and talk about God. They will try, as they are able, to convey something about who God is, His divine nature, His attributes, His ways, and His emotions. My guess is that few will get it exactly right, unless all they do is read the Bible. Some will seriously misrepresent God. Teaching about God is a heavy responsibility and that is why James said, “Not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). My question is, how wrong do these people have to be to be considered “heretics” by other brothers?

The reason I bring this up is because of the hubbub around a movie that will be released today (March 3) called The Shack. I’m sure you have heard of the book; it has, after all, sold over 22 million copies. It has ministered healing to the many millions who have read it, but, on the other side of the coin, has provoked a firestorm of criticism from those who call it heresy and false teaching and say it should be avoided in the same way as pornography.

Immediately we have a classic ploy used by many to soften the blow of heresy by in essence appealing to divergent viewpoints. Mr. Hall basically tells us, "Thousands will preach the Bible on Sunday, but only few will get it exactly right, will they not?" This leads into the question, "how wrong do these people have to be to be considered 'heretics' by other brothers?"

One would think from this that we were discussing topics like who you think wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, or whether you're a Postmillennial that believes the thousand years are literal or a Postmillennial that holds it's figurative. I wish this were the case, since one could rightfully say that we should be gracious about divergent views; unfortunately, this isn't at all what we are talking about. We're talking about a story which portrays God the Father bearing crucifixion scars, which talks about theological issues but never once quotes the Bible, and which portrays judgment in light of personal reconciliation sans any justice of God.

What Mr. Hall is doing here is equivocating lighter differences with larger ones, as if we should treat one like the other. While that may not seem terribly obvious here, it will become more clear as we continue.

Before I examine some of the controversy, I do want to say that we were visited last week by Brad Cummings who is both co-writer of the novel and co-producer of the film. As Brad served as a pastor at the Malibu Vineyard Fellowship during the 1990’s, we found we had mutual friends and we shared some stories before I listened to some of Brad’s personal, and at times painful, journey in the making of The Shack. We spent an enjoyable time together talking about some of the challenges that people have had with the novel before we saw a preview of the movie.

To give a little background to the storyline of The Shack, it follows a man named Mack who, after the murder of one of his children, is invited to spend time in a mountain shack with three individuals who turn out to be the three persons of the Trinity. The ensuing conversations and interactions with “God” lead to much healing in Mack’s life.

I must say I really enjoyed the movie. It was a well-told story of forgiveness and healing. I always have grace for movie directors who are trying to reduce a cherished book into a much-shortened movie format. Meddling with people’s imaginations is always going to be a challenge. However, I think that the storm of criticism surrounding The Shack is found in another area entirely!

That the story is about a man meeting God representing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit inside a shack should have immediately sent up red flags for Mr. Hall. As I pointed out in my own review of the book, this is in essence a really bad metaphor of the Trinity put into novel form, now film. It's on par with comparing the Trinity to water being liquid, ice, or steam (which is Modalism), or comparing the Trinity to a man who's a grandfather, a father, and an uncle (again, Modalism).

At this point in the article, Mr. Hall begins writing on the representation of God in the movie.

The fact that, for most of the story, the three persons of the Trinity are conveyed as Papa, a black female played by Octavia Spencer; the Spirit, called Sarayu, and played by Sumire Matsubara; and Jesus, played by Aviv Alush, the first Israeli Jew to play Jesus, has been a big challenge for many. While I’m not blogging here to defend The Shack, this fictional representation is understandable in the context of the story—a black female from Mack’s childhood represented healing, safety, and wisdom to Mack.

Note what Mr. Hall says at the end there: this "fictional representation" is "understandable" because "a black female" personally represents "healing, safety, and wisdom" to the main character. In other words, because a black female is something that the main character responds to personally, it is justifiable. This is similar to some liberals who argue that women who suffered abuse from their birth fathers should be permitted to call God "mother."

I hope the discerning reader will not have to hear an explanation on why this is such a fallacious rationale. I have heard some white supremacists say that they reject Christianity because they could never worship a dark-skinned Jew on a cross - would Mr. Hall suggest that, in such a situation, presenting a blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus before them would be far better? What if someone wrote such a story, in which a white supremacist encounters Jesus, who appears to him as someone who could pass for a Swedish bodybuilder? Would Mr. Hall be alright with this, since it's "understandable in the context of the story"?

What this mindset does is filter our orthodox understanding of God through our personal emotions and needs. The fact is, there are certain realities about God that we cannot deny based upon our personal feelings and emotions. What we know from scripture is that Christ Himself refers to God the Father as "father" (Lk 23:46) and encourages believers to do likewise (Mt 6:9). The Holy Spirit is referred to by masculine pronouns in the original Greek of the New Testament (cf. Jn 14:26). The reality of God and His existence simply is - and it's not too concerned with someone's personal feelings or needs.

The Shack is a work of fiction, and therefore what the authors have done is to present something of who God is in much the same way that C.S. Lewis tried to present Aslan the Lion as a type of Christ. I think we can always have the conversation of whether this is covered by the prohibition on making graven images in Exodus 20, but I would submit if we are going to apply this consistently, we must then be careful about illustrations for God in children’s Bibles and also how we describe God in the pulpit. I think what is clear is that these are not graven idols that people are physically worshipping. If we are shocked because Papa is portrayed as a black female and not a Caucasian male, then we might have some other issues!

The appeal to Aslan is problematic for a reason found within Mr. Hall's own wording; that is, he himself admits that Aslan is "a type of Christ." Aslan was meant to represent Christ in metaphor, not in reality. Throughout the history of literature and film, there have been many characters who were meant to represent a Christ-like figure, but we're not talking about that here - the Jesus of The Shack is supposed to be literally Christ Himself. To compare the two is completely erroneous. This confusion was seen even earlier in the article, when Mr. Hall wrote on Mack's "ensuing conversations and interactions with 'God,'" with "God" in quotations as if it's not really God in the Shack. The fact is, William Paul Young's book is about the literal God, and the three characters in the Shack are supposed to be the actual Trinitarian God of the Bible.

The appeal to "children's Bibles" and other artistic portrayals of God is a common one being made by some supporters of The Shack, but is likewise problematic. For one, it's an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy: that there exist other poor visual representations of God, even socially acceptable ones, does not deny that the visual representations in The Shack are unacceptable. For another, there are plenty of criticisms, and discussions, out there regarding portrayals of God (especially God the Father) in art and film. Regardless, whatever erroneous portrayals of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit as men may exist, portraying them as females only adds error upon error. As pointed out before, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are referred to in scripture, even by Christ, with masculine pronouns. In fact, one has to wonder why there even needs to be any discussion on gender and the Trinity in the first place.

As for the notion that people aren't worshiping these characters as graven idols, I would contend there are other ways to worship idols which we may not be aware of. Many who have read The Shack, or will see the movie, see the portrayal of God as who God really is, and what God really believes, when all of it is simply untrue. They will think what Jesus teaches and espouses in The Shack is what Christ really intends people to believe about him. In this sense, even if they realize God is not a black woman named Papa, they will be worshiping an idol of William Young's creation.

Perhaps of greater concern to us, however, is the subject of universal reconciliation, the belief that in the end everyone will be saved. It was unclear in the novel what the belief of the author was. Brad was very clear, as co-author, that he did not believe universal reconciliation was a teaching found in the Bible and did not want the movie to be as open-ended as the book in relation to this subject. (He did say that the lead author, Wm Paul Young, had a different theological background.) The movie, however, did not open this door. The movie did provide some initial thoughts around the subject of the wrath of God with which I would respectfully have to disagree, but here I think is the ultimate challenge of portraying both the kindness and severity of God (Romans 11:22)—both His Father heart and His Holy transcendence. I thought they did the former well, but perhaps not the latter.

It's amazing that Mr. Hall presents so much vagueness around the original novel's interpretation of judgment: he says that it's "unclear" and "open-ended" what William Paul Young's beliefs are, only knowing that Young has "a different theological background." I think anyone who read the original book would see that, while it might have been vague enough to give wiggle room for denying "universal reconciliation," it certainly wasn't orthodox or biblical. Young's portrayal of "judgment" is far closer to the ancient heresy of apocatastasis, which was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD. Gregory of Nyssa, talking about the belief, is quoted as saying:

The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul. The process, moreover, is a painful one; the sharpness and duration of the pain are in proportion to the evil of which each soul is guilty; the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy. A time, then, will come, when all evil shall cease to be since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will, in which it inheres; when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, and evil shall have no more wherein to exist. [source]

Compare this with the notion of "judgment" found in the original Shack novel. Mack finds his father, who had abused him, struggling and suffering with the guilt of his past, and it is only after Mack forgives his father that they both find some reconciliation. Mack is then told by Sophia (the personification of Wisdom from Proverbs) that "judgment is not about destruction, but about setting things right." While it would be wrong to say these two beliefs are identical, my point in bringing this up is to illustrate how William Paul Young's view of judgment fits far closer to historical heresies than it does anything that can be considered orthodox. It makes judgment a more personal, horizontal action within human society, rather than a crime against the almighty God. It makes senseless entire sections of the prophetic books and Revelation, and renders pointless the words of scripture that "it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (He 10:31).

I would certainly agree with Mr. Hall that those speaking on the judgment of God face "the ultimate challenge of portraying both the kindness and severity of God"; it is a dangerous trap to fall into where a person might emphasize one without minimizing the other. However, to shrug off error found in The Shack with, "Well, William Paul Young is kinda vague about it, and he's from a different theological background," is to play fast and loose with what the reader is presented. William Young did not simply portray the severity of God's judgment poorly - he didn't portray it at all.

As we watched the movie, while I personally might have done things differently, I found it very enjoyable, certainly very emotional and healing in character, much as the novel before had been. As I watched, I kept looking over at a security guard to my left—she had tears in her eyes. The next morning, Brad posted on social media, “So the security guard from last night’s screening in Kansas City pulls me aside while we are finishing up—a wonderful black lady—and she says: ‘I see an awful lot of movies, and hands down this is the best one I have seen—EVER!’—and gives me a huge hug and holds on. I just squeezed back, having no real idea the depth of what was transacting in her, but loving whatever it was. When we let go and stepped back, her eyes were beaming but with tears full to the brim.”

Once again, there is an appeal to personal emotion. The argument presented here is basically, "Someone who watched The Shack was moved to tears and said it was the best movie ever - surely it has to be good!" By such logic, those who wept when Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election must be justified in their reaction, and Hillary Clinton - a woman most hostile to the Christian worldview - should have become president.

Sadly, that such a mindset is coming from IHOP-KC does not surprise me. When speaking to members in the past, and attempting to show the errors of Mike Bickle's teachings, the most common response I get is, "I feel personally fulfilled, that's how I know it's right." When you listen to the testimonies of those who have joined IHOP-KC, one common theme is that they were personally moved by what was going on, and that was why they joined. This is simply the logical conclusion of the Charismatic doctrine of solus adfectus, or "emotions alone," over and against sola scriptura. If someone is moved to tears, and it involves God, then it doesn't matter what else we know about it - it has to be real. When we adopt such a mindset, we shouldn't be shocked if unbiblical portrayals of God seem alright to us, based mostly on the notion that someone is emotionally "healed" by it.

Indeed, the continual mantra that The Shack has "ministered healing" to its readers or viewers shows just why William Young's work is so seductive in its nature: because it attacks a person's soul at its worst. Many people I've encountered who liked the book read it when they were struggling with depression or some deep sadness in their life, and felt that the book assisted them. However, just as one might be tempted to harm their physical bodies by turning to alcohol or drugs to combat depression, so too can the devil tempt one with spiritual harm by leading a suffering person into false doctrine. Being personally satisfied is not a mark of being healed, but rather complete, perfect healing found in the comfort of the true God, and the true Gospel - and one will find neither in The Shack.

The final part of the article:

I am sure this movie will bring healing to many and, no, I don’t believe it is heresy!

Thank you, Brad.

Recall that earlier Mr. Hall stated, "I’m not blogging here to defend The Shack." In the process of "not defending" The Shack, Mr. Hall has...

• Claimed the book "ministered healing to the many millions who have read it."
• Defended the intentions of the novel's co-writer and the film's co-producer.
• Said he considered the movie a "well-told story of forgiveness and healing."
• Defended the visual representations of God the Father, calling them "understandable," and even comparing it to Aslan from The Chronicles of Narnia.
• Played apologist for the film's depiction of judgment.
• Said he found the film "very enjoyable, certainly very emotional and healing in character, much as the novel before had been," adding that he is "sure this movie will bring healing to many."
• Cited a person being moved to tears and called it the best film they had ever seen.
• Thanked the co-writer and co-producer for his work involved with The Shack.
• Deemed that The Shack wasn't heresy.

I can only wish more people would not-defend me in this way!

Let me remind the reader that Jono Hall is an instructor at IHOPU for church history and "basic christian beliefs," and yet he seems unable, during the course of his examination of The Shack, to identify historical heresies and fundamental problems found within. Gross doctrinal errors found in William Paul Young's writing, noticeable to discernment ministries and laymen alike, were gleaned over or minimized. At best, Mr. Hall said in this article that there were some points or teachings which he would "respectfully have to disagree" with, while on Twitter he said he had "far fewer" issues with the movie than the book. (A book which, if you remember, he said "ministered healing to the many millions.")

IHOP-KC can add all the disclaimers they want, and Mr. Hall can swear up and down he's not defending anything, but that won't change things. The fact remains that someone at the leadership of IHOP-KC, on IHOP-KC's website, just gave what is considered the poster boy for heretical fiction a passing grade. The COO of IHOP-KC has come out and said that he believes The Shack is not heresy.

You can't get around that.

More surprising to me is that the language used in the article is similar to that found in Emergent and progressive circles: the objections people make to The Shack are not criticisms of unbiblical doctrines, but are merely "challenges" they have with the story; erroneous portrayals of God are perfectly fine so long as someone gets some personal fulfillment from the story. I wonder if any supposed contradictions between scripture and The Shack would be shrugged off as "tensions" that we can permit to exist?

In the past, I've extensively covered the strange doctrines coming out of IHOP-KC, not only in regards to the end time prophecies, but their teachings on prayer, God's power, and Christ's humanity. In all those moments, they had maintained some level of an orthodox facade, certainly in regards to topics such as the judgment of God or the importance of gleaning from the Bible. Here, on the other hand, we have someone from IHOP-KC's leadership calling heresy orthodoxy and defending it with someone crying at a movie. Is this a sign of where IHOP-KC is going? Are they becoming more Emergent in their theology? Or are they simply growing more liberal in some areas? Is this part of the trend that many have noticed, which is that IHOP-KC is attempting to mainstream itself more?

If this is the case, I honestly would not be surprised if Doug Pagitt or Jory Micah spoke at a future OneThing conference - and I don't write that in jest. Either way, I may very well have to continue monitoring what is coming out of Kansas City.

Podcast: Mike Bickle and Psalm 2

In this episode, we review Mike Bickle's message from OneThing 2014, which went over the meaning of Psalm 2. Does he handle it rightly? What tactics does he employ to interpret the passage?



This link takes you to a post about IHOP-KC's involvement with the Bethany Deaton murder, but (more importantly) discusses the cult-like atmosphere and the way Mike Bickle is revered by the staff and members.

This link takes you to the podcast where we listened to a Misty Edwards message on Forerunners.

This link takes you to the podcast where we review whether or not IHOP-KC is a cult (and respond to the Ask Mike Bickle segment on it).

This link takes you to an interview I did with someone who formerly belonged to the house of prayer movement.

The Sons of Issachar Anointing

Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command. [1 Chronicles 12:32; NASB]

I've seen a lot of talk on social media and in Hyper-Charismatic circles about the "Sons of Issachar Anointing," based off this single verse. The idea is that, just as the sons of Issachar "understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do," so to should we "understand the times" (that is, the approaching end times), with knowledge of what the church should do (that is, what the church is to do before Christ returns). It's been brought forward by Rick Joyner's Morning Star Ministries, as well as Mike Bickle's International House of Prayer.

Let's quickly examine the context, by first discussing what is unfolding in 1 Chronicles 12...

In this chapter, men from all across Israel are gathering together to support David in his struggle against King Saul, in order to overthrow him and give the kingdom to David (v. 23). These forces include: the sons of Judah (v. 24); the sons of Simeon (v. 25); the sons of Levi (v. 26); the house of Aaron (v. 27); Zadok with his father's house (v. 28); the sons of Benjamin (v. 29); sons of Ephraim (v. 30); the half-tribe of Manasseh (v. 31); sons of Issachar (v. 32); those of Zebulun (v. 33); those of the Naphtali (v. 34); those of the Danites (v. 35); those of Asher (v. 36); and the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh from the other side of the Jordan (v. 37). All of these men are gathering with David at Hebron, with the intent to make him king (v. 38).

One thing you notice about these various groups is that various kinds of talents and attributes are said about them: the sons of Judah brought shield and spear (v. 24); the sons of Simeon were "mighty men of valor" (v. 25); the sons of Benjamin are said to belong to Saul's own house (as he was a Benjaminite), and had supported Saul until now (v. 29); the sons of Ephraim are, like the sons of Simeon, said to be "mighty men of valor" (v. 30); the sons of Issachar are said to have "understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do" (v. 32); those of Zebulun came with various kinds of weaponry for war (v. 33); the Naphtali, like the sons of Judah, are said to have come with shield and spear (v. 34); those across the Jordan are said, like those of Zebulun, to have come with various kinds of weapons (v. 37); later on, those of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali are said to have brought food and provisions for the army (v. 40).

Focusing on the sons of Issachar, what does it mean when it is said they "understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do"? In old Jewish commentaries, the phrase "understood the times" was actually believed to reference a study of astrology. To quote from Charles John Ellicott's commentary:

The old Jewish expositors concluded, from the former part of this verse that the tribe of Issachar had skill in astrology, so that they could read in the heavens what seasons were auspicious for action, as the ancient Babylonians professed to do. [source]

Given the context, however, this is probably not the case. It is said that they understood the times "with knowledge of what Israel should do," and this is being said in the context of various tribes and Jewish sects coming over to David, against Saul. Therefore, they "understood the times" in the sense that all Israel must turn over to David, the Lord's anointed, against the corrupt and fallacious king Saul. Mr. Ellicott summarizes as much:

But all that the text really asserts is that those men of Issachar who went over to David thereby showed political sagacity. No similar phrase occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. [ibid]

Ellicott is not alone here. Albert Barnes states that this passage "is best interpreted politically" (source). John Gill suggests that this passage may refer to the fact that these "were men of prudence and wisdom, and knew that this was the proper time for making David king" (source). John Wesley says that "they understood public affairs, the temper of the nation, and the tendencies of the present events" (source). Matthew Guzik, while mentioning the astrology argument, says that "we should simply see that these sons of Issachar were men who supported King Saul up until the right time, and at the right time gave their support to David" (source). Finally, Matthew Henry likewise writes:

Those of that tribe were greatly intent on public affairs, had good intelligence from abroad and made a good use of it. They knew what Israel ought to do: from their observation and experience they learned both their own and others’ duty and interest. In this critical juncture they knew Israel ought to make David king. It was not only expedient, but necessary; the present posture of affairs called for it. The men of Issachar dealt mostly in country business, and did not much intermeddle in public affairs, which gave them an opportunity of observing others and conversing with themselves. [source]

Therefore, given the testimony of learned Christian men through history, and (more importantly) the plain meaning of scripture, what is 1 Chronicles 12:32 teaching us? That the gift of the sons of the Issachar, among all the tribes and sects among the Jewish people, was that they recognized the events happening in Israel, and they understood that it was time to give support for David against Saul.

With this established, let us now review how the Sons of Issachar Anointing applies the passage, by asking a few questions.

First, is there anything about an anointing here? No. Absolutely not. This is describing one of the groups which came to David and supported him in his struggle against Saul, and states their most strongest trait. The sons of Issachar were not under a special anointing any more than the other tribes were.

Second, is there anything commanding us or telling us to seek or obtain something? No. Absolutely not. This is a descriptive passage, not a prescriptive passage. Many in Hyper-Charismatic circles, trying to get around that this passage is not a command, will argue that it is simply an image of what we are to do - nonetheless, they are using it in a prescriptive manner for something believers are supposed to seek or obtain. This is not how such a passage is to be treated.

Those who support the Sons of Issachar Anointing will sometimes admit that the verse is speaking of supporting David's claim to kingship, but will add that there are "End Times Sons of Issachar" who are prophetic and understand the signs of the end times. The problem with this is that nowhere in scripture is such a connection made, nor is 1 Chronicles 12:32 thought of as a verse for a prophetic group of people - in fact, no one in the history of the church, until the last decade or so, has ever interpreted the passage in this manner. Such an interpretation, therefore, can only be considered extra-scriptural revelation, absent from the teaching and understanding of the plain meaning of Holy Writ. It certainly does not come from any method in accordance with the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Even more dangerous is that this Sons of Issachar Anointing, like Mike Bickle's Forerunners or Lou Engle's Nazirites, presents a kind of anointing which creates a branch of "super Christians," who have special knowledge and insight into God's will which other Christians do not have. To quote from one website speaking on the anointing:

I believe there is an Issachar anointing which brings an understanding of the times and seasons we are in and the knowledge of what to do. This anointing brings with it vision and counsel. In these difficult days in which we are living, we need to have an Issachar anointing to understand the times prophetically so that we will have discernment of how to move with God. We need this for our personal lives, for the body of Christ as a whole, and for our nation. We must learn how to draw on God's prophetic word to guide us through this prophetic season. God wants us to understand the times and what needs to be done in midst of each situation and season. The Issachar anointing brings with it that understanding of what time and season we are in and also the knowledge of what to do. This anointing also brings with it vision and counsel. The Issachar anointing puts in proper timing the plans of God. This anointing understands time and has an anointing for timing. How well do we perceive God’s seasons and timing for His purposes? [source]

Therefore, if one wishes to have "vision and counsel" about these end times, we must "draw on God's prophetic word to guide us through the prophetic season," which the Issachar anointing can bring us. In fact, we need this, and we must learn how to do this - otherwise, how will we "perceive God's seasons and timing for His purposes"? Just as with Mike Bickle's concept of forerunners (which is unbiblical) and Lou Engle's concept of New Testament Nazirites (which comes from a dream his son had one night), such a teaching borders on Gnosticism, an ancient heresy which, in some forms, taught that there was a special knowledge Christ had for those willing to discover or learn about. No such promise is made in scripture, however: the only "anointing" in regards to believers is that which is given to all believers (1 John 2:27), and it is by holy scripture that a person can become better equipped to understand the will of God (2 Tim 3:16-17). Putting all this aside, the passage itself here does not teach of any kind of promised "special knowledge" for Christians to pursue...that is complete and utter eisegesis.

The fact is, there is no such thing as a Sons of Issachar Anointing. The Bible is silent about it, and no one in the past 2000 years of the New Testament church (save for recently) has taught on the subject. It is an unbiblical doctrine which some teachers are attempting to seduce people into following and seeking. Such doctrines and practices have a name in scripture: burdens. This addition to the Christian lifestyle and beliefs comes from unbiblical doctrines, and utilizes an abuse of God's text to attempt to prove it. Any doctrine or teaching sourced to a wild misuse of holy writ should be avoided at all costs. I would plead with any involved in this "Sons of Issachar Anointing," if you believe yourself to be honoring God's word, to really consider what scripture says on this subject. God bless.

Matthew 17 - An Example of Bad Allegorization

How one reads and interpret scripture is a vitally important part of the Christian life. Just as we would want to understand the point behind every secular work created by fallible man, so should we strive to understand and comprehend what God's word is attempting to say. One of the greatest dangers in misunderstanding a passage of scripture is turning a descriptive passage of scripture into an allegory, and by extension turning it into a prescriptive passage.

Recently I saw a link on Twitter for the International House of Prayer's Marketplace Conference. In the video on the page, there was a use of Matthew 17:1 that I thought was worth using as an example to examine and discuss a more proper view of scripture, and an improper use of allegory.

Near the beginning of the video, Linda Fields and Daniel Lim (CEO of IHOP-KC) have this conversation:

Linda Fields: "Our theme is 'come up higher' from Matthew 17, and as you know we were talking about that a moment ago - I loved what you had to say about what Jesus was actually inviting Peter, James and John to. What was that?"

Daniel Lim: "Well Matthew 17, all of us quite familiar with that verse because it's a verse where Jesus in a very rare occasion revealed his glory to his disciples in a way that would shock them. We call that the Mountain of Transfiguration. But the context of Matthew 17 is actually a context where Jesus invited Peter, James and John to a prayer meeting. They were on their way to a prayer meeting, to a high mountain to pray. So I believe that this is a very beautiful word picture about us engaging in discipling different spheres of society, but from a prayer-based culture. Jesus always invited us to go higher; going higher actually means get nearer; getting nearer to him is a sign of going higher." [Transcribed from the audio]

The passage is further interpreted later on, after some of the speakers are mentioned.

Linda Fields: "I just love the idea of a whole family coming around the table, Daniel, all spheres of society coming together saying we want to impact the world for Jesus Christ. And we are coming here together to come up higher with the Lord and receive revelation, refreshing, there'll be teaching..." [Transcribed]

From these teachings, we get a few things from Daniel Lim and Linda Fields regarding what Matthew 17 has to teach for us:

1. Christ revealed himself to the disciples "in a way that would shock them."
2. Peter, James, and John were invited by Christ to a "prayer meeting."
3. This story is a "word picture" about "discipling different spheres of society" from the context of a "prayer-based culture."
4. In the passage, Jesus is inviting us "go higher," and hence "get nearer" to God, in order to "receive revelation" and "refreshing."

When we encounter a teaching by someone from the word of God, the first thing we need to do is examine what they are teaching, and hold it to the light of scripture. If what they are teaching is plain in scripture, then they are speaking in accordance with what scripture has written; if what they are teaching is not plain in scripture, then they are inserting doctrines and beliefs into the passage. We will examine these four statements one at a time, and see how they line up with what is written.

1) Christ revealed himself to the disciples "in a way that would shock them."

Some might be wondering why I highlighted this phrase, since, at first glance, it doesn't seem like too big of a statement. The truth is, such language is common in Hyper-Charismatic camps to attempt to make their unorthodox and often shocking interpretations of what is and isn't the Holy Spirit seem much more biblical. This is where you get phrases like "God will mess up your theology," or "God will appear in ways you never expected." While I do not deny God can give His providence and grace through ways not explicitly mentioned in the Bible (for example, finding good health insurance for your family), there are many things which are quite clearly not the Holy Spirit. For example, what is called "holy vomiting," as well as uncontrollable shaking like someone with Parkinson's Disease, are not outlined in scripture as traits the Holy Spirit instills in a person...in fact, they are usually associated with demonic influence. While I am not advocating judging the fruits of the Spirit by subjectivity, if someone that people are attempting to pass off as "the Holy Spirit" appears shocking to us, then that should be a red flag that we should be extra discerning.

2) Peter, James, and John were invited by Christ to a "prayer meeting."

No such invitation is directly given by Christ in the passage, let alone in any of the other versions found in the Synoptic Gospels. The accounts by Matthew and Mark do not make mention of the purpose for which they went up the mountain, aside from the purpose we outlined earlier. Luke's account states that Christ "took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray" (Luke 9:28). The verb "went up" is in the third person singular, referring to Christ alone, and is continued into the verb "to pray." This suggests that Christ had gone up to pray, and had merely brought the disciples along. We see this especially in verse 29: there, we find that Christ is praying alone, while the disciples are said later to have fallen asleep (v. 32). If this was a prayer meeting, it was perhaps the worst prayer meeting in history, since only one person was praying while the others were sleeping through it.

The purpose of the disciples being brought up the mountains, as interpreted by commentators and theologians throughout history, is directly related to the appearance of Moses and Elijah alongside Christ, as well as the voice from God the Father. Moses and Elijah each represented an aspect of the Jewish holy text: Moses represented the Law; Elijah represented the prophets. The words of God the Father regarding Christ were a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15, in which the Lord says, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him." The apostles themselves later confirmed that this statement was a Messianic prophecy regarding Christ (Acts 3:22; 7:37). With the three disciples themselves witnessing this, they in essence fulfilled the command by the Law regarding the number of witnesses, and hence could confirm the event took place (Deu 17:6; 2 Cor 13:1).

From all this, we can gather that the point of the disciples being brought up the mountain was to witness a visual confirmation of Christ's words regarding his being the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Mt 11:13), and a confirmation of Christ's Messianic status. The point is, Christ did not invite the disciples up to have a "prayer meeting"; Daniel Lim is completely reading that into the passage to attempt to give Mike Bickle's "prayer culture" theology biblical credit, when there really is none.

3) This story is a "word picture" about "discipling different spheres of society" from the context of a "prayer-based culture."

We must be very careful whenever he hear someone call something a "word picture," or an "image" of something; this is basically admitting that they are creating an allegory, or spiritualizing a passage. There are many allegories in the Bible. There are generally accepted shadows of Christ (cf. Gen 3:15), and there are times where Biblical authors themselves will make reference to certain actions or personalities being shadows (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-4). The danger, however, is looking for "word pictures" and "images" where there a none.

There are two easy ways to tell if someone is overstepping their bounds when it comes to allegories:

a) Is the passage confirmed elsewhere in scripture as an allegory or shadow? For example, the previously cited passage in 1 Corinthians confirms that the Old Testament account of the rock and the water was a foreshadow of Christ.

b) Is the passage being spoken of as an allegory of Christ and salvation, or us?

This last part is especially important, as many times people will transform Biblical passages into commands for us to do something, or turn it into something about us. Even if the intent is to glorify God, it is still a very man-centered view of scripture, because it is transforming the focus onto something about us and what we have to do.

In this particular example we are examining, do we see the focus of the supposed allegory being one centered around Christ and our salvation? On the contrary, it is about us and what we have to do - in this case, "discipling different spheres of society" through a "prayer-based culture" (ie., the 24-7 prayer and intercession modeled at IHOP-KC). There is, however, not a single sign that such a command is present in this passage; again, that has been completely read into it by Daniel Lim and Linda Fields. As we saw before, the passage is about Christ and the messianic status which Christ confirmed before his top three disciples - it has nothing to do about us, even in the context of worship.

Certainly no one throughout all of church history has interpreted this passage to mean that we are to "disciple different spheres of society" within the context of a "prayer-based culture." No one had any such notion until IHOP-KC and the personal revelations supposedly given to Mike Bickle and his peers by God. What Daniel Lim and Linda Fields are bringing forward is, historically speaking, coming out of a exegetical vacuum. Even the apostle Peter, when writing on the incident that he himself witnessed (2 Pet 1:16-21), makes absolutely no mention of the moment being about discipling different spheres of society through prayer-based cultures. Again, the leadership of IHOP-KC is alone in their interpretation of this passage, both from history and biblical authorship.

4) In the passage, Jesus is inviting us "go higher," and hence "get nearer" to God, in order to "receive revelation" and "refreshing."

Let us ask this very important question, related to our previous point: is there anything in this account in which we are told to do something? As we said before, the answer is no. Not a single part of this passage is about us, or something we must do in our spiritual state. This episode was a specific moment in Christ's earthly ministry, and was meant to point towards his divinity and glory, and his status as Messiah. Peter, James, and John were there as witnesses, not as allegories for what we are supposed to do today within the prayer/prophetic movement.

We must be very careful when someone takes a passage of scripture that is descriptive in nature, and then turns it into a prescriptive passage. Just because something is done in scripture does not necessarily mean it must be done by us. Furthermore, when a teacher or leader begins to call things "word images" for us to follow, and interprets it as something we have to do, we must recognize that they are warping the text to fit it into some doctrine or prescription which they themselves are desiring the people of God to do. The unfortunate thing is that this is what is being done at IHOP-KC...in fact, this is a common thing at IHOP-KC. The scriptural text is being warped to suit the needs of the IHOP-KC teachers, and to try to tell their followers that what they are doing has biblical significance, when really it has absolutely no biblical precedent whatsoever.

From this example, we unfortunately see yet another moment where passages of scripture are warped and misconstrued by IHOP-KC leadership to confirm their doctrines. They believe that they are glorifying God, but in actuality they are, through their mishandling of God's word, placing burdens upon the shoulders of their followers. Those at IHOP-KC truly need our prayers to see through the eisegesis brought about by Daniel Lim, Linda Fields, and others, and to come to a true knowledge of who Christ is, and what God's word says. They do not need a greater revelation to understand the Bible - God has placed it all right there.

Variety Episode 2

In this episode we have Jennifer LeClaire, involved with the International House of Prayer, speaking on a "breaker anointing" in Kentucky, and Joyce Meyer, a Prosperity Gospel teacher, defending female pastors; we listen and review both on today's episode.



Here is the link to the Jennifer LeClaire video.

Here is the link to the Joyce Meyer video.

Talking About IHOP-KC on Long for Truth

There probably won't be a podcast this week, or the week after, because of business in my personal life, as well as a trip I'm taking in the middle of June. In the meantime, here is an interview I did on the Long for Truth podcast, about two months ago. In it, I speak about some of the teachings of the International House of Prayer, how the late Bob Jones influenced Mike Bickle and his teachings, and the cultic nature of IHOP-KC.

IHOP-KC and the Bethany Deaton Murder

Some time ago, a murder occurred involving those had had been attending the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, and it involved what was ultimately a mini-cult. Initially, I hadn't written or said much on the Deaton murder case, partially because the initial reports seemed to suggest IHOP-KC was completely separated from it, and I was awaiting until the "dust had settled" (so to speak) and had a clearer picture of what had happened. Recently, some interesting articles had come out that shed a big light on the Deaton murder: not only on what happened, but what implications it reveals regarding how IHOP-KC operates.

Love and Death In the House of Prayer - The Rolling Stone article on Tyler Deaton's cult and the murder of Bethany Deaton.

What Rolling Stone Didn't Tell You About Tyler Deaton - This article presents some insider information regarding IHOP-KC's dealing with the Tyler Deaton affair. Most importantly, it discusses how the environment at IHOP-KC bred such a group as Deaton's cult.

Excerpt:

Herrington tells a story of being rebuked for questioning Deaton. “Tyler is the apostle of Southwestern,” he was told, “you need to do whatever he tells you!” Yet I could tell countless stories of how students who voiced disagreements with teachers at IHOP’s Bible school, my alma mater IHOPU, were treated in similar fashion. Many were reduced to tears; I was compared to heretics; a friend was told, “I’m fighting on the Lord’s side, whose side are you fighting on?” and most pointedly one teacher said, “The angel came to Mike, not you; who do you think we are going to listen to?”

“Mike would never say this,” Greaves said to a room full of students, “but I’m telling you, Mike Bickle is an Apostle.” At an August 2013 staff meeting, Bickle warned staff and students that God would judge them for how they responded to the prophetic encounters he and others leaders had about IHOP and the prayer movement [...]

 See also this blog post I made with some transcripts from IHOP-KC (by a member of the "underground church" there) that showcases more of what was discussed in that last paragraph.

Podcast: CBN and IHOP-KC

In this episode we examine two clips about the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, which were played on the Christian Broadcast Network's 700 Club. Most importantly, we review how IHOP-KC will hide key points to their theology in a more public setting, and ask if CBN is really fully aware of what they believe.



This link sends you to the blog post giving the meeting notes where Bickle tells IHOP staff they are committed to this, and God will judge them for how they act.

This link sends you to the podcast episode covering Misty Edwards and forerunners.

This link sends you to the blog post discussing the Song of Solomon and whether it's literal or allegorical.