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.

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.

Podcast: The Oddity of Bob Jones

In this episode, we present a dramatized reading of the Mike Bickle/Bob Jones sessions from the late 1980's, taken from the Aberrant Practices document. It features much of the insane stuff Bob Jones talked about or claimed at that time...but remember, this is a man who many considered a great prophet even up until his recent death, and who many still consider to be a great prophet of God. This is the man who Mike Bickle, founder of the International House of Prayer, claims greatly influenced him, was his "buddy," and who he looked up to as a spiritual role model.

As much as some of this will make you laugh, it should also disturb you.

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.

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

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

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

Most notable about these documents are two things:

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

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

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

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

And likewise:

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

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

Below are links to the documents sent to me:

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

The Mainstreaming of IHOP-KC

Here's a question: what do the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the International House of Prayer in Kansas City have in common? I mean besides from both having founders who claimed to have spoken directly to God, claimed to have received special direction from God regarding how the church was to go, claimed to have received special insight into the true meaning of scriptural passages from God, and claimed to have received a special commission from God on how to handle and lead the current state of the church. Besides all that, what do they have in common?

Over the past few decades, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (more popularly known as Mormonism) has begun to attempt to mainstream itself. Whereas in the olden times they taught that there were two churches - the church of the devil and the Mormon church - nowadays they attempt to pass themselves off as just another denomination, like the PCA, LCMS, Reformed Baptist churches, etc. They do this by softening their language to sound more and more orthodox, while leaving out all the questionable theology, or the theology unique to the teachings of their founder. For example, they will tell you that they believe this God to be "the God of this world," which sounds harmless...until you realize that Mormonism teaches God is quite literally the God of this world, and that all other worlds have their own gods.

I couldn't help but notice, in the past few years, that IHOP-KC has begun to do likewise. I've written before about what Francis Chan's visit to IHOP-KC's 2013 OneThing Conference meant - namely, getting a big name in the Evangelical community to come out and declare publicly "I love Mike Bickle" and "I love IHOP-KC" (which Francis Chan, unfortunately, did). I've mentioned that those within IHOP-KC have heard Mike Bickle admit that the "vision for IHOP is at its lowest point," and they "need people to buy into the movement." One way they seem to be going about this, aside from getting big names to support them, is by attempting to soften their theological rhetoric when discussing prayer, missions, and the like.

A recent article in Charisma magazine, and about the 2013 OneThing Conference, showcases this. It discusses the issues of prayer and worship at IHOP-KC, but just from this one article, one would never have assumed the deeper implications believed about these subjects at IHOP-KC. Take, for example, this part at the beginning (quotes from the article will be in purple):

"We want to see the gospel preached and 24/7 worship and prayer in every tribe and tongue," said Mike Bickle, founder of IHOPKC, in the opening session.

Bickle added, "We're believing for 10,000 prayer chains or prayer ministries across the earth. We're hosting the first meeting, bringing together the movements in church planting, missions, prayer and Bible translation. There's one movement in God's heart, and some people think a call to prayer and fasting is a call to isolation and [to] disengage. The missions movement needs the prayer movement, and the local church needs to be filled with the glory of God."

More than 500 leaders from around the world met for the first Onething Leadership Summit.

"We sent letters to 200 leaders, inviting them to this summit six weeks ago," says Daniel Lim, CEO of IHOPKC. "Over 80 percent of the leaders we invited said yes. This is such a unique meeting because we have a common urgency that we need to pray."

Reading this, you would think that IHOP-KC was just another movement desiring to evangelize, like many others out there. Why, however, do they believe in prayer and fasting? Why do those at IHOP-KC believe there is a "common urgency that we need to pray"? What does that entail? What is not mentioned in the article is that the "urgency" to pray comes from a belief that through prayer we grant God the permission to act on earth as He pleases. What also is not mentioned is that, according to IHOP-KC's end time beliefs, when enough prayer is offered up to God, then the vengeance against the antichrist and the powers of evil will begin.

And what of the fasting? As taught by Misty Edwards and many others (including Bickle himself), fasting and prayer brings about the ability to become more "in tune" with God...which at IHOP-KC means being able to receive the "secret things" of God's heart, namely end times revelations and special insight into the spiritual realm. The IHOP-KC view of the rewards of fasting is like a mix between Gnosticism and Christian eschatology.

Another example of what I'm talking about is seen later on in the article, and is written after a discussion on the need for Bible translations in missions:

Bickle sees the house of prayer movement as a catalyst for missions, evangelism and Bible translation.

"We're just hosting the dialogue and providing the platform for new relationships, new ideas and new plans every year in Kansas City," he says. "The house of prayer movement is the banner for all of these over movements."

Is that all it is? Why was Mike Bickle called to begin the International House of Prayer? According to Bob Jones, a proven false prophet but someone whom Bickle calls his good buddy, God raised up Mike Bickle to lead an end times movement among the youth to prepare the church for the return of Jesus. Teachers and preachers at IHOP-KC and its related movement continually use language in the vain of, "the Lord is doing this," "the Lord is raising up," etc. This is what all those "missions, evangelism, and Bible translation" ministries are getting involved with.

When you present people with this kind of watered down rhetoric, it's not hard to win supporters, or people who will at best have antipathy towards you. Such a person will encounter a critic of IHOP-KC and respond to them, "I don't get it, why do you dislike them so much? They just seem to enjoy prayer." It is similar to those who are ignorant of the errors of Mormonism and respond to Christian discernment with, "I don't get it, they believe in Jesus too, right? Why do you think they're not Christian?"

The unfortunate thing is that many who come across IHOP-KC through these kinds of articles may eventually have enough of an interest to sign up for the prayer room or at IHOPU, and so fall into the snare of the wolves in sheep's clothing. There they will be taught and fed the truly erroneous doctrines given by Bickle and his followers. We should pray and ask God that this does not happen, and that those currently at IHOP-KC would be awakened by the Spirit to the spiritual junk food being fed to them, and then freed from the yoke placed upon them by their Hyper-Charismatic leaders.

Podcast: Francis Chan at OneThing 2013

This episode reviews the message Francis Chan delivered at the International House of Prayer's OneThing Conference in 2013.



This link goes to my original post about Francis Chan attending OneThing 2013.

This link goes to the interview with Mike Gendron, regarding Francis Chan compromising on the errors in Roman Catholicism.

This link sends you to my post reviewing the scriptural basis for a John the Baptist-lite forerunner movement in the end times.

This link sends you to the post showcasing the amazing conversation I had with Julie Meyer on Twitter.

This link sends you to my podcast on IHOP-KC and their teachings on prophecy.

Special Podcast: Michael Brown and Mike Bickle

Steven Long of Long for Truth and Kofi Adu-Boahen of Fiery Logic join me for a special podcast regarding Dr. Michael Brown's open support of Mike Bickle, the International House of Prayer, and other Hyper-Charismatic false teachers.

It's quite fitting this gets posted on Reformation Day, as one of the big topics we discussed was the authority and clear teaching of scripture over and against all other authorities.



My open letter to Michael Brown can be read here.

My follow up to the open letter can be read here.

Follow Up: My Open Letter to Michael Brown

On October 28, 2013, I posted my open letter to Michael Brown regarding his fellowship with International House of Prayer (IHOP-KC) founder and leader Mike Bickle. At 10:54 AM that same day, I tweeted a link to my blog post, and tagged Michael Brown's twitter account. Literally two minutes later (certainly not long enough to read the entire post), Dr. Brown responded to my tweet, stating he is not responding to open letters, and offered me to call in his show. A discussion then followed:

If Michael Brown truly has done research on the beliefs of Mike Bickle and IHOP-KC, that means he is directly responsible for promoting and supporting men who uphold seriously erroneous beliefs. By application, it means that he considers Mike Bickle a brother in Christ and fellow Christian in spite of these beliefs, claims and practices. This includes:

• The claim by Mike Bickle that God spoke to him directly in Cairo, Egypt, giving him commands to guide the church in the decades leading to the (very soon) return of Jesus Christ. (source)
• The teaching by Mike Bickle that God is raising "forerunners" who are imitators of John the Baptist, and who God is raising up in these end times. (source)
• The abuse of scripture by Mike Bickle and other leaders at IHOP-KC regarding the teaching of "forerunners" - teachings entirely dependent upon Bickle's teachings. (source)
• The claim made by Mike Bickle that God gave him the IHOP acronym, which had been trademarked by the International House of Pancakes since the 1970's. (source)
• The claim made by Mike Bickle that Haggai 1:2 means God was ordering the building of the International House of Prayer. (source)
• The fact that Mike Bickle has altered the story of the drought in Kansas City, as predicted by Bob Jones, and which proved to be completely false. (source)
• The teaching of Mike Bickle that it's OK for New Testament prophets to prophesy falsely. (source)
• The teaching of Mike Bickle that if a teacher has a poor moral standing or is not doctrinally sound, it isn't enough to reject him as a false teacher. (source)
• The abuse of scripture by Mike Bickle to teach that all Christians are supposed to prophesy. (source)
• The teaching of Mike Bickle that it is our prayers that bring about the release of God's power and the healing of others, not simply God's will and purpose. In fact, God requires our prayer in order for anything to happen. (source)
• The praise by leaders of IHOP-KC given to false teachers such as Oral Roberts and others. (source)
• The fact that at IHOP-KC there is a "written word of God" (scripture) and a "spoken word of God" (personal prophecy and revelation). (source)
• The fact that really, truly, honestly, IHOP-KC is a cult. (source)

I could go on and on, but this is a good sample for now. All of these things are what Michael Brown assures us he is aware of, and which he ultimately dismisses as inconsequential in his recent criticism of those who oppose his fellowship with men like Bickle.

To those reading these posts: please understand I'm not saying Michael Brown is damned, or a false teacher, nor am I questioning his salvation. However, all the same, he is showing inconsistency in both his discerning and his own criticism. How can he beg other people to show grace and do research in regards to his Charismatic brethren, and then turn around and denounce critics as divisive and having a paradigm that is off when he refuses to engage in what the other side says? How can he make any kind of judgment against his opponents' stances or positions when he won't even entertain what they say? How can he honestly say that he has discernment when he refuses to listen to anything critical of those spiritual leaders he claims fellowship with? How can he claim to be a Continuationist because of sola scriptura and continue to defend sola scriptura when he has fellowship with men who clearly contradict it and, in application, work against it? He can continue to dance around the issues or simply avoid them, but those of us who respect him and are concerned about who he takes fellowship with want to know the answers to these dilemmas.

I'll end here by link to two videos recently posted by James White on his YouTube account:

This link goes to the 50:33-mark of an episode of his Dividing Line show, where he criticizes both Michael Brown and (I think rightly) Phil Johnson, for their opposing extremes.

This link goes to a follow up episode, specifically to the 30:37-mark (although the entire episode is worth listening to), where James White responds to Michael Brown's contention that the extremes of the Charismatic movement are "not his world." Dr. White pretty much repeats a lot of what I've said before.

Update - November 2, 2013: Some have inquired why I didn't accept Dr. Michael Brown's offer to call in his show. While I'm not afraid of dealing with contrary opinion (as the comboxes on many of my posts will show), even when it's face-to-face or on a more personal level (as my encounter with Allen Hood will show), my main concern was whether or not Michael Brown and I would be on the same page. I didn't want to get on his show only to have Michael Brown do what he did with Phil Johnson, which is respond to every contention against a false teacher with "Well I'm ignorant of that" or "I don't know about that, so I can't comment." I wanted to be certain he had at least interacted with what those who have tried to be discerning about Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Rick Joyner and others have said and written. What I found in the Twitter conversation was merely a confirmation of my fears: Dr. Brown would prefer to stay ignorant of these things. At this point, I'm really uncertain where a direct conversation between the two of us would go.

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Brown on Mike Bickle

To Dr. Michael Brown;

Recently I listened to the October 21, 2013 episode of your show Line of Fire, in which you interviewed Phil Johnson and then later Sam Storms and Adrian Warnock. During the second part of the episode, you and the guests praised Mike Bickle, saying, in essence, that he was a godly man and just as much a Christian as I, you, John MacArthur, or anyone else was.

As someone who lived briefly in the Kansas City area, and has spent a great deal of time studying the International House of Prayer and the teachings of Mike Bickle, I was greatly shocked to hear this. It came across as ignoring clear false teaching and cultic deception by using pro hominem arguments. My initial consideration was that you may have just been ignorant of what he really taught and needed to be informed. With that in mind, I decided to first send you an email through your website - an email which I'll post in full here:

Greetings, sir;

I recently listened to the October 21, 2013 episode of your show "Line of Fire." At about the one hour mark, it was said that Bickle was a dear friend of the guest and that Bickle shows discernment and was godly. You yourself said that he was "one of the most Jesus-centered people I know," and I am assuming that when you scoffed at doubting Bickle's salvation, you were affirming that he was a true believer.

I have, in the past few years, done some serious study on the International House of Prayer and the teachings of Mike Bickle. What I have found is that not only is Bickle dishonest (whether intentionally or unintentionally) with his organization's past, but his teachings are dangerous and are deceiving many. I have recorded the errors and false doctrine coming from Bickle and his organization on my blog and podcast, the relevant posts of which I'll link to below:

http://designofprovidence.blogspot.com/search/label/International%20House%20of%20Prayer

I would encourage you to read it, not because I myself am the be all, end all source, but because I do quote Bickle in context, I play sound clips (in the podcast) in context, and examine what he teaches in detail.

Throughout the episode, you continually said that you refrain from criticism unless you're aware of what the person teaches, or some foundation of what the errors are. I try to be the same way as well, and therefore I can respect that. However, I send this to you in an effort to edify a brother in Christ, and alert you to the dangers in Bickle and IHOP-KC that you may have been unaware of before. I understand that Bickle may, in person, come across as a nice and godly man, but I am also aware the apostle Paul warned us that Satan's servants "disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (2 Co 11:15). I would exhort that you cease association with IHOP-KC and Bickle, which is a cult and run by a man who is a proven false prophet and who teaches false doctrine.

God bless;

Tony-Allen

After deciding I would await your answer, I then came across an open letter someone else had made, concerning your friendship with Rick Joyner. The page can be found here. Reading it, I came to the realization that I may not receive a response from you - at least not through that channel. Hence why I have decided to write a public letter here, on my own blog.

As I said before, I've done considerable research on Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer with all its related movements. I don't claim to be infallible and I don't claim to be the end-all-be-all source on the matter, but I think I've done far more research into them than many in well known discernment ministries (including having a face-to-face encounter with Allen Hood, Bickle's second-in-command). While I've never denied Bickle might be a pleasant man to talk to in person, and I've never claimed he was an idiot or a dummy or any other ad hominem, I also recognize, as I said in my initial email, that Satan's servants can disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, so that they can give the impression of being sheep when, in fact, they are wolves. Many Roman Catholics lament that Johann Tetzel, the great peddler of indulgences, was actually a respectable man poorly handled by Protestant historians - even if this were the case, and Tetzel was actually a religious man with few personal faults, this does not do away with the doctrinal error he was committing, and it does not deny Martin Luther's right in stepping up against him and his errors.

As such, I cannot truly believe Mike Bickle is a brother in Christ or someone whose errors can simply be shrugged off. In my original email, I linked you to all my posts going into detail on the matter. We're talking about a man who claims God spoke to him in Cairo, Egypt, and told him to start a movement to bring Jesus back. We're talking about a man who claims God gave him an acronym for his public ministry...an acronym which had been trademarked by a major restaurant chain since the 1970's. We're talking about a man who teaches that God the Son waited on subtle impressions from God the Father just like we do, and in essence lived like a man in the prophetic ministry does today, with no drawing from His divinity. We're talking about a man who believes God requires us to pray for something in order for Him to do it, and that the power of God's releasing is matched only by the power and size of our praying (by the way, Dr. Brown - that's why you always see Mike Bickle praying). We're talking about a man who reinterprets the Bible and the meaning of its verses to fit his private revelations, and clearly does not uphold the doctrine of sola scriptura. We're talking about a man who reinterprets sections of scripture - especially end-times scripture - to redefine what is being talked about as his personal end-times movement rather than the universal church or body of saints. We're talking about a man who has not only been proven a false prophet time and time again, but has actually been documented changing details in his past history concerning these prophecies, so that they either do not appear false or they don't sound false at all. Again, I've recorded and discussed all this in my blog posts and podcasts, which I linked to in the aforementioned email, so that if anyone thinks I am taking Mike Bickle out of context or am misrepresenting him and his ideas, they are welcome to review and listen to the evidence for themselves.

Now you might respond, as you did to brother Justin, that you are too busy to go through blog posts, listen to podcasts, watch videos, etc. In some ways, I fully understand: I'm married, I have a full time job, I'm active in my local church, I do personal studies, I prepare for a podcast every week, and I try to keep this blog updated as much as possible. I know that when you get a particularly busy week, you have to prioritize. However, I cannot understand then why you would, on your October 21 episode, tell Phil Johnson - who is second-in-command to John MacArthur at Grace to You - to listen to hours of audio of good Charismatic teaching, when you yourself will not find time set aside to watch a seven-minute video on Rick Joyner's false teaching. To many, this comes across not only as hypocrisy, but a sign that you sincerely want to stay ignorant of what your supposed friends and brothers in Christ teach. It comes across as you saying, "I'm ignorant of what those men say, therefore I can't criticize them," and then when people try to educate you, you close your eyes, cover your ears, and say, "I'm not listening! I don't want to hear what I can criticize them with!"

This leads into a great dilemma regarding your defense of them, stemming from how whenever Phil Johnson would ask you to name names, you would argue that you weren't sure whether or not they taught certain things, and hence you wanted to be gracious and withhold criticism until you knew better. However, Phil Johnson then brought up a great contention: yet you support them. You support men like Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Rick Joyner, and countless other false teachers, exposing those who listen to or admire you and your ministry to these ravenous wolves. If you hear someone say, "Hey, so-and-so teaches false doctrine," your response should not be to hide behind the concept of Christian grace and your own personal ignorance on the matter...your response should be to see if that accusation is true, so that you can better protect those who serve under you or turn to you for edification. As such, the way you respond to those who try to educate you on an individual's false teaching demonstrates someone who really isn't too concerned with the serious false teaching of those he associates with. This might sound cruel, and this might sound unkind - but given the circumstances, this is what is being seen.

Quite honestly, how can one who continually beats the drum that he is a supporter of sola scriptura (especially in regards to Continuationism) support such men? You support Lou Engle, and yet I have rarely (if ever!) heard Lou Engle use a verse in context...in fact, he almost always reinterprets passages of scripture based on personal dreams and revelations he's had. Mike Bickle has likewise interpreted verses and passages of scripture based on dreams, revelations and prophecies given either by him or others. For example, he used Haggai 1:2 to claim that God wanted to build IHOP-KC...could you therefore, Dr. Brown, as an upholder of sola scriptura, look at Haggai 1:2 and demonstrate to me - from the context of the verses - that it refers to the God-ordained building of IHOP-KC? Could you please demonstrate to me, Dr. Brown (without quoting from Mike Bickle's own words, or the teachings of his followers, or any other material out of IHOP-KC), where in scripture it is taught that a "forerunner movement" will appear before the end times? I realize the men you know may claim to you that they hold scripture to the highest degree, and their organizations may claim that scripture is above prophecy and personal revelation...but when you look at the application of scripture, you will plainly see that this is a bold-faced lie. Mike Bickle and his ilk do not hold scripture to the highest degree: scripture is only used secondarily to what their personal revelations, dreams, and prophecies teach.

Your love for these men seems to be founded on nothing else but a love for evangelism (this would likewise explain your love for the heretic Charles Finney). No doubt you will want us to overlook all theological differences because these men reach people for Christ. The problem is that when you replace this movement with any other historical heresy, this position falls apart. For example, the Arians saw a resurgence among the barbarian tribes, to whom they fled after the Second Ecumenical Council and their banishment from the Roman Empire: should we jump for joy that the barbarian tribes "found Christ," even if through unorthodox circles? Should we shrug off the divisive, overzealous nature of Athanasius and other Church Fathers who opposed the Arians? Remember, the contention against the Arians was never really their view of the Gospel, merely their view of the Trinity...should we therefore, by the standard you use for those in Hyper-Charismatic camps, simply shrug off the errors taught by the Arians? Should we bombast Athanasius, Hilary of Poiters, Ambrose of Milan, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen and countless others who spent their lives (sometimes up to their dying breath) fighting and attacking the Arians and their related heresies?

I would heartily contest that anyone is really being "won" by these movements. I've spoken to those who became involved at IHOP-KC, and I've listened to testimonies of those who become involved in the movement. They may say the name Jesus, but their heart is directed towards other things: towards end-time prophecies, towards the teachings of Bickle, and towards the warped theology of IHOP-KC that is almost a religion separate from Christianity the way Mormonism is. While I don't doubt some have been genuinely saved by this movement, and I have no doubt (as your friend James White often says) that "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick," that doesn't justify the wickedness in this movement. We should not be swayed by large crowds or big numbers of people who claimed to have been saved or felt edified - such argument from accomplishment is not only unsound, but unbiblical.

All this inconsistency leads to my last point: namely, why people really don't believe you when you say you show discernment or you do criticize errors in the movement. On the October 21 show, when Phil Johnson criticized you of looking at the movement with rose-colored glasses, you assured him that you did criticize the errors of the movement; when pressed to name names, you waffled, and then half an hour later began to praise some of the people who commit these great errors!

Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of how many Muslims respond to the issue of terrorism. Many Muslims will readily declare to non-Muslims, "Oh yes, I believe terrorism is bad!" However, when they are pressed to name names, or answer a question as simple as, "Is Hamas a terrorist group?", they waffle. They won't give a straight answer. They give cop outs such as "I don't know enough to comment on if they are or not." Or, depending on the individual Muslim, if they are asked something as simple as, "Were the September 11 attacks bad?", they'll give a weak answer like, "Well, I mean, terrorism is bad...but America deserved it so Al Qaeda was in the right!" They'll gladly respond to broad questions; they won't respond to specific questions that require them to be consistent with their position.

This is what those on the opposite side see coming from you. You assure us, "I'm discerning! I think the errors among Charismatic groups are bad!" But then you get pressed to be consistent. You're asked if certain people are bad. You're asked if certain groups are bad. You respond by giving what are, really, just non-answers. Then you turn around and you praise the groups that are committing those great errors you claim you're discerning! How can we assume you're showing discernment when you praise Mike Bickle, who is the leader of a cult? How can we assume you're knowledgeable of the errors when you refuse to interact with the facts? How can we believe that you uphold sola scriptura as an important doctrine when you call men who clearly don't uphold the doctrine to be brothers in Christ?

You may have noticed that in this open letter, I use the term "Hyper-Charismatic." I'm not a Charismatic myself, but I know there are Charismatics who, unlike you, are not afraid to on the one hand say the extremes in the movement are bad and then on the other hand call out the names of those committing the errors. I've listened to Charismatic pastors criticize Benny Hinn and call out other TBN personalities, and I've known of Charismatic churches where the elders removed Kansas City Prophets from their pulpits because they recognized their dangerous doctrines. I realize these men may seem to some to be few and far between, but they exist, I consider them brothers in Christ despite our differences, and out of respect I differentiate between them and the more extreme groups. I would never, for example, put an Assembly of God army chaplain I know in the same grouping as Mike Bickle, because the two men might as well belong to two different religions. Those who are able to be consistent should be respected. What cannot be respected is someone who tries to ride both sides of the fence, and cannot be honest with himself.

If this open letter comes across as cruel or mean, I did not intend it to sound as such. I did intend it to be blunt, and say things that need to be said. If I seem somewhat passionate on the subject, it is because, as I wrote earlier, I've seen what Bickle and IHOP-KC have done to others. I've listened to what Bickle teaches from his pulpit. I've read the man's works, heard his sermons, and studied his end-times beliefs. While not everything he says is wrong, enough that he says is dangerous and erroneous to warrant me to think he should be avoided. His organization is essentially a cult centered around his personality and his teachings. I would never praise Bickle publicly, let alone praise his ministry or his work - not any more than I would the ministry of Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, or any other false teacher. To hear you praise Bickle on your show and defend him against critics with pro hominem fallacies - throwing out all the false teaching - shocked me, and prompted me to write both the email through your website and this open letter.

Dr. Brown, the men you associate with are dangerous. When you associate with them, you tell others that you, at most, approve of what they say, do and preach; or, at the very least, that you do not find it to be dangerous or worthy of caution. If you truly are ignorant of what they teach, then I encourage you to cease hiding behind a false concept of graciousness, and you stop telling your critics that you're just ignorant of what they say, and you put some time into researching it. You say that you're too busy? Set time aside to do it. I put time aside in my schedule to listen to an hour-and-a-half podcast to make sure that it was true that you had praised Bickle and IHOP-KC, to make certain I heard it straight from you...I think you can spare seven minutes to watch a video about Rick Joyner's false teachings, or spend thirty minutes to a full hour to read some material on what Bickle truly believes. Even if you are seriously busy 24/7, you should present to your critics and your opponents that you care about the subject enough to at least familiarize yourself with the faults and questionable doctrines of those you promote and support.

If you truly believe that you are discerning, and you truly believe that scripture is the highest authority man should live by, then I exhort you to seriously research what Bickle and others believe, come to a realization that they are false prophets and false teachers who devour of the flock, and cease your promotion and support of them. Otherwise, you will leading more and more of your followers and listeners into spiritual darkness.

God bless,

Tony-Allen