13 August 2013

...but what about Grudem / Piper / Carson?

by Dan Phillips

A couple of poor souls have unintentionally given us golden examples of why it is valid to fault the best for giving cover to the worst.

A number of dainty souls didn't like, and fretted anxiously about, this Twitter hashtag. Our focus isn't the hashtag itself, or all the broken tea-cups it's caused. It's these two Tweets:

With those in mind, scan the rest of my Tweets under the hashtag. You know, if you want to.

Leave aside whether you think this is wise, loving, winsome, effective, ambassadorial, ecumenical, or eco-friendly or likely to produce global warming. I only have one question: given the limitations of 140 characters, and given that I have dozens of long-form essays on record and internationally-accessible, are my criticisms accurate and vitally important criticisms of the distinctives of Charismaticism/"continuationism"?

"Dan who? Sure, you bet: him too!"
With the candor you expect, whether you love it or hate it, I'll tell you straight up: in responding to that questions, there will be only three kinds of people:
  1. Those who love and know God's word and know Charismaticism, and therefore basically agree with the observations.
  2. Those who don't know one, the other, or both.
  3. Those in serious denial about Charismaticism/"continuationism."
This still isn't my point; this is still premise-building.

So, with that established, what do my Tweets target in Charismaticism and "continuationism"?
  1. Prizing experience over truth.
  2. Unbiblical redefinition of prophecy to validate and legitimatize their experience.
  3. Unbiblical redefinition of tongues to validate and legitimatize their experience.
  4. Mistaking feelings for reality.
  5. Mistaking self-image for reality.
  6. Complete absence of Acts 4:16-level "gifts"-activity since the first century, endlessly rationalized.
  7. Playing host to (and providing cover fire for) the very worst false teachers.
  8. Avoiding Biblical assessment at all costs, and shaming any who attempt Biblical assessment.
  9. Effectively sidelining the Word of God.
  10. Promising the moon, delivering nothing but excuses, dodges, and blame-shifting — at best.
  11. Effectively relocating the center of authority from God's Word to internal feelings and experiences.
And to this, what is one negative response I get? Well, besides unwitting validation of every criticism?

"But... Wayne Grudem! But... John Piper! But... D. A. Carson!"

So here, finally, is the point: every central, vitally important, and devastating Biblical critique of Charismaticism/"continuationism"'s horrendous doctrinal and practical errors is swept under the cover provided by respected names.

Because every one of us — me included — would regard Grudem, Piper, and Carson (some would add Sam Storms) as men we hold in high regard and from whom we've received great benefit, the mere mention of their names as validating this or that Charismatic position is thought to be sufficient to end the discussion. Charismaticism is basically okay and not a wholesale disaster because... Wayne Grudem has done good work on complementarianism and wrote a pretty terrific Systematic Theology (except for the gift-parts). Because... John Piper has written wonderful things about God (when not providing cover for "continuationism"). Because... D. A. Carson is D. A. Carson.

And so don't you see, this whole "Now now now, you mustn't lump them all together" argument just doesn't work. The worst practices are rationalized by adducing some (otherwise) really good names. I point out that Charismaticism/"continuationism" is not marked by much concern with Hebrew, Greek, exegesis... and "Wayne Grudem! Your argument is invalid!"

Well no, it isn't. One man who's done a lot of terrific work except for his terrible work on "prophecy," etc. does not change the movement's characteristic hue.

I think we all agree we don't want to worship men, and that would include the three I've named. But I for one have no problem admiring them, looking up to them with respect, recommending them and their work... and, at the same time, being able to say when I think they're dead-wrong.

Does having one really-good guy make a movement good? Or three? Or twenty-three? Is that how we evaluate things Biblically now? Stack up the names on each side?

(Aside: boy oh boy, should Charismatics/"continuationists" ever not want to play that game!)

In that case, we all had better start spattering water on our unsuspecting little babies, and calling the Pope the antichrist, and forgetting about most of the unfulfilled prophecies of the OT ever coming true in any sense authors or readers would ever recognize.

And in that case, perhaps instead of names like "Acts 29" and such, we should creating ministries called "John 7:48 Ministries," or "1 Corinthians 1:12 Ministries."

Grudem has done some great work, as I said. John Piper helped me out of depression. D. A. Carson is a lighthouse in the academic world. I recommend many of their books.

But if they've propped up modern charismaticism/"continuationism," in that particular, they're just wrong. Maybe it's .000013% of their total output, maybe more; but that part is a mistake. Though it may be relatively small, it may do a lot of damage. Grudem hasn't been shy about his redefinition of prophecy; think of how much damage that error alone has caused.

But to discuss that meaningfully — unless you want to take a few hours while I counter by naming off every notable non-Charismatic, non-"continuationist" Christian over the last 1900+ years — I guess we'll just have to get to Scripture and facts and logic.

You know, like we've done here since the very start, and like I've done in both blogs and other public venues, for about the last three decades.

Dan Phillips's signature


Alex Philip said...

Thanks. I found your enty to be written with a lowered pinky yet with proper respect to these menn.

Anonymous said...

On Charismatism, you're dead-on. My favorite: "P. T. Barnum was RIGHT!!!". But I don't think you Charismatism can always be linked with continuationism. To me, it's hard to believe that up until 100 A.D. you have all these miracles happening, and then all of a sudden God is never from or heard from again.

Frank Turk said...

It's funny that this is the one time DJP is the ironic one and I'm the one drawing the line in the sand. He's willing to say this is a small mistake in the otherwise-orthodox work of some good men. I think, rather, the size of this error - the degree to which it allows all manner of worst practice and bad character into the church - calls these men into account. Maybe it doesn't actually make them unorthodox, but it certainly calls us to take a second look at their discernment and their real objectives in influencing the church.

Frank Turk said...

Irenic, not ironic. Stupid autocorrect.

Tom Chantry said...

And when you consider the atrocity that was Tope Koleoso (sp?)'s message at DG, I tend to think you're right, Frank.

Let's start a movement to tar and feather DJP as an over-nice, wishy-washy, go-along-to-get-along evan-jelly-bean type.

*rolling on the floor in maniacal laughter*

Frank Turk said...

On this one issue, I think that it would be great to spend 20-60 minutes recording a conversation with Dan about this and podcasting it. I think he and I are not really that far apart -- but I think the difference here is an important one to discuss and consider.

DJP said...

...and OSH? He hates this post.

That sounds great. I'm in.

Unknown said...

With all due respect, I'd say that Grudem, Piper, etc. behave more academically than you, and therefore they earn more trust in their assessments on such matters. When I want to learn about modern physics, I go to the authorities on physics, those who've studied and have a sense of perspective; those who can counter their opponents with clarity and grace. A similar statement could be made for other disciplines. The posts here often read like the rants of petulant children, and are so unlike anything that appears in the academy that they can be easy to dismiss.

Piper, Grudem, etc. play by the rules, and have more perceived authority because of it. You have chosen a different tact, and at times you are dismissive, sarcastic, and ungracious. By making insulting statements, you impugn men like Piper along with Benny Hinn, whether you want to or not, and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. You cannot complain that people write you off when you act the way you do. You have no one to blame but yourself.

I have thought several times about whether I would want to attend your church if I lived in the area. I've listened to your preaching in addition to reading what you write here. On the one hand, there's a lot of truth, and the content of your exegesis is typically quite good. It's clear you love the Word. But on the other hand, the attitude of the exegete seems (occasionally) to lack love for others. Piper may be wrong about some things, but I never doubt that he has both kinds of love, for people and for God's truth. And I think that's the point of 1Co. 13.

LanternBright said...

So let me get this straight, Unknown--you'd refuse a doctor's cancer treatment if he didn't have a tone that pleased you? Alternatively, you'd buy somebody's healing crystals because they sounded kind and gentle and humble? Seriously? THAT'S your standard for trusting someone?

...wow. Hope that works out for you.

Frank Turk said...

... says "unknown," who can't even attach his name to his comment.

Frank Turk said...

However -- to grant "unknown" about an infinite quantity of grace and respect more than he (she?) did in his (her?) comment, I'd love to see 3 or for examples of posts which demonstrate "petulance" from either Dan or myself.

For the sake of being more academic and all that.

Doug Hibbard said...

#1: Thanks to Frank, I now have Alanis Morissette singing my head "Isn't it irenic, don't you think..."

#2: This situation actually steps away from the contiuationism debate, because it applies to several other issues. Those of us in Baptist-dom have to deal with some of great lights of history also being absolutely wrong on interpreting Scripture on matters of race, while still finding much to respect in their writings about most other matters.

In essence, we must admit that just because someone is wonderfully right and wonderfully worded on Issue A, B, and C, that being wonderfully worded on Issue D does require him to be wonderfully right. I've learned a lot reading Grudem and Carson, listening to Piper, and have just started reading from Storms. There are others in my reading/learning heritage that would fit in the category, as well.

I think we should consider that the cover given to a Benny Hinn from the writings of Grudem or Carson is an *unintentional* side effect. After all, one can hardly imagine that Hinn has "Exegetical Fallacies" in his Amazon Wish List, much less that he's ever read it. (I figure he'll get to after finally reading the whole Bible)

I think the wider concern is in the problem evidenced in these appeals: "Grudem's books says D is okay, and he's beyond questioning." Last I checked, there's 66 books beyond questioning, and Grudem authored none of them. Neither did Carson, Piper, Storms, or Keener, or whomever else. That Christians, and moreover pastors/preachers/teachers, appeal to theology texts as if those texts were Scripture is alarming. I would guess that many of these names would argue that they are not infallible. We should not treat them as such.

Of course, the same applies to Phillips, Turk, or others--our cry is "sola Scriptura", not "duo that-dude-we-really-like and Scriptura"

Frank Turk said...

I would say that DJP is pretty much unquestionable, and I'm pretty much always questionable.

Since it came up.

LanternBright said...

"Questionable," Turk? Please. You crossed THAT double yellow line about three exits back!

Frank Turk said...

We nesd to find a way to install a "like" button on these comments.

Blogger: Handle it.

Jules said...


I prefer savory over sweet. Lovely desserts have no nutritional value. In fact, too many sweets and you'll lose your ability to chew.

Ken Rawlins said...

Isn't it unloving for Unknown to call any critique of what is being TAUGHT unloving? Just asking.
A quote from John MacArthur comes to mind here, (paraphrasing) "it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think, the only thing that matters is what did God say."
Truth is never determined by how many "good guys" line up behind something. Hebrews 1 and all that.

Rob said...

Aw, don't be dissin' on Grudem...

But I will say this much: I'm glad that there are no theologians that I know of who get everything 100% spot on, so I can overlook Grudem's charismatics much as I overlook Sproul on unbeliever (infant) baptism. I love these guys, but when they're off I just shrug, make a note and move on.

Keith Throop said...

What seemed to start this particular round of exchanges among the brethren was John MacArthur's insistence that "open-but-cautious" men were "providing cover to Charismatics," right? But would Wayne Grudem or John Piper, for example, designate themselves this way? Not to my knowledge, they wouldn't.

But this is the real issue for some of us, whether or not those who would actually refer to their position as "open-but-cautious" actually provide cover for Charismatics. After all, not every Continuatuonist is the same, and those who would call themselves "open-BUT-CAUTIOUS" do so for a reason and, however open they might be to the possibility that certain gifts continue today, they have not been open to the many extremes of the Charismatic movement.

In fact, in my experience in pastoral ministry over the last 20+ years, I haven't yet met a man who would call himself "open-but-cautious" who has not been very open in his criticisms of such extremes. Thus I do not think Macarthur's comments were at all fair to them, and I think much of Dan's post misses the point.

Tom Chantry said...

I love these guys, but when they're off I just shrug, make a note and move on.

That's an excellent attitude, and I mean that without sarcasm.

However, error has consequences. While all error has some consequence, certain error has great consequences. That's really the point of Dan's post, and what he seems to be saying is that the consequence of this error is big. To the degree that Frank disagrees, it isn't that he doesn't think the consequence is big, but rather that he thinks it's huge. Perhaps so huge that you can't just shrug and walk on.

Andy Chance said...

What is/are the best work(s) advocating your position?

Kurt R said...

What is the best book for understanding cessationism?

Morris Brooks said...

James 3:1 "Let not many of you become (so many of you stop becoming) teachers, for as such you shall incur a stricter judgment," is a great warning for preachers; so Piper, Grudem, and the rest of us beware. But those who listen and follow are accountable for what they believe and who they follow as well. They won't get off of the hook for believing something just because so and so said it.

I have told my people many times, "I don't want to hear you say, 'I believe it because Morris said it,' but I want them to believe it because they know it is what God has said.

Unfortunately, many are men followers, which takes us right back to James 3:1.

David Regier said...

"Where did you find those doctrines in the Bible?"

"I didn't. I Grudem myself."

I apologize.

Nate said...

Would you consider all those who have an "Open, but cautious" view to be giving cover to charlatans?

I ask because i know many who hold to an "open but cautious view" (continuationists but not charasmatics), who would denounce much of what you are critical of in charismatic circles.

Frank Turk said...

What book substantiates the cessation view?

The Bible, of course.

Frank Turk said...

Oh wait: what book of -merely human authorship- substantiates Cessationism?

The Spirit told me to say, "every church history book ever."

Frank Turk said...

Nate --

Anyone writing for or contributing to "Charisma" magazine would live in the camp I am personally talking about.

Let's be clear about something: I'm very concerned about anyone who thinks that daGifts are necessary for the church and that churches who do not put any creedance in them are somehow primarily deficient churches. I'm almost not bothered by churches that would endorse loud music and enthusiastic displays but are willing to admit, "that's not really for everybody."

Frank Turk said...


It's called the internet, and it can be searched by key word.

But because TeamPyro are long-term trend setters, there's a category called "daGifts" (91 posts total) in the sidebar that links to many (if not all) of the articles Dan is talking about.

donsands said...

" Stupid autocorrect."-Cent

Ain't that the truth.

Good post Dan.

Can I share this: "Neither Jesus nor Paul nor John point to activity in the church or miracles as evidence of regeneration. They rather point to character traits in life. . . . Jesus warns on the day of judgement many will say to Him, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" But he will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers" (Matt. 7:22-23).- Wayne Grudem

I think there is as much difference between a Benny "full of Baloney" Hinn, and a Wayne Grudem, as there would be between a Bighorn Sheep and a Timber Wolf.

I don't see the danger at all, and yet I shall consider and discuss your thoughts for sure. Gracias mi amigo for your hard work in the Word, and for Christ our Savior and Great Shepherd.

R.C. said...

Sprinkling water on unsuspecting babies? Has it really come to that?

Frank Turk said...

Keith T:

TD Jakes does not consider himself a heretic. That doesn't mean he's kosher. Mike Horton doesn't think his laissez faire attitude toward ice-cold, inhospitable, doctrinally-sufficient churches gives them cover to stay ice-cold. That doesn't mean he has not accountability.

The really disconcerting thing about this line of reasoning is this: somehow, these guys are all very influential about the things they want to be well-known for but when it turns out that there are practical consequences for some of this stuff that is, frankly, embarrassing and needing real correction, suddenly they are victims and not enablers, they are somehow tongue-tied and not able to speak, and it's some mix of rude and undiscerning and unhelpful to bring it up.


Frank Turk said...

R.C. -

It always comes to that.


Keith Throop said...

Frank T:

I think you missed my point, which is that criticizing an entire group by what a distinctly different group says or does is not fair, despite some similarities between them. And criticizing a group for providing cover for practices they themselves decry as wrong is not fair.

As for your apparent assumption that the Bible is clear in teaching a Cessationist position that rules out even a careful "open-but-cautious" view, I would only say that -- even given this difference in understanding -- one still has to recognize in all fairness that not all Continuationists are the same, just as not all Cessationists are the same. For example, some open-but-cautious types would see prophecy as preaching, or tongues only as human languages miraculously given in certain pioneer missions settings, etc., views which are radically different from what Grudem would say, for example. So making the sweeping accusation that all open-but-cautious men provide cover for Charismatic extremes is patently unfair. Period.

Frank Turk said...

Keith --

I think you missed it when I said this:

Anyone writing for or contributing to "Charisma" magazine would live in the camp I am personally talking about.

I use that magazine as a reference point for one explicit reason: it's the newspaper for the movement. It's the one who decides how broad or narrow the circus tent is. That way nobody can blame a charisma-less guy like me without a prophet to lead him for grouping the wrong people together.

DJP said...

R.C. —

I seen it done!!!!1!

DJP said...

I've been AFK, so I'm catching up.

Yes, Keith Throop, "open-but-cautious" provide cover for the worse in C*ism. For proof, see the post. If you didn't see it, read it again. If you read it again and don't see it, keep reading it until you do.

DJP said...

Because refresher courses can be helpful, and because we get n00bs: here's why (and not-why) I write posts.

That said, this post wasn't titled nor themed "I wonder whether cessationism is true?" or "Is there anybody who can rehearse long-since-refuted attempts to give false respectability to C*ism? If so, please have at it!"

Proceeding from the awareness that an apostolic-level gift hasn't been documented for 1900 years, as the NT leads us to expect, this post asks whether those who deny that reality (but do other great things) give false cover to those who deny that reality (and do terrible things).

And it says "Yes they do, however unintentionally."

And it gives some examples.

You're welcome! (c:

Tom Chantry said...

Someone (and I don't know who) took down a comment which deserved a merciless beating, but now that i'm free it's gone.

How dare you take down your improper comment while I was mowing my lawn!!!!!

But on another note, I keep hearing that guys like GrudemPiperCarsonStormsOtherguyihaventheardof would reject the more extreme abuses of charisma. My question isn't would they, but have they and do they? My mind keeps going back to Tope at DG, and I wonder...

The two great errors which the charismaniac extremists seem to always drift into are anti-trinitarianism and the prosperity gospel. What is the record of the open-but-cautious crowd on warning the sheep against those theological cliffs? Elephant Room, anybody?

DJP said...

Tom, I'm sure Top Men looked right into that.

And seriously, we're led to believe it goes like this:

BIG NAME: Here's my wonderful protege, who has terrific things to say to you 495000 people!

WONDERFUL PROTEGE: { some good things, and some really nasty, rank, putrid, pustulent stuff }

BIG NAME: ....

BIG NAME'S FANBOYS: Oh, but they had words! I know they did! Big words! Backstage words... really big backstage words! Boy, there was a real whuppin'! I just know it!

DJP said...


BIG NAME: While I am a sane Gospel-preaching good guy, I do believe in Doctrinal Tree X. In a sane way.

BALAAM: { does and speaks appallingly }

BIBLICAL CHRISTIANS: Yeah, see that? That's the fruit that tree bears.

BALAAM FANBOYS: Oh yeah? Well Big Name believes in that tree.

Tom Chantry said...

And before anyone asks what on earth ER2 has to do with this discussion, let's recap.

TD Jakes is perhaps America's current best-known Pentecostal. He's also an anti-trinitarian heretic as well as a Prosperity Gospel heretic. So Mark Driscoll, who was a poster-boy for open-but-cautious before he started having pornagraphic visions, together with his new best friend James MacDonald, decided to embrace him as a brother in the Lord anyway.

Some spoke out against this. This blog spoke out against it. Dr. MacArthur spoke out against it. And what did the open-but-cautious crowd do? Well, Carson's answer was, "...mumblemuttermuttermumble...it's being handled behind closed doors...oh, um...our brothers have decided to go in other directions and we pray that their future ministries will be blessed."

You could argue that that's not giving cover, but only if you agree with Frank that it's more like a grudging endorsement.

DJP said...

Oh be fair, Tom. Driscoll is a CAGE FIGHTER! He's a REAL MAN!!! He asked tough, hard-hitting questions! Like...

M.D. So TD, you believe in God, right? Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

TD Jakes: Yep.

M.D. Well as they say in the Latin, Quod erat demonstrandum, baby!

Keith Throop said...

Rather than continue talking past one another, I'll take this opportunity to thank you gentlemen for this blog, which I think is one of the better ones on the net, and take my leave.

Jules LaPierre said...

All it takes is one, "God told me" for a GrudemPiperCarsonStormsDRISCOLL to have a great fall.

donsands said...

One shouldn't have to speak up and expose a Wolf in wolves clothes like TD Jakes, I don't think. Obvious should always be obvious to the Church, but it sure isn't is it.

Sad. I don't know how many times I have shared with my local Christian radio station about Modalism, and Philips, Craig, & Dean, and the likes of TD Jakes, and they just think I'm one of those guys who likes to make problems, and is not loving. Oh well.

Appreciate you Pyromaniacs brothers speaking the truth with love and humble-boldness, and Tom Chantry is included, sort of.

trogdor said...

Flashback to 2008, to perhaps the biggest recent example of the mega-extreme abuse of daGifts - Todd Bentley and his Lakeland, FL demonic "revival". The charismatic world was abuzz, people were flocking there and/or being fleeced by the tens of thousands. It could not have been more obvious that this was awful - a false gospel was being proclaimed, and the 'healings' took place by kicking old ladies in the face, for cryin' out loud.

So, what did our cautious-but-open crew say to warn their sheep, and the many others within considerable reach of their ministries? Maybe my Google skillz are lacking, but I can't find much of anything.

Now, you do see this from Piper. Notice a few things about it.

1) It's after the fact. The 'revival' was already done due to revelations of Bentley's immorality (of a different type than that displayed on stage every day). What did we get while it was going on? Crickets. Wait-and-see crickets.

2) He goes out of his way to make sure we know this isn't a charismatic issue. No, multitudes of sign-seeking charismatics flocking to see obviously-phony 'signs' (accompanying the obviously-phony gospel) from an obvious charlatan has nothing to do with charismaticism. No, no, no, no, no. A theology of signs over doctrine has nothing to do with people seeking signs over doctrine. Nothing to see here, move along.

Is it fair to blame these guys for the Lakeland demon-fest? No. Is it fair to point out that they were completely silent, did nothing to warn their sheep about it, and even after the fact made excuses for the bad theology that made people especially susceptible to on obvious agent of Satan? Uh, yeah.

It's not as if it was all that hard to diagnose. But if these guys can't even speak out about that, what degree of 'charismatic excess' would it take?

trogdor said...


It's not just that TGC and MacDonald went separate ways. No, it's that he was following all that God has called him to do, and they acknowledge that he feels called of God and wish him well.

So according to scripture what MacDonald was heading into is clearly sin, but he feels like God's calling him to it, so who are we to say otherwise?

But no, there's no enabling of anything shameful going on here. Everything is tested by scripture, after all.

DJP said...

Excellent point, and props for your memory once again.

As I recall, Adrian Warnock never brought himself to speak nary a word of warning in a timely manner.

In fact, note what he wrote even after reading and referring to my piece, which you linked to above.

DJP said...

BTW, Trogdor, you in particular will love Adrian's piece, because he actually cites Gamaliel as his model — something on which you have offered a few thoughts of your own

trogdor said...

Ha! Ha! Ha ha ha ha!

Oh yes, by all means follow Gamaliel's advice. The rest of us will think.

Aaron Snell said...

Appreciate you Pyromaniacs brothers speaking the truth with love and humble-boldness, and Tom Chantry is included, sort of.

Well, if that doesn't sum it all up, I don't know what does.

Dave Ulrick said...

Nowadays, with prophecy now being subjective and errant instead of objective and inerrant, there's always the chance that a prophet with a heretofore spotty record might happen to be right this time. This is not unprecedented: consider the case of Balaam who managed to give several inerrant prophecies in spite of his office as a prophet of Baal. Balaam isn't an ideal case, however, because Scripture plainly identifies Balaam as a false prophet even though he was accurate some of the time.

Now that the church enjoys the gift of "subjective" prophecy, it's no longer possible to call someone a false prophet until (s)he falls into blatant unrepentant sin, but even in that event the prophet can be restored if (s)he shows signs of repentance.

In theory the church can flag someone as a false prophet if they teach false doctrine, but in practice it seems that a considerable amount of slack is permitted especially when the prophet's ministry appears to be producing good spiritual fruit.

Thus, it's really no longer possible to call anybody a false prophet except after enough time has passed to test the prophet's spiritual fruit. In the meantime, all the typical continuationist can really do is give the alleged prophet the benefit of the doubt and wait and see.

Thus, if a new Balaam came on the scene today, don't be surprised if he's cut a lot of slack until/unless over time he proves himself beyond any reasonable doubt to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is just one of the many challenges presented by today's "subjective" gift of prophecy.

Andy Chance said...

I wasn't asking for a book on cessationism to be cheeky. I was hoping you might recommend one that would help explain the texts that support cessationism and deal with the more problematic texts.

I've tried to follow some of your blog posts, and they've been helpful, but I was looking for something more systematic.

DJP said...


DJP said...

Friendly tips: before you try to comment on this post...

1. Actually read the post, however many times it takes to get what it actually is about; and...

2. Review this comment, including the post to which it links.

If your comment never appears, or disappears, this-here comment points you to the answer.

Solameanie said...

I note an additional error that seems to be creeping into some charismatic circles, and that is endorsement of homosexuality. If anyone here remembers the Southern Gospel group "The Rambos," they were in origin Oneness Pentecostals. I think the mother, Dottie, distanced herself later from that, but her daughter Reba and second husband Dony McGuire have started their own church and apparently there was a rift of some sorts with Dottie over this according to Dottie's manager Add to this Jim Bakker's son Jamie Charles (who now goes by Jay Bakker) and is covered in body art - and who accepts homosexuality in his church.

I don't mean to suggest that all charismatic churches are embracing this - clearly they are not. But I have a sneaking disquiet that this trend will continue, especially if a few more have a "word of knowledge" that they're supposed to head down that path.