31 December 2013

Answering Todd Friel about the emblematic charismatic Michael Brown

by Dan Phillips

This is one last (?) overdue bit from the Strange Fire Conference days.

Todd Friel — who actually is, as it turns out, freakishly tall, even next to my > 6' — asked me what was characteristically an excellent question. I (equally characteristically) didn't have an excellent immediate answer. I murmured something, stammered, and said I'd get back to him. Within an hour, I had a much better answer... but I was never able to penetrate the coterie of adoring fans to chat Todd up again. So I promised I'd give it to him this way. And heeere we go.

Todd's question was about Michael Brown. To paraphrase, it's this: here's this professedly Christian brother who's well-studied in many ways, right on a number of issues... but we say he's dead-wrong when it comes to Charismaticism. So what do we do with him? How do we see him? False teacher, erring brother, what?

In response: first, I concur that Brown's very well-studied, better than many with whom I agree on a greater array of doctrinal areas. I've used Brown's set of books on objections to Jesus as Messiah with profit. Indeed I was stunned to find that someone as learned as Brown had identified himself with as troubled (and troubling) a denomination as AoG. Yet when I hear him speak, Brown pulls out Hebrew and Greek from memory — accurately, and accurately-pronounced — as very few popular speakers can do.

An aside: this is the downside of reading the Bible in Hebrew and Greek for ~40 years. It is painfully obvious when some well-known folks attempt a Hebrew or Greek word in a message — painfully obvious, I say, that they're just trying to approximate a transliteration they read in a commentary. It's what a Brit must feel when a Yank misuses a Britishism, or affects an appalling attempt at an English accent. When Brown whips out a Hebrew or Greek word or phrase, he nails it. It's evident that he's studied the original. That's very apparent, and it's very much to Brown's credit.

So how to class Brown, given that he's thrown in with the wholly-wrongheaded movement, a schism responsible for some of the most harmful setbacks, distractions, and errors in Christian history?

Here's my best attempt:

Suppose you have a sister you love dearly.  Dear lady, good sister, many shared memories and values and loves. But then, as sometimes happens, she falls for this total loser of a jerk. Appalled, you try to talk to her; you reason and beg and plead. You even warn. But it seems like the more you reach out to her, the more tightly she wraps her arms around this odoriferous trainwreck of a man.

His name, of course, is Cary. You know, like Cary Grant? Only it's Cary S. Maddick. Yeah, sorry. Anyway.

Bad as that is, it gets even worse. You know for a fact that this Cary guy has a long and sordid past. There's airtight evidence of his collusion in a series of crimes and atrocities, though somehow he's managed to elude the authorities every time. What's worse, you find out that he can't be trusted around women, or even children. Given the opportunity, he'll work his way with them, corrupt them, and ruin them.

Now you find yourself living in a nightmare. You love your sister dearly; you're just sick with concern and regret for her bad choices. Your sister herself is welcome at your home any time, for any reason. But you've got kids, and you've got girlfriends who also come by to visit. If sister is there, Cary is there too. How could you in any way expose them to him?

So you tell your sister, "I love you. You can come any time you like. You're welcome here. But Cary is not, not ever, not under any circumstances. Don't bring him, and don't talk about him with those googly, swoony eyes you get. I don't want anyone I care about coming anywhere near Cary, or vice-versa. The man is poison."

"Oh come on," sis says. "You're blowing this way out of proportion. Cary's not that bad. He's grown. In fact, he's the best thing that ever happened to me. He's totally changed my life for the better. I'm liberated and happy, because of Cary. I think everyone should know him, and I want everyone to know him. If I come, he comes; if he goes, I go. I'm proud of him, and I'll tell the world. You can never part us."

Feel better? Has sister reassured you? Not so much?

So what do you do? As I say, it's a nightmare.

I think what you do is you love your sister, you pray for her, you long for her... but as long as (and to the degree that) she's twitterpated with this corrupt, pustulent, corrupting louse, she's going to have to stay away from anyone you care about, and you're going to have to warn everyone who knows her.

Make sense?

Now, I could massage this even further to get more service out of it. Suppose your sister is an excellent dance-instructor. People ask you if you'd recommend her. What do you say?

Well, on the one hand, there's no denying that she's really, really good at what she does. And you do love her.

But on the other hand, if they go hang around your sister, even if it's only for dance, they're going to meet Cary. Because she's made it clear: she's not apologetic about Cary, she's not embarrassed about Cary, she sees no harm in Cary. Perversely, she's proud of him...or so she insists, with significantly protesteth-too-much shrillness. She thinks he's the best thing since DVDs. Better. She wants everyone to know Cary. She'll use the dance-connection to bring out dear ol' Cary and introduce him around.

So, back to Brown and folks like him: yep, what he's good at, he's really good at... as he will tell you, over and over. This is despite Brown's lamentable charismaticism. But though often rebuked, Brown is stiffening his neck, and doubling down on what a powerful source for wonderfulness charismaticism is. If someone, with charitable motives, tries to say what I just said ("despite"), Brown will promptly correct that person. So we won't be looking for Brown to soft-pedal it.

Michael Brown may be a really good guy in many ways. But he's gotten tangled up with something that is a real nightmare, and he's doubling-down. I wish it weren't so; but ah, what a different world it would be if wishes were realities. The reality of the situation can't be shrugged off.

IN CONCLUSION: I don't know that this answer will make anyone happy. Giving it doesn't make me happy; having the situation doesn't make me happy.

But it is the best way I know how to yoke together three horses that want to pull in different directions: affection for a brother in Christ as such; appreciation for a brother's accomplishments; and necessary and appropriate horror and alarm over the harmful doctrine to which he insists on wedding himself.

SPECIAL NOTE TO FIRST-TIME COMMENTERS: since I have to keep deleting repeated attempts to comment off-topic from folks who apparently (A) haven't read the post, and (B) haven't read even the first comment, I lift two from the meta and put them here:
Commenters should note the premise/starting point of the post. It isn't, "What do we make of Charismaticism?" It is, rather, "Given that Charismaticism is a harmful error, what do we make of a beloved brother who very loudly and repeatedly insists on being identified with it?"
I continue to have to delete comments apparently responding to some other post, some post that begins "Hi! This is the first post this blog has ever done on continuationism! I wonder what to think of it. Would you please tell me?"
This is not that post.
Please, before commenting, READ THIS POST and at least the first comment. Then comment on it.
You're welcome.

Dan Phillips's signature


DJP said...

Commenters should note the premise/starting point of the post. It isn't, "What do we make of Charismaticism?" It is, rather, "Given that Charismaticism is a harmful error, what do we make of a beloved brother who very loudly and repeatedly insists on being identified with it?"

John said...


SO for Dr. Brown you love, because he knows greek and hebrew and would destroy you in a debate like he did Phil, the rest you mock, sneer at, poke fun at, degrade or to summarize what "team pyro" has been for all these years. Todd needs to ask someone else. Happy New Year

Daryl said...

Imagine, John, if Dr. Brown had actually debated Phil. Imagine.

On the other hand, imagine if he has debated, say, Sam Waldron.

Wait. No need. He actually did debate Sam. And, as well spoken as Dr. Brown is, he got is handed to him. It's clear in the debate that he never actually understood Sam's argument and provided nothing as a rebuttal (unless you include "so you admit that there's no verse that says 'these things will end with the apostles'").

Further, in this post, where's the fun-poking, mocking and sneering? I read sadness and frustration, not mockery.

I realize Dan could answer you better, but sometimes I feel like stepping in between just a little to say "Hello? Did you hear a word he said?"

DJP said...

Thanks Daryl. John's comment was just so classic, I just had to share.

So, now: anyone want to comment on the post?

Kerry James Allen said...

But Paul, it's PETER. Why Paul, why? Galatians 2:11. Oh.

Christopher Williams said...

It's pretty much spot on to what I've been saying in conversation about Brown. Well said, Dan.

Daryl said...

It's a tough post to read. But I get it.

My first thought was "what about paedobaptists", but clearly, the damage from the charismatics far surpasses the damage of paedobaptism. (Damage almost seems like the wrong word in the latter case.)

But for me, it's my whole family. So that's where it's tough. And the influence has crept into the youth ministry at our church (with the whole idea that God will speak to you and tell you things that you must obey). A ministry I'm involved in.

But still, as you say, and has been so well laid out by many others, the damage is real and, I would argue, is unavoidable.

Michael Brown said...

Hey Dan,

Thanks for devoting a whole blog to me! I look forward to hearing your comments once you read through Authentic Fire with an open heart and mind, and may God's grace and truth be yours!

Michael (yes, it's actually me; someone sent me a link to this blog)

For others: I won't be able to interact here, so apologies in advance; you can communicate with me through the AskDrBrown FB page, #Drmichaellbrown on Twitter, or by calling my radio show)

Tony Miano said...

Thank you, Dan, for giving your readers a wonderful example of Christian charity, without compromise. Honest. On point. Balanced. Respectful.

Sharing this article far and wide.

DJP said...

I appreciate that, Tony.

Terry Rayburn said...


Hammer. Nailhead. Hit. Just right.

Pastor Robert Iannuccilli said...

Very Confusing Writer!
(that's Todd Fri, not Dr. Brown!l.... Sounds SHAKEN!)

Tov Rose said...

Awesome. Dr. Michael Brown came and posted in person on your blog. Sounds to me like a guy reaching out to you...

Chris said...

Recently a member of my congregation mentioned he became aware of Michael Brown because he came across his book bout the hyper-grace movement. He told me the book looked “pretty good,” but with him was a friend who recognized the name and said approvingly that Dr. Brown had been at the Brownsville Revival. I cringed. So I’m conflicted. There is certainly profit in Brown’s other works like A Queer Thing Happened to America, but here is in my own a real-life an example (this happened just this Sunday) of Brown being an avenue into potentially other areas of theology. Sigh.

DJP said...

Really? Sounded to me like a guy reaching out for traffic, book-buyers, and reviews.

Jules LaPierre said...

It's sort of like canning.

You can harvest a crop of beautiful, summer tomatoes and prepare and process them with care.

But, if one lid is compromised and never truly sealed, the fruit will become toxic, contaminated with deadly botulism.

Robyn said...

Happy to hear that Todd considers Michael our brother. I've been reading Brown's book, "Authentic Fire" and have to say that I agree with his loving suggestion to look at the fruit of one's life - regardless of their cessationist or charismatic bent - before judging whether or not they are truly a believer. BTW, I listen to "Wretched" regularly and love Todd. Just wish he would be more open-minded about the work of the Spirit.

pastorbenbd said...

So sad that you resort to such ridiculous and exaggerated analogies. I don't think that you could possibly stand toe to toe in a honest debate on the subject with Dr.Brown using only the word of God as your source. shameful...

DJP said...

To all the new commenters who evidently are being sent here without having read a single post: this is a moderated meta. Submitting the same comment three or four times won't speed the process. Interacting appropriately with the post might.

Also, I'll admit that I'm allowing some through for sheer illustrative and entertainment value.

Tony Miano said...

I agree with you, Dan. I found Dr. Brown's comment to be little more than self-promotion. He can't interact, here? But he can on his radio show and Twitter?

As for Dr. Brown's book, I've seen too many people hurt by the "movements, "ministries," "churches," and "apostles" he promotes and defends to trust his wisdom, discernment, and judgment regarding the very serious issues surrounding the Charismatic Movement.

Michael Brown said...


Did you really write that response to my post? I wrote to you reaching out in love and not responding in kind. You might want to retract the comment you wrote in response as to my motivation for posting here. It was genuine and from the heart, no malice and no ulterior motive.

Here's what I posted on my FB pages and Twitter: "I was just sent a link to a blog about me written by one of Pastor MacArthur's colleagues. If you do interact, please be gracious and respectful."

Once more: May the Lord's grace and truth be yours!

Tony Miano said...

I guess Dr. Brown does have time to interact, here. :-)

Rob said...

Cary S. Maddick... groan...

John said...


LOL, oh the love fades so quickly


DJP said...

Yes, Michael, it was directed to you.

"Reaching out"? I'll re-read, and sincerely, I will apologize if I missed something. Let's see:

I see you want me to buy and read and review your book... I see you wish me God's grace and truth (sincerely and no snark: thank you; same to you)... I see you say you WON'T interact here, but you want my readers to go to YOUR page, YOUR Twitter account, or YOUR radio show...

That's what you mean by "reaching out"?

I would apologize and retract if I could see where I was inaccurate. I don't. I'm not offended by what you did, or angry with you. it was fine. And though it really isn't our policy to post "come to my ____" comments, I published yours as a courtesy.

As to "reaching out," I do see this: you apparently don't know me from Adam. I'm "one of Pastor MacArthur's colleagues"? How so? Do you know me — my books, my education, my writing?

I only say all that in response to your complaint. So do let me hurry to say (A) I wouldn't assume you'd know me, though I'm hardly invisible; (B) I wasn't expecting you to check in for the day to converse; (C) this is what I've pretty much always seen you do except with big names (come to my show, come to my page, get my books). Well, even with some of them.

You're ever in Houston and want some coffee or BBQ, let me know. Love to.

Jman88 said...

"guy has a long and sordid past. There's airtight evidence of his collusion in a series of crimes and atrocities, though somehow he's managed to elude the authorities every time. What's worse, you find out that he can't be trusted around women, or even children. "

Really you are likening Dr. Brown to someone like this? Really?

DJP said...

I wouldn't normally publish a comment like jman's, but I do for illustration.

Evidently something's sending a lot of folks here who have never been here before. Fine. I'll be brief:

First: If you want to comment, you need to read the post first, and your comment has to look like you've done so.

Second: reading the comments is also helpful. In this case, AT LEAST read the first comment (mine).

Then I won't have to keep deleting all the comments trying to square the wheel off-topic.

DJP said...

That said: jman, read the post. It answers your question.

Jules LaPierre said...

Some folks think very highly of their own hearts.

kentwarrenmcdonald said...

I thought everything you said was clearly stated. Anyone who knew ANYTHING about Pyromaniacs history and stance on Charismaticism would understand completely where you were coming from. I didn't detect any snark or ridicule in the post. I DID hear sadness and concern for his inability to see through the dangers of the movement. Hope he shows up in Houston someday and you have a talk over BBQ. We all know a good plate of BBQ will open up the heart. (No snark intended.)

DJP said...


I continue to have to delete comments apparently responding to some other post, some post that begins "Hi! This is the first post this blog has ever done on continuationism! I wonder what to think of it. Would you please tell me?"

This is not that post.

Please, before commenting, READ THIS POST and at least the first comment. Then comment on it.

victory1 said...

This is why people hire consultants from the outside. To get a fresh read or look at something. after rerading the article and then reading down all posts or comments to the last one I can say that from my perspective there is a lot of double speak, derisive,condescending, sarcastic, unloving ( un- christian) non-brotherly love, and borderline HATEFUL attitudes from the article and non-charismatics on this blod thread. That speaks of bad fruit.

DJP said...

Well there y'go, then.

Tony Miano said...

Yet another reasonable post marred by the emotionally-driven comments of some who cannot see beyond their emotions to deal with the actual issues the article addresses.

Maybe the Charismatic Movement's name should be changed to "Charimotionalism."

DJP said...

This may be the first post with more comments deleted than published.

My low estimation of charismatic literacy is not being challenged by this little unintended exercise.

Huume said...

I love analogies, and I think this one is quite a bit too far to be a helpful one. But whatever :)

Sheldon Clowdus said...

I don't see where all the confusion is coming from. From where I sit here is what I read:

Dan believes a brother to hold to a serious, dangerous even, doctrinal error that he believes has and will continue to do significant spiritual damage to the body of Christ. Because of Dan's love for Christ and His body, he cannot in good concience recommend this brother to them.

You don't have to agree with Dan's view of the doctrine in question to see the logic of the post and of Dan's position.

Insert your own "serious doctrinal error" and I would hope any of you would warn me from someone you thought to be dangerous to my soul.

But what do I know.....you could just continue to beat your drum and miss the point of the post entirely.

Reagan Rose said...

Lot's of wisdom in your analogy, Dan.

I think sometimes it's hard for people to understand a stance like this when they are not in a position of leadership and influence, such as a pastoral ministry. When you are responsible for protecting those under your care from error, you exchange the butter knife of discernment for a scalpel.

It's not as simple as taking a count of all of Cary's many good aspects and a count of the 2 or 3 bad ones and see which number is greater. It's the seriousness and the corrupting influence of those bad characteristics that must be measured. At some point there's just too much poison to make the potion safe to ingest.

So as sad as it is, I agree with your assessment here. I appreciate Dr. Brown's ministry, but that glaring blind spot in the area of charismaticism, unfortunately, removes him from my recommendation list. It's just too harmful.

Of course, with brothers who I know are solidly biblical sufficientists I would be more inclined to recommend some of Dr. Brown's excellent works on other topics.

Suzanne Baruch said...

I believe you've drawn a false analogy by insisting that Dr. Brown's "Cary" is the same Cary embraced by all those who follow him. In fact, there are MANY Carys involved here, and each has fans and foes. Dr. Brown's "Cary" sincerely loves G-d, yearns to glorify Him in everything he does, and believes that G-d still chooses to show Himself through those who love Him. Perplexingly, you have mistaken Dr. Brown's "Cary" for an entirely different "man," when in fact these two don't look anything alike, nor do they believe, act or speak similarly. It is apparent to me that if you actually MET Dr. Brown's Cary, you would understand this distinction even if you continued to be perplexed by him.

DJP said...

I appreciate the good-faith engagement, Suzanne. But I know enough to say that, in my estimation, it's all one big codependent Cary, each part giving cover to the other.

I am aware that when it serves their arguments, some Charismatics will formally disown others, usually unnamed and irrelevant. But then they'll own them when it serves their purposes, too. As in, "Charismaticism is the biggest most vibrant movement of Christianity!" "Really? But many of the ones you're counting are modalists and word-faith heretics." "Yeah, we're not with them."

Own the numbers, not the doctrine.

All of this is an argument that has been well made by Phil Johnson and others, and may need to be re-made. But it is beyond the scope of this post.

Frank Turk said...

I love this thread already.

Frank Turk said...

Just as an important clarification, Dan and I are not "colleagues" of John MacArthur is any meaningful way. I have never met Dr. MacArthur; I don't think Dan has either. Dr. MacArthur did write a recommendation for "World Tilting Gospel."

We know Phil, and Phil has retired. The rest is all our own malfeasance -- except posting a comment that says, effectively, "I can't interact with you, but buy my book, visit my blog, stop by my Facebook or call in to my radio show," which is its own reward.

David McArdle said...

I don't think anything needs to be said other than what has already been said in the article and on the comment feed, again and again and again...and probably a few more agains before the comment feed calms down. About time people read those things!

I think Sheldon makes the point DJP already makes. The carrys and the contiuationists have their "deadly doctrine" that if somebody held to they would warn others not to go near.

Touche Dan, Touche.

Michael Brown said...


I haven't been able to follow the comments here, but in short (responding to your response to me, which someone posted on my FB page):

1) I'm happy to send you a free copy of my book and would love to get your feedback.

2) My short comment was meant to be gracious in response to a hostile (but friendly) blog post.

3) I always send my social media friends to different sites encouraging them to have respectful interaction, and I assumed you would be glad to have more readers from different perspectives.

4) I didn't want to appear rude to others by not responding to them here, hence giving my links.

So, you did misjudge my intent, but feel free to contact me directly (Fred Butler and Phil Johnson have my contact info) if you'd like. And please don't think me rude if I'm not able to respond further here.

Suzanne Baruch said...

I appreciate your response! I have a question about what you wrote, though. Uniformly, Dr. Brown has denounced heretical actions and beliefs within the charismatic movement, although he is firmly against naming names. I am curious to know then, why IN HIS CASE, you lump him together with ohers who are not quick to point out the errors, but who only want charismaticism to appear unified? As the Master said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." It truly appears to me that Dr. Brown sees the errors within the "house," and wants to divide from it. So even if you disagree with his stance on charismaticism, doesn't it make sense for cessationists to recognize what he is trying to do, and admit it is a step in the right direction? Otherwise, isn't it YOU who are overlooking a material fact because it aides your argument?

Sharyn said...

I actually learned of Dr. White through Dr. Brown's show, Line of Fire. At the time I listened to the show regularly, I was a member of Calvary Chapel, an Arminian, and a Roman Catholic ecumenist. (I know. I'd be ashamed of my deception if God hadn't, through His divine grace, used it for His glory.) While my beliefs were what I would have called "fluid," they were very sincerely held, as I believe Dr. Brown's are as well. I cannot fault him for that.

But, in human terms, I had very little to lose by abandoning human philosophy for Biblical authority; I'm not a nationally syndicated radio personality. The danger with false teachings is that many people (especially the most devout) believe that if their presuppositions are wrong, the entire Gospel must be wrong; how many of Dr. Brown's listeners, and followers of the Charismatic movement, would simply leave the church entirely if a nationally recognized figure like Dr. Brown says he's wrong? That's a lot of face to lose.

This article sums up a lot of how I feel about Dr. Brown. I consider him a brother, but I would never tell an unbeliever, "Listen to Line of Fire; that guy has a solid grasp of Biblical authority and Gospel truths." I love him and pray for his repentance, but I just can't embrace what he has embraced and rejoice in the sovereignty of God as he understands it.

DJP said...

No sarcasm intended: "hostile (but friendly) blog post" is epic. Well-put. I might say "critical (but friendly)"...

OK, there I began to explain what I mean, but realized I'd be repeating the post. So I relent.

I'll take you at your word as to your intent and say that my impression as to intent was mistaken. The effect was not, in this case, the intent.

No rudeness imputed. I'm sure you are a busy man, and this isn't a usual hangout for you. Thanks for stopping by.

Frank Turk said...

I think a lot of the confusion in this matter can be blown out by asking and answering this question:

"Are the Sign Gifts -- the Apostolic Gifts of Prophecy, Healing, and Tongues -- necessary for the life of the church until Christ returns?"

If the answer is "yes," the person saying such a thing has a very difficult set of problems -- not the least of which are the problem of 1900 years of church history without these gifts and the problem of what to do with the rest of us who, frankly, call those who practice these things mistaken or dangerous.

If the answer is "no," why are they pouring out so much effort to defend these things -- most of which are best described as "side show antics?" What benefit is there in calling hunches (which are usually wrong) "prophecy," and demanding others do so as well?

Dan's answer, if it is anything, is too kind. It's too lenient. It's too open-minded toward those for whom we share Christ's love but who are making Christ out to be a ringmaster and not a savior.

As the sign gifts necessary? Let's answer that before we tell Dan what a mean fellow he is for pointing out that even the best of those advocating for these things are doing the spiritual equivalent of bringing a drunk into the family.

Nancy Crews said...

Can a bad tree produce good fruit?

jmb said...

I know of a bible scholar who won't recommend Brown's books on Jewish Objections To Messiah, even though he thinks they are excellent, because of Brown's charismatic views. I think your approach is correct.

St. Lee said...

Okay, clearly my half Swede ancestry reared its thick head today. I read the post. I did an internet search on Cary S. Maddick (thinking he may be a semi well known AoG leader)with no results except for this post . Then I read all the comments. Then I went back and looked at the name AGAIN and finally "got" it.

I think all of us have a friend or loved one who is infatuated with Cary, and I agree with your conclusion Dan, and I agree with your sadness that it needs to be this way.

Warren Marcus said...

Dr. Michael Brown didn't just fall in love with Charismatic/Pentecostalism but he is married to it. Are you suggesting that he must now divorce his spouse? He can't come over your house, or church with his spouse even though you like him and care about him and even feel he is a great person? I am being as far fetched as the post is in illustrating a point. How can we still have fellowship when we allow such divisions in the body? Are we being guilty of adding something more to SALVATION - belief in jesus as Lord and Savior? It sounds as if we are doing such with posts like these. I'm sure Dr. Brown isn't disassociating himself with believers who disagree with him concerning the Holy Spirit.

DJP said...

He should repent of this false teaching and disown it, yes, Warren. So are you saying that you read this post, and you didn't get that?

Eric said...


Did you miss the part (in the comments) where Dan invites Dr. Brown for coffee/BBQ if he is in town? Doesn't sound like disassociation.

Did you miss the part (in the post) where Dan refers to Dr. Brown as a Christian brother? Doesn't sound like adding requirements for salvation.

Frank Turk said...


Equating a doctrinal stance to a marriage, including all that implies about necessary fidelity, falls apart quickly as an analogy -- unless the Apostolic Gifts are necessary for the life of the church.

Are you saying that, like the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Lord's Table, the Apostolic Gifts are necessary? Asking for a friend.

Michael Coughlin said...

Brilliant, just brilliant.

triplewhammy said...

DJP, does your perspective also apply to men like Piper who seem pretty adamant about the gifts and have questionable interactions in the past (i.e. Toronto blessing)?

Chowie said...

"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Tim Mullet said...

Interesting side note:

I'm not sure that I have ever heard a cessationist describe a dogmatic continuationist's dogmatism as being "hostile." Yet the reverse of this seems to be pretty par for the course.

Jerry Wragg said...

What grieves me, Dan, is what so many of the comments here reflect about how evangelicals think and express convictions. There are several a priori assertions, self-contradictions, emotional accusations, and inflammatory charges (e.g. "borderline hate speech"), all seemingly without the slightest hesitation or tempering forethought. Is this what the church's understanding of perspicuity and the search for truth is being reduced to?

Beloved, please listen: the truth is not subjective or personal. God's word is objective and given to His people as revelation---the intent to clearly manifest Himself and the way things really are. Therefore, when we disagree, even strongly, we shouldn't engage if we're personally offended at another's views. If it's personal, we've not yet humbled ourselves enough to debate the issues biblically. When your theology is not personal, you don't become personally irritated, defensive or retaliatory. We may express our views with strong conviction, even intensity and dogmatism, but we never spawn or own truth. God's truth owns us or we know nothing at all.

Tim Mullet said...

So Dan,

If a Continuationist were to say that they do not doubt your sincerity, and think you to be a reliable guide when it comes to many other areas of doctrine. Yet, due to the seriousness of your error in contributing the works of God to Satan, they can't in good conscience recommend that any of their sheep ever listen to you. It is simply that serious of an error and very dangerous! I imagine you would say, "I completely disagree with you on the issue, but praise the Lord for your willingness to courageously shepherd your flock!"

Is this a fair representation of your thoughts?

stirrings said...

Keep up the good work, Dan. Almighty God is not allergic to clear reasoning and d well-thought-out arguments...and neither should His children.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

I can relate to the analogy in that we've had family members who have proceeded in bad relationships with really unfortunate outcomes. No matter what you say to them, they get defensive and cling harder. I even dated a guy my parents didn't like, and I always thought they never gave him a fair shot. But thankfully my sister began asking questions that really got me to think honestly without feeling like I needed to defend the bloke. And I started to see for myself that he was a loser and I couldn't change him. I'm certain there was a LOT of praying behind the scenes as well!

So I guess my take away from this as it relates to dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ who are twitterpated with Cary's big hair, fat wallet and touchy-feely passion for the sound of his own voice, is: #1)Pray without ceasing and especially before opening your mouth, #2) It's better received when the sister or brother knows you love them and are concerned for them #3) Don't expect they will immediately come around to your view #4) ask good questions and listen to their answers. #5) They may never thank you personally for your honesty, but some day, (you hope) they may appreciate that you loved them enough to speak up. And finally, if they never repent of their foolishness and you sadly watch their life turn to train wreck, you love them from a distance, and keep doing #1-5.

Andy Morrison said...

This situation played out in my family coming out of the strange fire conference. My parents left catholicism and became pentecostals while i was an infant, and while they had left the pentecostal movement, they still held to a lot of the theological baggage.

Having listened through all the conference talks, i sent my mum a flash drive with the talks on it. A few talks in, i asked how she was finding it. At that point she said that it seemed that the tone of the conference seemed negative. She soldiered through the rest of the talks, and was open enough to change her viewpoint in light of the weight of evidence presented, and her own observations of the movement.

i don't think many people are open to admitting their position could be wrong, so will defend to the death their position rather than evaluating the evidence.

Tumi Letoka said...

Dan Continuationism is false teaching and Cessationism is sound doctrine? Wow

Morris Brooks said...

Well, here I am up @ 3:00 AM Texas time because my wife and I missed the fact that the sauce for the Moo Goo Gai Pan had onion in it; and now reading some of the non-deleted responses is adding to the heart-burn.

The issue in the post and its analogy is not a lack of love on Dan's part for Dr. Brown, but of his overwhelming love for the rest of his family and his desire to protect them from what could be irreparable harm.

What so many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are confused about is what love, true Christian love, is; and, therefore, what it does. It doesn't apply just to the continuationist-cessationist debate, but comes up pretty much any time error is pointed out, especially when names are mentioned.

Actually, the most loving thing Dan can do is point out the error, explain why the error is wrong, what the harm of the error is, and , yes, even point out the person responsible for the error...because some people/many people are not discerning enough to get past the personality and see the error. Which is what makes the error promoters wolves in sheep's clothing, no matter how benign their intentions.

Faith Tiberend said...

Interesting thoughts, written with love, grace, respect, and an attempt to be balanced. However, the sister analogy really isn't spot on... Dr. Brown isn't infatuated or blindly head-over-heels with charismaticism. Like all other topics he approaches, though passionate, he is also highly through, well-researched, and scholarly. A large number charismatics believe as they do as a result of studying the Word of God on the topic. True that there are also many charismatics who follow blindly any and every wind of teaching, but it seems to me that can be true of anyone who doesn't study God's Word for themselves. I would strongly suggest to Mr. Phillips that he look further into Dr. Brown's reasoning on this doctrinal issue. He has recently released a new book on the topic.

DJP said...

Yes, Faith; and every purveyor of every false doctrine since Cerinthus would say the same and have the same said of him. The irony is that, if you had shown me the courtesy you assume I haven't shown Dr. Brown... you wouldn't assume what you've assumed of me.

Circles are round, water is wet, the wheel is invented, and "Cary" — "charismaticism" as to its distinctives, its doctrines/practices that set it off from Biblical Christianity — is a force for evil and harm.

donsands said...

" A large number charismatics believe as they do as a result of studying the Word of God on the topic"-Faith

Dan said plainly that Michael Brown is a scholar.
How did you miss that Faith?

Excellent post. And great comments. I actually was blessed reading through them this New Year's Day late morning.

I was in an AoG church, and actually helped start it. I came to realize that there was much error in their doctrine, and so I left, and our Lord by His grace helped me to continue to study His truth, and live in His truth and grace, and grow in his love.

The inerrant Holy Bible is my foundation. Period.

Thanks Dan for the edifying post and good words, I shall pass them on.

And blimey, I quite fancied that, and you are a good chap, so have a blessed New year and stay away from those blokes with all their rubbish.

Burrito34 said...

An earlier commenter mentioned something about a blind spot. People fall into all kinds of religious blind spots; they will often see some wrong belief or tenet they agree with, like and then settle it in their minds that it is true. Once this happens, it can be very difficult to shake these convictions. It's kind of like when I've gotten in fender benders when I thought the traffic was clear but my perception did not match the reality. As it pertains to the charismatic excesses, until someone in the movement wakes up to the real harm and damage that is occurring and actually deals with the Bible says and does not say about "da gifts", they will be stuck following unbiblical teachings.

AZ ResQ Team said...

Thanks for the Article, i have followed Dr Brown for a few years and used to listen to his radio show frequently, but after a few interactions and unanswered question specially in regards to the NAR, BETHEL, IHOP, JABOS, BENTLEY, SID ROTH, RICK JOYNER i can say he is indeed married to Charismatism and has refused to answer "simple" questions about their practices not only from me but from other people, i was in this conversation on the following link i do not know the writer on the Link but i did not see any reason why Dr Brown should not responde clearly ...http://airocross.com/2013/10/25/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-brown-on-his-relationship-with-rick-joyner/

Frank Turk said...

I'm reading the comments in the buffer, and I'm enjoying the variety of approaches. My favorite, which probably will not escape from moderation, is the "Why do you hate Jesus?" approach.

One of the problems of reasoning from Jesus to you or me personally is that while Jesus is "like us" (cf. Phil 2; John 1), we are not really "like Jesus" in the way the Charismatic requires to make this work out well. There's an easy way and a hard way to explain that. The hard way requires we go through all the ways that the God-Man is nothing like a man-man like you or me, and it would require a lot of explanations or the difference between being of one nature with the Father and so on.

The easy way gets handed to us immediately by the Charismatic himself. Charismaticism demands that the sign gifts continue to this very day, yes? So there are three things that ought to be happening today if the things the Apostles were doing are still being done today:

1. New Scripture should be written still (cf. 2 Pet 3). Unless you can produce some of this New Scripture, that's one way in which you and I agree the Apostolic gifts are not continuing.

2. Healings should be still present everywhere these people with the Apostolic gifts are preaching, and they should be so dramatic that the cities in which they are being performed are practically rioting because the work is so world-tilting (cf. Acts 5). This is obviously absent, or in the best case for the Charismatic it is in fact very much less and different. The question really isn't if either of us believes there's a continuation of this gift as in Acts 5: neither of us do. The difference is that the Continualist wants to call something much less than what happened in the Bible "a sign gift" when it's not really the same at all.

3. There would be discipline exercised toward signs in an authoritative way (cf. Acts 16). When was there ever a false spirit silenced with authority by these alleged sign gift bearers -- especially a spirit which allegedly was bearing testimony which was true about them? Since this is also absent, let's also admit that whatever is happening today is nothing like what happened when the books of Acts was happening.

I don't hate Jesus: I am simply willing to admit I am nothing like him. Anyone with any dignity and seriousness has to admit the same. Claiming you are just like him is, frankly, self-incriminating, and you should reconsider what you are saying. Your acts are nothing like his acts.

Eric said...


As to your #1 above, you can rest easy, because it is indeed happening and it is being recorded...on the pages of Charisma magazine.


This article from the end of 2013 is in the same magazine featuring Dr. Brown and Adrian Warnock.

Count the number of times that the listed author uses the phrases "saith the Lord" and "says the Lord". He even goes so far as to use "I Am". Meet Cary - he's not as harmless as he sells himself.

trogdor said...

A few years ago I was axed a similar question about a not-altogether different situation. "Why do you so strongly reject Rob Bell because of his inclusivist views, but don't do the same with CS Lewis?" Setting aside that there are numerous reasons to outright reject Bell and that I'm not the biggest Lewis fan, the question no doubt captures conservative evangelicalism well. Bell is denounced for coming out as a universalist, but the inclusivist Lewis is the subject of fawning conferences. Why?

I think the answer is one of focus. When you think of their overall ministries, what is the impression you get? Lewis was trying to help people understand Christianity, and got some things wrong in the process. Bell was trying to undermine Christianity. For Lewis, the errors were incidental and unfortunate. For Bell, the errors are the point.

All that to say, errors are a lot harder to overlook the more central and prominent they become.

So for this example, why would Dan write this about Brown, but not about, say John Piper? Both are continuismatic to some degree. For Brown, this issue is front and center. With Piper, you can read an awful lot of his books and sermons before it ever comes up, and it's surprising and seemingly out of step with the rest of his ministry when it does.

You can read a lot of Piper, Carson, Grudem, Storms, etc - the usuals - without even finding out about the continuismatic malaise, let alone being drawn into it. Not so sure about Brown. And that's a problem.

Frank Turk said...

The other lingering question in the moderation buffer is the question of "what should Michael Brown repent of?"

Earlier today I tweeted a link to this essay by Dr. Brown from Feb 2013, and my comment was that if he already believes that stuff, why not just re-assess his own comments on #StrangeFire?

He says himself in that essay, "It’s time to say goodbye to this watered-down, sin-excusing, so-called gospel that offers everything and calls for nothing." We agree. The problem is simply that he does not really mean all "so-called gospels" -- because he has himself defended a litany of ministries which are doing what he criticizes there for the sake of somehow clenching with white knuckles to a flavor of practice he refuses to look at seriously or soberly.

Let him repent of his demand that the so-called "Charismatic gifts" are necessary for the life of the church, and then let's give him 5 years to work out what that means in real terms.

Jules LaPierre said...

Sincere question: If a brother repeatedly, unabashedly and unrepentantly insists on wedding himself to harmful doctrine, why do we call him brother?

Would we grant the title of brother to, for instance, a Mormon who is "well-studied in many ways" and "right on a number of issues" and can "accurately pronounce Hebrew and Greek from memory"?

Would we grant the title of brother to the Pope who is "well-studied in many ways" and "right on a number of issues" and can "accurately pronounce Hebrew and Greek from memory"?

Just thinking out loud.

Daryl said...


Apples and oranges. Dr. Brown is not in any way, denying the gospel.

This is an important, vitally important issue, but when we start making it on par with the gospel we're past the shaky ground and are doing the Wile. E. Coyote routine running in air.

There can be no serious comparison between Dr. Brown and a Mormon, at least when it comes to using the term "brother". As relates to Dr. Brown and as Dan framed the post, is an in house debate.

He's right on the gospel (Arminian though he is), and wrong on the apostolic gifts.

Frank Turk said...

Jules --

It's an interesting question.

Here's what I said to Adrian Warnock when he asked me the mirror-image of that question:

Look: one reason we reject Catholicism is over the fact (or lack of fact) regarding a miracle – the transubstantiation of bread and wine into Body and Blood. In the Catholic mind, anyone who rejects this miracle – which is performed every day – is simply out of line. Those who reject it are comparable to Muslims in God’s economy of salvation. They can’t really be Christian because they cannot receive God’s work in the Mass. For Catholics, because it is actually a miracle, it’s blasphemy to reject it – and if they are right about the Mass, they are right about the blasphemy.

Therefore, whether or not "the other side" can be called a "brother" depends on the other side's demands and requirements, and whether or not the say the Gospel is being undone. Are the questions in-play here serious enough to be blasphemy or not? Does a cessationist commit the Unpardonable Sin or not? Are there miracles actually being performed today as in the NT, or not? It seems to me that those guys want to create an apologetic as if the dignity and deity of the Holy Spirit are at stake – until that’s actually the argument on the table, at which time we (the cessationists) are unloving to them for pointing out that if these are the stakes, those cats are in very serious trouble.

Does that help?

Jules LaPierre said...

Yes, that helps, Frank. Very much.

Jules LaPierre said...

One last question, if I may...

"He's right on the gospel."

Is that the singular benchmark?

Ron said...

Dan, thanks for allowing comments about Michael. Nice guy it seems in all his mannerisms. I think Michael is toxic. I don't think that any pastor that calls Michael a brother in Christ would allow him to speak from their pulpit. If this is talking about any pastor reading this, I think you would have to agree that anyone of the calibre of Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Brown, who speaks several languages fluently, has several letters after his name, world fame, friends of thousands, would have to be looked at as toxic.
I know personally 2 people Michael has interviewed, (out of the hundreds )their personal lives are train wrecks. Michael takes the dregs of ministers and makes them appear to be far better people than what they are in person.
So, what to do with Michael? Nothing. There is nothing that can be done.
All I did was to stop listening to him as I did with John Piper. At least in the circles I run, no one even knows who MB is or can name any books he has written. There are far too many speakers, pastors, brothers who are non toxic that would be allowed into pulpits MB would not be invited to.
One thing about Todd I have noticed, his questions are loaded. His question about MB was just as loaded. In the end, I think Todd adds red herrings within his questions to throw off what the real question should be. Just my opinion.

DJP said...

I thought Todd's question quite sharp. And there are plenty I'd accept as Christian brothers, without necessarily offering them the pulpit of our church.

Daryl said...


When defining a brother, I would say yes.

For other questions, not so much.

donsands said...

"All I did was to stop listening to him as I did with John Piper."-Ron

I just finished listening to John Piper on Justin Taylor's blog. I was quite edified.
The brother seems to love Christ, and the truth, and is gifted from our Savior to build up His people.

yet, you surely don't need to listen to him, that's up to you.
Just thought That was putting John Piper under the spiritual bus, and so I wanted to reply Ron.

Love all your thoughts Cent. You are so gifted my brother. You and Dan make a great two-by-two sent out by our Lord. Keep on.

Solameanie said...

A couple of comments, if I may. I've had limited interaction with Michael, I may have done a radio interview with him several years ago when he first began his five-volume series on answers to Jewish opponents, which as noted here, is an excellent work of scholarship. At that time, I didn't know that Michael had charismatic leanings, and that in and of itself wouldn't necessarily deter me from buying, reading, and using his Jewish apologetics materials. The past few weeks, as I've seen this dialogue/kerfuffle blow up since "Strange Fire," I've been pretty surprised - especially at the latest inclusion of Benny Hinn in Michael's choice of interview subjects. I wanted to pull my hair out after seeing Dr. James White call attention to that one. I am perplexed.

Second, a note on the Assemblies of God. I have some knowledge of this fellowship, as my mother grew up in it and I attended it in the 80s and early 90s before moving in a Reformed direction. In many ways, the AG is a perplexing fellowship. There is a difference between mainstream Pentecostalism and the modern charismatic movement. It's a difference that might seem indistinguishable to the casual observer, but at one time, it was quite marked. For instance, in the 1940s, the AG completely rejected the so-called "Latter Rain" movement that evolved into the Word of Faith errors as propagated by E.W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and a host of others. The AG declared that unbiblical heresy back then, and they were right. I do not know if they maintain that stance today, but they did for quite a long time.

I also am aware of a controversy that had arisen in more recent years at Central Bible College, the AG's main school for pastoral students located in Springfield, Missouri. They had a professor there named Dr. Opal Reddin, who has since died. Shortly before her death, she wrote an open letter to the AG General Council expressing deep concern over what she saw as biblical drift within the Assemblies, and a move toward more pragmatic, market-driven theology rather than biblical theology. Sadly, judging by the lack of response to her letter, it seems the General Council did not heed that warning.

I tell that rather lengthy tale simply to illustrate something. Even in the best case scenario with a Pentecostal fellowship that seemed to hold to a high view of Scripture, the open door to continuing revelation helps set the stage for a world of problems down the road, especially when a fellowship (and this applies by far more in the charismatic circle) refuses to police its own.

I would like to give Dr. Brown more benefit of the doubt due to what Dan points out as his excellent scholastic capabilities and obvious love for the Lord. But I really do find this perplexing. How he can possibly approve of someone like Benny Hinn leaves me speechless.

AZ ResQ Team said...

Well, seems that you were not wrong as many said, not me, i agree 100% with your article but check this out dr brown and Benny Hinn Working together ..... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=821127874579483&set=a.190367064322237.55437.109430102415934&type=1&theater

Lockheed said...

And now... this:


Tom Chantry said...

Brother in Christ? Um, no.


Calling this man a brother in Christ is like calling Neville Chamberlain a champion of freedom. I don't see how we can make such rash assumptions of a man with absolutely ZERO spiritual discernment.

Daryl said...

Wow. Not sure I'd say Dr. Brown is not a brother (I say not sure mind you, not saying that it shouldn't be said), but this turn of events (or, more likely, unveiling of what always was) certainly raises some serious questions about his discernment.

It's one thing for a new or untaught believer to be sucked in by Benny Hinn, it happens all the time I'm sure. But when a man who boasts his credentials and who has been in ministry for as long as Dr. Brown, gets sucked in...it's time to start asking some hard questions.

If only he would answer any of them...

Frank Turk said...

Jules --

Is the statement "he's right on the Gospel" enough to keep someone in good fellowship?

I'm making this face.

I think that is where we start, and then we ask whether, as Paul said to Timothy, he has guarded his life and doctrine. PyroManiacs jumped off the Mark Driscoll bandwagon a long time ago -- way ahead of most people, and to our own discredit among polite people -- because in spite of his on-paper "good Gospel" his life and practice was frankly off the main road.

My view of this question is shaped by Doug Wilson's post-millennial view that we count everyone in who is good on paper, exhort them based on their confession (Doug would say: "Grab their Baptism") to stay true to the faith, and only formal church discipline removes them from good company -- though we have to use good personal judgment for someone who demonstrates really bad character.

I think that model informs all my open letters, as well as the spicy spice of giving as well as one gets.

How's that?

Jules LaPierre said...

I have to agree with Tom on this one, my friends.

DJP said...

No, Tim Mullet; my response would be, "QED."

Tim Mullet said...

Sure QED, that would be the point of the Strange Fire Conference, but after the charitable bit yes?

A better question perhaps:
If a continuationist were to write the blog you just wrote directed at you, would you consider it an attack on your person?

Isn't the problem that we may have sacrificed the sheep the wolves in the name of unity? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to actually talk about the ramifications of one's theology instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are none? Yet, when one tries to do just that, it is frequently considered a personal attack...

Darrell said...

st night my family was watching an old episode of the Andy Griffith show, and Andy was visiting with the very naïve Floyd the Barber in his shop when a crooked attorney from the next town walked in. He had tricked Otis into trumping up a false case against Andy’s jail claiming negligence after Otis tripped over his own feet and fell. Everything about the lawyer was sleazy. He was manipulative, obviously in it for the money, and of course Andy saw right through him. But as this crooked lawyer spoke, Floyd was just enamored with the guy’s shiny suit. When the lawyer finally left the room, Floyd blurted out: “What a wonderful man!”

I turned to my wife and mentioned that Floyd would make a great leader in the charismatic movement.

Brady Bush said...

I think I'm hearing wedding bells for Mike and Cary today. It makes me very sad to watch this shipwreck. Do any Christian leaders repent anymore?

Frank Turk said...


I'm not answering for Dan, but as someone who has regularly been reviled by all manner of allegedly-kind and allegedly-sober bloggers when it is demonstrable that none of them have ever actually read the posts they criticize, I'd welcome a post like this as it would be something one can respond to in detail rather than the random and emotive tripe that is usually hurled this way.

I would be pleased if someone was this specific. It would be a new thing.

Kerry James Allen said...

I can't remember a post where the subject of the post proved the point of the author as quickly as this one did. Matthew 12:37.

Let's face it, given the fact that Hinn has a huge following and mailing list, and the fact that it has already been stated that Brown is no theological rube, he has evidently already done the cost/benefit analysis and knows he comes out ahead.

Doc Brown, Back to the Future: "Look! There's a rhythmic ceremonial ritual coming up."

Indeed. Another "Top Man" refusing admonition from the little people.

juks said...

i saw on alpha and omega site that michael brown just tweeted that he di some wonderful shows with ... Benny Hinn!

Tim Mullet said...

Would there be any charitable/non-hostile way of telling Michael Brown that recording five wonderful/non-confrontational tv shows with Benny Hinn involves taking part in his evil deeds and losing some measure of reward?

Frank Turk said...

Tim --

Who said what you said about Michael Brown? Where did they say it?

Frank Turk said...

Here's what Dan said about Michael Brown's cooperation with Benny Hinn (or at least: my paraphrase):

That lacks discernment, and speaks to the way he is dealing with the issues exposed by #StrangeFire. It speaks to his credibility as someone who has a reputation as a source of truth and discernment.

donsands said...

How does Benny the Hinn fool these people like Michael?
I know he fooled my brother, and so we were talking about Benny one day, and "what a powerful man full of the Holy Ghost he was":-is what my brother told me.
I finally said, "You know Benny is not full of the Holy Ghost, but he is full of baloney."
The guy loves mammon, and he is a shame to the Gospel.
My brother of course thinks I'm wrong, but don't we simply need to say things the way they are at times?

Once again terrific post by Dan. Well done my brother. Have a great weekend, and Lord's Day! All for the Cross, Gal. 6:14, Shalom.

Tim Mullet said...


Those words were my assessment of Michael Brown.

(Not being disagreeable)

I completely agree also with your paraphrase of Dan :)

The point of the comment was to say that by contemporary standards John was pretty rude in his second letter...

juks said...

this is what happens when the main disctinctives of unity are - have you had "the" baptism and do you speak in "gibberish". that's how we got to the ecumenical and charismatic renewal. Dont worry about their gospel or non-gospel but do they speak in tongues ... even if its to Mary. and if you are a flaming arminian on top of it its a double whammy. So rebuke John Macarthur but coddle up to proven false prophets and teachers. Sorry cant take this man seriously I'm afraid. Huge flies in his ointment.

Christophe said...

The real question is when is the time to make a clear distinction between understanding Michael Brown as doubling down, stiff necked brother and not brother at all but sophisticated purveyor of falshood? Can God the Holy Spirit be quenched and manipulated? That is the question...

Sapere aude

donsands said...

"Can God the Holy Spirit be quenched and manipulated?"

We can quench the Holy Spirit. What does that mean?

And Satan is an angel of light, and he has ministers, and we need to know them.

All for the Cross. Thank Yu Lord for Your Word, the Bible, for it is Your truth, and it is eternally true.

LanternBright said...

One additional drop in the vast sea of irony on this matter is that throughout the Strange Fire conference Brown was going on and on about how widely-traveled he was in charismatic circles, and that because of this he *KNEW* that MacArthur was "painting with too broad a brush."

NOW, however, he's saying that he was never all that familiar with Hinn's ministry, and that's why he never bothered to call him out about it.

So which is it? If Brown was "well-traveled" in charismatic circles, SHOULDN'T he have known who Benny Hinn was and what he taught and what he stood for? To put it another way, if Michael Brown isn't even in a position to evaluate the ministry of someone as seemingly pervasive as Hinn, can he really be all that credible as a source of what constitutes "mainstream charismaticism"?

DJP said...

As I tweeted, either way it utterly validates the central concern of the Strange Fire conference.

If Brown was hungry to be seen as a charismatic leader and yet took no interest in fellow-traveler Hinn, this betrays unconcern re. false doctrine and practice. If on the other hand he knew him and doesn't care... same thing. Either way, it's a blind eye to abuse and error, and it is EXACTLY the bell rung over and over at the conference.

MacArthur asked: who should police evangelicalism? He answered: evidently not charismatic pastors.

Brown is giving forth a ringing "Amen, John!" — without actually saying the words.

J. Dean said...

I wonder how Mr. Brown would react if he were to talk to those of us who are ex-charismatics/ex-pentecostals, in order to explain to him that we had an insider's view as to why we left the movements.

Frank Turk said...

Just to break rules, this blog goes live tomorrow:

Notebook Luncheon

It is entirely on-topic to this blog post. Some will find it instructive.

Jules LaPierre said...

Looking forward to reading it, Frank.

DJP said...

...because being a link-troll in one of my metas is okay when it's Frank.

Tom Chantry said...

Now as I understand it, the rule is that you're supposed to have coffee with someone in private instead of disagreeing with them on the internet. Now Frank's going to sit down and have virtual coffee (virtual lunch) with someone while disagreeing with him publicly on the internet.

The internet might implode.

Frank Turk said...

Tom - I actually had lunch with him before starting this on-line conversation.

DJP said...

Ah, good; now we're back to the true meta-topic of this and every other post I write.


lorena.reyes2010 said...

Totally agree with the article.

Helen Christoff said...

It took me a very long time to read the article about Dr. Michael Brown and all the comments. It was difficult to process all the assessments, but I have to concur with Dan for the most part. I greatly admire Dr. Michael Brown and I believe his stand re: homosexuals, same-sex marriage, & sexual identity issues is Biblical and right-on. However, I have been uneasy about his Charismatic emphasis on spiritual gifts and I have not known how to reconcile that. I do not consider Dr. Brown to be a heretic, although I do not endorse his charismatic leanings. No one is perfect and we all have flaws, so I prefer to focus on his messages that I find credible and scripturally correct while attempting to be discerning re: charismatic doctrine. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Am I wrong in my perspective?