CRI’s “Word of Faith” Update
This month the Christian Research Journal has issued an update to Hank Hanegraaff’s Christianity in Crisis, a book that actually called many rather orthodox doctrines outright blasphemous. Indeed, Christianity in Crisis and D.R. McConnell’s A Different Gospel seem to have made the blasphemous and heresy labels culturally popular.
This CRI issue bunches together T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Rod Parsley, and Joel Osteen as “five Word of Faith teachers who have come to the forefront in recent years.” CRI’s grouping begs the question, “What exactly is Word of Faith (at least these days)?” As a Rhema and Oral Roberts University graduate, I’ve had many folks point their fingers at me and say, “He’s one of those guys, yeah, those Word of Faith preachers” without even knowing what doctrinal stances I’ve taken on anything. But when I compare my preaching to some of the teachings I hear from Jakes, Dollar, Parsley, et al, I’m not sure how anyone puts us in the same category.
CRI, while identifying Jakes as a Word of Faith preacher, refers to his “denial of the trinity” with the following quote:
When God says “I AM that I AM,” He says, “I can become whatever,” and He showed off from that point on all through the wilderness. He just kept turning into stuff … . They said, “We want meat.” He became quail and started flying through the air. They said, “What are we going to do for water?” He became water, came gushing out of a rock … . They said, “We can’t drink this bitter water.” He became a tree and turned the bitter water into sweet. I mean, He just kept turning into stuff! One God manifesting in a multiplicity of ways. One God. Now, you don’t divide all of those manifestations into different Gods, the God of Bread, the God of Quail, the God of Water, the God of Tree, the God of Cloud, the God of Fire. Just one God Who manifests Himself so many different ways … . Your God is multifaceted, manifold, many shades. (Christian Research Journal, vol. 30, no. 3 at 17)
Laying aside CRI’s reported history of quoting preachers out of context, Jakes’s statements do not reflect orthodox Word of Faith teaching as I’ve come to understand it. Indeed, our essays on Jesus’s Descent into Hell are very much at odds with the Jakes’s statement when carried out to its logical conclusion.
In its article, CRI says this about Creflo Dollar’s preaching on prosperity:
Jesus often healed the blind and the lame, but the Gospels fail to give us a single example of Jesus bestowing riches on the poor. Dollar maintains that material possessions are important for preaching the gospel “because you have a world of people out there that don’t know your Jesus, but when they start seeing you with their stuff, they’re going to want to know how you got it and they’ll want you to introduce them to the Jesus that’s able to open doors up without a college degree.” Dollar’s gospel has people coming to Jesus for material gain instead of forgiveness of sins. (Christian Research Journal, vol. 30, no. 3 at 16)
Laying aside Hank Hanegraaff’s own apparent wealth, Dollar’s view of material possessions as a witnessing tool appears to be somewhat of a contemporary teaching. Indeed, while the teaching that God prospers His people can be traced all throughout scripture, the idea that material possessions constitute a witnessing tool to the lost in the New Testament doesn’t find support in the teachings of Kenneth Hagin or E.W. Kenyon, both of whom are considered by many to be the fathers of the “faith movement.”
With regard to Rod Parsley, CRI says that he ended his Breakthrough broadcast on TBN on 24 May 2006 like this after asking for a $50 donation:
I believe God will give you a harvest of protection from deception and an uncommon ability to discern between truth and error in your life… . First, God is going to release to you the ability to hear and recognize His voice as never before. Second, protection over your decisions. I’m believing with you for one year of no bad choices in your life. Finally, thirdly, protection from the deception of the adversary.” (Christian Research Journal, vol. 30, no. 3 at 21)
If one peruses the works of E.W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin, Smith Wigglesworth, Charles Price, or John G. Lake, those ministers that are usually thought to have brought on “a very real and present crisis in Christianity,” he won’t find really anything like this “prayer of agreement” or idea of “sowing and reaping.”
Given CRI’s current identification of “Word of Faith” preachers, it might be time to re-think what “Word of Faith” actually is supposed to mean.
Side Note
On the blog we are currently doing a series on the moniker, “sinner saved by grace.” In CRI’s article, Bob Hunter cites Joyce Meyer as making “the startling claim that she is not a sinner”:
I didn’t stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn’t a sinner anymore. And the religious world thinks that’s heresy and they want to hang you for it. But the Bible says that I’m righteous, and I can’t be righteous and a sinner at the same time. (Christian Research Journal, vol. 30, no. 3 at 19)
Ironically enough, Hunter does not dispute Meyer’s “startling claim” with any New Testament scripture, but only with a quote from Martin Luther:
The saints at the same time as they are righteous are also sinners; righteous because they believe in Christ, whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but sinners because they do not fulfill the Law, are not without concupiscence, and are like sick men under the care of a physician; they are sick in fact but healthy in hope and in the fact that they are beginning to be healthy, that is, they are “being healed.” They are people for whom the worst possible thing is the presumption that they are healthy, because they suffer a worse relapse. (Christian Research Journal, vol. 30, no. 3 at 19 quoting Martin Luther, Luther’s Works on CD-Rom, vol. 25: Lectures on Romans (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999) (emphasis supplied)
As we’ll see in our series, Luther’s theological gloss of “imputed” is not to be found anywhere in 2 Corinthians 5.21.
[Note: Charles Price and John Lake considered themselves to be Pentecostal. E.W. Kenyon’s biography shows that he considered himself Baptist. And while Kenneth Hagin is often referred to as the “father of the modern-day faith movement,” he disliked the term.]
19 comments...What do you think?
Trackbacks...
- The Real Faith | The Lay of Saintland
- The Real Faith | Take the Maestroh Challenge
- Take the Maestroh Challenge - The Real Faith Redux
God bless you today as you walk with Him in His Love. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&version=31
What a startling quote from Luther! We’ve been noticing this disturbing trend lately ourselves — that is, the trend to disagree with Scripture using writing of godly men who are now dead. It seems to me that we were told to watch out for our tendency to hang on to the tradition of men… We should be able to learn from the good and the bad from church history holding all things up to the light of Scripture , instead we seem to elevate dead men to perfection as readily as the catholic church!
Julie, thanks for the comment. As a former Catholic boy and an American trial lawyer, you are preaching to the choir. You might check out my other post, “Dressing It Down.”
Peter, I have a real problem with the likes of Hank Hanegraaff, Dave Hunt, et al. This laid back Kansas boy can become like David in short order. However, energy is too valuable and I need mine…I savor it for 14 hour days and a 7 hour case last night. I admire those like yourself who can “rightly divide the truth” to those numbskulls. But the religious, somehow never grasp or want to grasp the simplicity of what a child can understand and believe.
AmeriKan, Hanegraaff, Hunt, and McConnell set off a firestorm years ago by calling the Word of Faith preachers “heretics” and “blasphemers.” Part of their arguments were based upon “orthodox” Christianity which, when properly investigated, really means Reformational doctrine that was formulated sometime after John Calvin (1509-1564). As Julie notes in her comment, the disturbing thing about their attacks was their reliance on dead men’s bones (so to speak). Here, on The Real Faith, I’ve investigated many of their claims of heresy and, well, the essays pretty much speak for themselves.
In my mind, many in Full Gospel circles appear to be going down the same path, however. Instead of strictly adhering to scripture and having a Berean attitude about hearsay, they are satisfied in saying, “Hagin said this” or “Copeland says that.” Ironically, that path contradicts both Hagin’s and Kenyon’s teachings of “having faith in your own faith.”
The reason they called the Faith teachers ‘heretics’ is because they are, plain and simple. I will concede it is not the most endearing term. However, call a spade a spade when you see it.
It is hilarious to read your allegation that the arguments are based upon some sort of Calvinistic orthodoxy when none of the critics you cite - McConnell, Hanegraaff, or Hunt - are Calvinists. In fact, Hunt has written one of his typical misquoting books against Calvinism.
That Kenneth Hagin taught Jesus was born again is quite impossible to deny (cf. pp. 29-32 “The Name of Jesus,” 1978 edition). Copeland taught it as well as did Kenyon. Spare me the ‘John Calvin taught it too, ruse, because the differences are wider than the similarities - just as the differences between Kenyon’s mindset and the metaphysical one were exaggerated by McConnell.
Furthermore, it is quite clear that you either didn’t read either book or have chosen to demonstrate a lack of integrity regarding both books. Both McConnell and Hanegraaff went through NUMEROUS biblical passages demonstrating the folly of the ‘born again Jesus’ doctrine.
Now that said, Hank Hanegraaf’s recent foray into eschatology may cost him big-time since he attacked his biggest source of support, dispensationalists. He may have finally gone too far even for his most ardent supporters.
Maestroh, thank you for your comment.
In my comment to AmeriKan, I did not specifically identify McConnell, Hunt, or Hanegraaff as Calvinists, but said that their self-professed orthodoxy was based upon “Reformational doctrine that was formed sometime after John Calvin.” Both McConnell and Hanegraaff have argued against Word of Faith doctrine based, in part, on the view that it is not “orthodox” Christianity. The point of my statement was not to say that any one of the three were or are Calvinists, but rather to show that their “orthodox” views originated less than 400 years ago.
You state that it is “quite clear that [I] didn’t read either book.” I imagine that you are referring to Christianity in Crisis and A Different Gospel. We own both books and have studied them thoroughly. We have written on many of the “numerous” passages employed by both McConnell and Hanegraaff in their books. As we put in our response to AmeriKan, we believe that our essays speak for themselves. By your statement, it doesn’t appear that you’ve taken the time to read our work and compare it to McConnell’s or Hanegraaff’s treatment, but if you decide to do so we suggest that you start with our essays concerning John 19.30, Hebrews 2.9, Ephesians 4.9, Psalm 40, Romans 15.3, Romans 15.9, Acts 2.27, Luke 23.43, Luke 23.46, our Jonah essays, and Matthew 12.40.
In your comment, you referenced pages 29-32 of Hagin’s work, The Name of Jesus. In those pages, Hagin refers to Hebrews 2.9, John 8.44, and Acts 2.27. As stated above, we have completed essays specifically on Hebrews 2.9 and Acts 2.27. We have also referred to John 8.44 in several. In the near future, we intend to complete some essays on the subject of “How He Made Us Righteous” which will deal with the other scriptures found in that reference.
Once again, thanks for the comment.
Peter, you are an absolute gentleman, as I’m sure you are in the courtroom…driving home your points with pristine accuracy!
The other element about preachers, ie., Kenyon, Hagin, Copeland, J. Meyers, is the fruit of their life’s work that speaks for itself. “For every tree is known by his own fruit.” To measure the fruit born from their lives, worldwide…salvations, healings, etc., would be next to impossible. Only eternity will tell the whole story.
Peter,
Revealing is Hank Hanegraaf’s and his Christian Research Institute’s (CRI) continual endorsement of Rick Warren as reported in an article by Sandy Simpson, 1/30/04.
Must we call Dick Tracy to connect Hanegraaf’s attack on Word of Faith Christians, his continued endorsement of Warren and Warren’s growing ties to Ecumenicalism to understand what game is really afoot here?
I hope my comment was more pithy than confusing. lol David
My question is what does “I didn’t stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn’t a sinner anymore. ”
I understand that God does not ‘label’ Christians ‘Sinners’.
But does not being labeled a “Sinner” mean that we don’t in fact sin, this side of glory?
If I say “I didn’t stop dating until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn’t a single anymore.”
Well, that means I don’t date anymore.
Is Joyce and others that hold to this statement, asserting that they no longer commit any sin?
CFLDude, thanks for the comment and the question.
“Is Joyce and others that hold to this statement, asserting that they no longer commit any sin?”
We’ve done a number of posts on this subject that you might check out, but the direct answer to your question is no. The Word shows us that once a man is saved, he is “righteousfied” (a Smythean term), that is, he is a new creation in nature and is totally righteous before God. A consequence of this new nature is that sin no longer has dominion over him (quite the opposite of the unregenerate man).
1 John addresses your question (as it is written to believers). Since sin holds no dominion over the regenerate man, he does not have to sin, but that doesn’t mean that he won’t. In the event that he does, John says that he may confess his sin (which is quite different from the unsaved man getting saved, cf. Romans 10.9) and God will “cleanse him from all unrighteousness.” The sin of the Christian affects fellowship with the Lord (which John addresses), not relationship with him.
wow, quick reply!
Do you have any links to your previous comments? A search for Meyer showed this entry and one other.
How does one understand “I didn’t stop sinning until..” as NOT saying that she DID stop sinning?
I understand that believers are not called “Sinners”, but I’ve conversed with others that take that to mean that they don’t sin. PERIOD.
I’ve written her ministry about this, but received a not too helpful answer.
“We can share with you that Joyce doesn’t believe that she does not sin, but having been saved by grace she is no longer a sinner.” Ok..
But then they say this
“Joyce recorded teaching you mentioned several years ago, and it is no longer available. We do not have any other access to this teaching to see in what context Joyce made this statement.”
One would presume that a teaching that others find “heresy” (as she claimed the religious would would do) would be kept available so the proper context could be understood.
And secondly, it is her ministry. So it’s not like there not able to go to the source for a clarifying statement to hand out.
I realize you don’t work for Meyer’s ministry, but can you point to any followup work where she clarifies this statement?
To me the “And the religious world thinks that’s heresy and they want to hang you for it. ” indicates that she KNEW it was an extraordinary claim. Has she ‘expanded’ on the statement or retracted it anywhere?
A follow up question is, How do you view Romans 7? I’ve read an article recently where the author asserted that Paul was writing about ‘Saul’ when he wrote in Romans 7:25 “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” Thanks
Just two points.
1. I understand the context of Joyce’s statement and have absolutely no problem with it. Further, like Joyce, I also understand that Christians aren’t sinners (heathen).
2. It seems to escape most people’s attention that Hank Hanegraaff’s continually sings Rick Warren’s praises. Doesn’t anyone wonder why Hank like Rick so much?
David,
I understand that Christians aren’t called ‘sinners’. (heathen) But she went further and said that she “didn’t stop sinning until…”
Can you explain the proper context of the statement? What does that part in particular mean? Any other verb there would lead the reader to conclude that the author was stating that they had ceased that activity entirely. “I didn’t stop smoking until…”
CFLDude,
All Joyce is saying is she no longer gives into the lusts of the flesh to full fill the lust there of. She is not saying that she never makes mistakes. Some people think that fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and making mistakes are both sin. Some people also believe that people can’t help themselves to stop sinning. In other words they must sin because they are human. This isn’t consistent with the Word because the Bible clearly states that God is able to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
A critical reading of 1 John 1:9 will reveal that it contains two related, but still separate promises. The first is that if we confess our sin, God will forgive us, which in this context means he won’t lay what we did to our charge. The second is that not only will he forgive us, but he will also cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Once you have really allowed God to cleanse you from all unrighteousness you will not sin because your thought life has also been cleansed of all unrighteousness thinking. If you don’t think it, you won’t do it.
Unfortunately, most of Christianity never seem to progress past just being forgiven of their sin. David
CFLDude,
I posted this on another blog on this site… but it works here too… I think one can get around the statement… i.e. that Joyce Meyers can make that statement… Whether this is what she had in mind or not is another questions…
when one looks at who “I” is in the statement… If Joyce Meyers’ “I” is her born-from-above spirit… then she can say “I do not sin”… read I John 5:18…
I would make the same statement… talking about my spirit