The Lay of Saintland
In a regular courtroom trial, the attorneys are usually allowed to speak directly to the jury only twice, once for opening statements and a second time for closing arguments. During the rest of the trial, the lawyers are only allowed to present evidence and the juries are expected to keep all of the flow of information in their heads. In recent years, some judges have instituted a kind of mini-summation procedure that allows the lawyers to give the jury an on-going narrative of what they’ve seen and what they’ve heard in the courtroom. By all accounts, the mini-summation has benefited everyone. This weekend we received a comment that’s generated a lot of traffic which serendipitously gives us one of those mini-summation moments.
For the past several months, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground here on The Real Faith concerning the hard facts of our redemption. In our series, the Blood and the Resurrection, we demonstrated how Jesus’s blood not only had to be “shed” in the American sense of the term, but also ritualistically applied on the Mercy Seat in heaven in order to obtain redemption for us. In our Jesus’s Descent series, we presented probably the most comprehensive treatment of Jesus’s descent into hades that can be found in any one place, internet or otherwise. And in the “Sinner Saved By Grace” series, we’ve demonstrated the depth of man’s sin dilemma; that mere forgiveness of sins is not enough because man’s nature really needs to be changed.
All of these series, and our other complimentary posts, are really small pieces of the entire redemption mosaic. If you were to lay out our essays, side-by-side, you’d see that none of them contradict each other and they present an emerging and coherent narrative redemption story. And that is where the Maestroh’s comment comes in:
The reason they [Hanegraaff and McConnell] called the Faith teachers ‘heretics’ is because they are, plain and simple.
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 did Kenyon.
Furthermore, it is quite clear that you didn’t read either book or have chosen to demonstrate a lack of integrity concerning both books. Both McConnell and Hanegraaff went through NUMEROUS biblical passages demonstrating the folly of the ‘born again Jesus’ doctrine. (Maestroh, comment on our post CRI’s “Word of Faith” Update) (edited for this post)
Maestroh’s comment about the “born again Jesus’ doctrine speaks to the area(s) that we have yet to cover. While our Jesus’s Descent series, as a series, left the Lord in hades, the Word speaks quite a bit about how He was raised and how His raising translates into our becoming saints instead of sinners (I John 4.17 - “as He is, so are we in this world”). So, beginning this week or next, we intend to look at those “born again Jesus” scriptures that Maestroh impliedly references when he refers to Hagin’s The Name of Jesus (John 1, 14, Acts 13.33, 2 Cor. 5.21, Acts 2.25-27) and quite a number of others.
While Maestroh’s comment gives us the opportunity to take a breath and look at where we’ve been and where we’re going, it also gives us the opportunity to address a couple of important issues. Maestroh starts his comment out by calling Faith teachers “heretics.” The irony here is that Maestroh’s slam is published in response to our essay that asks the question, “What exactly is Word of Faith (at least these days)?” While the words “heretic” and “blasphemer” are popular sound-bite monikers today , they are scriptural terms of art used to mark those who are preaching, not just doctrinal differences, but a false Gospel that eternally damns the hearers. In the future, if any of our commenters want to use such terms, we’ll delete the comment unless the accusation or error is fully developed with proper exegesis of the Word and facts (and be forewarned that we’re more apt to pull the trigger when those monikers are in there).
By way of example, Maestroh appears to consider Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and E.W. Kenyon heretics of the Gospel. While Maestroh might have developed his case on his own time or on his own site, his only basis in his comment to level the charge that these ministers should be accursed is a vague reference to some pages in Kenneth Hagin’s “The Name of Jesus.” To level such an accusation on this site, the full exegesis of the relevant passages should have been produced along with the well-founded reasons why the preaching of these men is leading the faithful to eternal damnation (in the objective sense). In this way, readers can study the treatment of the Word and the preaching and decide for themselves whether the charge is justified or not.
Finally, in his comment, Maestroh attempts to impugn our integrity by stating that while we have commented on McConnell’s and Hanegraaff’s works in our CRI’s “Word of Faith” Update post, we “didn’t read either book or have chosen to demonstrate a lack of integrity concerning both books.” One of the main reasons that we switched to WordPress was because of its search capabilities. Before this post, if one performed a search on “McConnell,” fourteen separate essays would pop up (4 for Hanegraaff). Some of the essays were written directly in response to McConnell’s A Different Gospel and the others provide quotes and citations of McConnell’s work regarding the verse or verses at issue. One of the most significant passages, if not the most significant, of McConnell’s book is:
Immediately, before his death, Jesus committed his spirit into the hands of the Father (Lk. 23:46). At the moment of death, he cried out loudly, bowed his head, and “yielded up His spirit” to God (Mt. 27:50; Jn. 19:30). The moment of yielding up his spirit coincided with the death of his physical body; thus, Jesus did not “die spiritually before he died physically.” Moreover, if as the Faith teachers say, Jesus was immediately taken to hell after his death, why then did he tell the thief on the cross, “today you shall be with me in Paradise?” Although we do not know definitively “what happened from the cross to the throne,” the above passages would indicate one thing that did not happen. Jesus was not taken to hell by the devil after his death. Thus, the house of cards constructed on the double-death of Jesus by the Faith teachers comes crashing to the ground. And with it crashes the most overtly heretical aspect of Identification: the denial of atonement by physical death. (D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, Updated Edition, pgs. 126-27).
A simple search of The Real Faith demonstrates that we have written on Luke 23.46 entitled, Luke 23.46 - Jesus’s Geronimo, in three separate essays and we dutifully quote McConnell’s work in them. We have written on John 19.30 in It is Finished: Precursor to Hell and quote Hanegraaff’s work because it was more expansive than McConnell’s cursory parenthetical as shown above. In Trouble in Paradise (our most popular post), we dealt specifically with McConnell’s treatment of Luke 23.43 and demonstrated that his mark of the faith teacher’s “overtly heretical house of cards” implodes upon itself in the face of 1 Corinthians 15.13-14, 17.
Over the past two decades or so, two of the main criticisms leveled against certain “Word” doctrines, such as Healing in Redemption, the three days from the cross to the throne, and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, have been that Word preachers don’t bring any intellectual heft (read: no higher or seminary education) to the table and that the doctrines aren’t intellectually defensible. We’ve opened comments to every Tom, Dick, or Harry because we believe that these Word doctrines and others are not only scriptural, but they are also intellectually on target. If you plan on using our comment section to show us or anyone else the “error of our ways,” we want you to show us your homework. Unsubstantiated claims are of no help to anyone.
The gavel has come down…and rightly so. Is it, “Ouch or Uncle?” Shall we say, some of our participants have been mendacious in their posts? I will try to be less cursory in my comments.
All joking aside, I have been most blessed and enlightened by your essays, Peter.
I look forward, someday, when they are in printed form.
AmeriKan, thank you for the comment.
One of our aims in The Real Faith has been to flesh out many of the so-called heretical doctrines of the Word of Faith movement and see how they fare under the Word, the Greek, and the discriminating glare of the critics. Our purpose hasn’t been to protect any particular ministers, ministries, or movements, but to get down to the hard facts of what the Word actually says (we have our stable of trusted ministers, but know that no one is infallible). The work has been hard, but it has had its rewards. One of the untold stories about The Real Faith is private emails that we’ve received over the course of the past year from serious Bible students and seminarians who’ve said that they’ve taken our essays apart, but can’t see any errors in our work (it not uncommon to see someone in England or Australia rifle through 50 or more pages of our essays in a single night).
While Maestroh’s comment may be the product of a guy who was bored one night and decided to start some action, it is indicative of the constant invective raging against certain Bible doctrines and the Christians that hold them dear (in his critique of McConnell’s book on Amazon, Maestroh shows that he knows exactly what “heretic” means). While we’re not itching to engage in argument, like Paul we are zealously jealous of the truth. Gavel? You betcha.
Peter,
I am not now, nor have I ever been Word of Faith (yeow, that sounds like a press statement), but I tremendously enjoy and appreciate the work you do here. I have never really perceived any axe-grinding on your part, nor do you seem, to me, to carry anyone’s water. Wandering through the blogosphere, I cannot say I find that characteristic in so many others who so effortlessly tag others as heretics on their Don Quixote tilt for “accuracy in doctrine.” Generally, Calvin and Spurgeon are conjured by them to stand ghost-like on their shoulders, and they never leave any doubt of their obeisance to John MacArthur (makes me wonder what’s the weight of sloughed off epithelial tissue on his ring). You don’t seem to bring anyone or anything to the party but the Bible and some good primary source historical and language references, and you never run from questions. That’s a record I’d gladly stand on.
slw, thanks for the comment.
In law school, I had a Constitutional law class that was so excruciating that one of my classmates kept a Big Gulp-sized bottle of Pepto Bismol on his desk at all times (we’d joke to him about his pink mouth). All during the semester my classmates tried to divine whether the professor was conservative, liberal, a living Constitution guy, a Scalia wannabe, or just plain mad. Right when you thought you had him figured out, he’d do a one-eighty and my classmate would down his big pink bottle. I later became friends with him and, while shooting pool in his basement, he said that he ended every semester with infighting over just what kind of constitutional “kook” he really was. He loved that. Hopefully I’ve brought some of that to the table. As a former Catholic boy, I’ve developed a strong aversion to kissing anybody’s ring.
Novel post, slw! I was raised Methodist, to A/G, then feasted on the WOF(K. Hagin WOF) for a couple of decades, then back to A/G. Though out of the WOF circle, I still have to have my fix at such “heretical” (lol) gatherings as Word Explosion in Tulsa. I still like to think of myself as, “Word and faith.” On a lesser, no sweat note, “epithelial cells,” would be more accurate. But “epithelial tissue” is right on, as it is one of the four “primary tissues.” Good choice of English rhetoric.
AmeriKan;
I debated whether to use cells or not, but floundering in technical uncertainty, I went for the big tent word. ;-) Do I detect a distancing of yourself from Kenneth Copeland in your carefully worded WOF identification?
First, Jesus broke ranks with everyone including his family. He risked everything to go to the cross. Yes, He had his inner circle, whom He “needed” but neither did he cater to them. He gave them what “They needed.” I do wait with anticipation and cautious excitement at the “next” pcs essay, thinking, “What surprise does Peter have for us today.” I continue to be amazed at what you do “bring to the table.”
Slw, as Peter has an aversion for proper and accurate exegesis via his legal background, so have I with medical terminology and my background.
Slw, I had to qualify WOF because it has become almost a “catch all” for a conglomerate of groups out there in the Christian world. Though Kenneth Hagin had many predecessors, ie., Kenyon, Price, Bosworth, Wigglesworth, Mrs. C. Nuzum, the 20th Century will probably give him the most credit for being the father of our modern Faith Movement. Copeland was most definitely of that lineage coming later, though was more closely associated with Oral Roberts in his early years.
AmeriKan, the thought of anybody actually waiting for one of our “surprises” is really a hoot.
As we tried to demonstrate a little with the CRI “Word of Faith” Update post, the “Word of Faith” moniker has been used so much as an invective against so many kinds of preachers that it has pretty much lost its meaning. One interesting thought about Word of Faith is that the movement was born in the fires of Pentecostalism and divine healing, but now its present emphasis is social charity which is not unlike the history of many mainline denominations.
Peter, your last sentence is absolutely right and I, myself, had come to believe that the WOF were becoming more and more denominational in style. Interesting how things come full circle.
On another note, you have asked what we would like to hear from you, Peter, in the future in your essays… specific topics. Well I have one. Since we have been talking about “ring kissing” and “water carrying,” I have for some time had questions about “true Biblical submission and obedience to the local church heirarchy.” John Bevere writes about it extensively in his book, Under Cover. Others have also addressed this issue of submission and obedience. There is just something about it which does not set right with me. For some time, I thought it was me and my attitude. I did address it in my book, Rebellion: From The Pew To The Pulpit. There are many instances where I saw this submission thing going so far, with the subordinate sentenced to prison along with the senior pastor.
I don’t believe in being necessarily a rebel or a lone ranger, for the sake of just being plain rebellious against all authority. But, neither do I believe in unquestioned allegiance to everything that comes down the pike from church leadership.
I would be very interested in a pcs essay on this subject and true Biblical justification for and/or against.
AmeriKan, with all the essays that we’ve done so far, from the tithing essays all the way to the Descent essays, I imagine we’re as “lone” as a Lone Ranger can get.
We ordered the book (we’d like to get our hands on yours also), but it may be some time before we can delve into it. We’re about to deal with 2 Corinthians 5.21, et seq. and we want to be pretty thorough with them. That said, as a bench warmer (we might make it part of the View From the Pew series), I have yet to hear a scripturally coherent teaching on “spiritual coverings.” Indeed, what I have heard from the pulpit is usually much different from what I see on the page.
Peter said, “I have yet to hear a scripturally coherent teaching on “spiritual coverings.”
I say, you never will. It’s just isn’t there is the scriptures. I’d rather hear what you, sans coterie of the dead and living as usual, have to say about it.
Peter, that is definitely OK….don’t want you to get too sidetracked by such demanding e-followers as myself. (lol) And including it with the View From the Pew Series might just fit perfect. Thanks much.
I know you have written about your own personal experiences, ie., pastor/parishioner encounters or the lack there of in your essays. But I am curious or just plain nosey, as to how your belief system expressed in your essays affects how you function within your present day local church government. Has that presented a “problem” for you or do you just remain low keyed and roll with the punches? Somehow, I don’t see the latter being the case. But then, again, being the good lawyer you are, you probably know “when to speak” and “when to just shut up.”(lol)
slw, are you trying to steal my thunder?
AmeriKan, personally I do not believe that the ministry, as a whole, has been responsive to questions about subjects. In fact, I doubt that I could come up with one instance in the last ten years in my experience where a minister asked his congregation, class, or group for subject matter (and yes, we are faithful attendees). While the Lord may move on a man’s heart about a particular subject, I’m not so sure that He doesn’t also give us some leeway. Many of Jesus’s teachings in the Gospels were reactive to the situation, not proactive.
As for our local church, we’re as quiet as a church mouse.
How do you say that, Mmmmh?! I graciously and reverently applaude you. After being on the back side of the desert for twenty some years, I believe that God has prepared Peter Smythe for such a time as this.