The tainted legacy of the Kansas City Prophets, combined with the implosion of the International House of Prayer, Kansas City (hereafter IHOPKC) and the sexual scandal in Mike Bickle’s life, have together made for an explosive array of emotions in my own life. As I continue to process the reality of what happened, I struggle to identify which of many emotions is the most prominent and impactful.

My initial response upon hearing of Bickle’s past life was one of utter disbelief. Experts often refer to this as cognitive dissonance. This has been defined in various ways, but in my case it is the deeply disturbing phenomenon of holding to two mutually exclusive beliefs, two contrary perspectives, neither of which is easily dismissed. On the one hand, few people have had so great a positive influence on me as Mike Bickle. On the other hand, there is no denying the fact that he is also a sexual predator who abused multiple women, at least one of whom was 14 years old at the time. To this day I find it virtually impossible to reconcile these two versions of Bickle. I suspect I never will.

Quickly on the heels of my cognitive dissonance came waves of overwhelming grief and sadness. Anyone reading this who has watched a former close friend and ministry companion be revealed as a fraud knows of which I speak. My heart was (and is) broken. As horrific as Bickle’s sins have been (and perhaps still are), I struggle not to think of him with affection. I suspect that as time passes this will fade, and rightly so.

My grief soon turned to intense anger. As I contemplated the impact of his sin on the tens of thousands of young people whom he influenced over the years, my anger slowly became righteous rage. It is almost impossible to bear thinking of how many individuals have walked away from their faith because of Bickle’s betrayal. And to think that, at least at the time of the writing and publication of this book, he has said nothing to them in terms of apology or repentance or sadness for having contributed to their spiritual deconstruction only casts gasoline on the burning anger in my soul.

And then there is profound embarrassment. As Bickle’s most ardent defender over the past 35 years, my own lack of discernment weighs heavily on my heart. I have no explanation for why I (and so many others) failed to see beyond the surface spirituality of his life. Perhaps all of us were simply so captivated by his charisma and the aura of power that surrounded him that we were blind to what anyone else might more readily have seen. My failure to discern Bickle’s true character will undoubtedly haunt me for the remainder of my life.

I suppose I should add one more painful emotion with which I grapple each day. It is fear. My fear is that the man I once thought I knew and whose friendship and influence I so greatly enjoyed may not be a born-again Christian after all. Many are quick to pull the trigger in denouncing Bickle as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a false prophet who never knew anything of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. That is a very real possibility. But I am ever so reluctant to reach that conclusion until Bickle openly denies the faith. Some may insist that his sinful lifestyle and refusal to repent betray any claim he might make to genuine saving faith. And they may well be right. But I choose to leave that in the hands of the Lord as I continue to pray for Bickle’s complete, sincere, heartfelt repentance.

When a prominent Southern Baptist leader introduced me to his wife as a “reformed charismatic,” it made me see for the first time the perception some people have of me. I am reformed with a small “r,” charismatic with a small “c.” Many reformed preachers are unhappy with me, but charismatics have been very kind to me. In Jack Hayford’s Foreword to my book Holy Fire (Charisma House) he acknowledged that I am reformed in theology but still wrote a thirteen-page endorsement.

When I contemplated retirement after twenty-five years at Westminster Chapel, I suddenly panicked. I wondered whatever I would do back home in America, realizing hardly anybody knew me. I can testify that I suddenly heard these words, “Your ministry in America will be to charismatics.” I could not imagine how this could be fulfilled, but thanks to Steve Strang, over twenty of my books have been published by Charisma House. Paul Crouch interviewed me on TBN regarding my relationship with Yasser Arafat, Jack Taylor and Charles Carrin opened doors to me. Ninety percent of my ministry has been to charismatics since returning to America.

Although I feel like an outsider, I am greatly indebted to the Charismatic Movement. I have not earned the right to speak to charismatics, but Steve Strang has been a close friend. He has not only opened doors to me but has been used of the Lord to advise me regarding physical exercise. John Paul Jackson told me when I was 67 years old, “You will live to a ripe old age, but if you don’t get in shape physically, you won’t be around to enjoy it.” Because of John Paul’s accuracy with his prophetic words to me, I was shaken rigid to my fingertips. Steve gave me a list of physical exercises, including getting a trainer, and I am as healthy today as I was twenty years ago. I still do twenty-one push-ups daily. I am now 90 and call it getting “Stronger with Strang.”

If I thought that charismatic ministers would listen to me, I do have some concerns. First, I am convinced that most charismatic Christians need a good dose of the teaching of the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of God is His prerogative to do whatever He chooses to do with whomever He wills. God said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious” (Exod. 33:13). Paul repeated this in Romans 9:15. Every single charismatic preacher who has kindly invited me to preach for them in the last twenty years will confirm this, that I have never worn my reformed theology on my sleeves. My message to charismatics has centered on total forgiveness, the anointing and the importance of not grieving the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). My DNA is Word and Spirit, meaning that we need both the Word and the Spirit simultaneously if we want to restore the honor of God’s name.

John Paul Jackson prophesied before he died that the key to the next great move of God on the earth will be the book of Romans and especially Romans 4. If he got that right, it means that there will be a return to the Gospel like in Martin Luther’s day, namely the teaching of justification by faith alone. My own experience with charismatics has been that many do not understand this teaching.  That we are saved by faith plus nothing: faith in the blood of Jesus alone. It is what turned the world upside down in the sixteenth century. It is what John Wesley taught in the eighteenth century and also what Jonathan Edwards taught that led to the New England Great Awakening. My observation has been that a surprising number of charismatic Christians lack personal assurance of salvation. This is not good. People ought to know whether they are saved or lost!

My honest worry is that so many charismatics I have met do not know their Bibles. I have (sadly) good reason to believe that many charismatic preachers do not have strong prayer lives. According to a poll a few years ago, most church leaders in America (charismatic and non-charismatic) spend only four minutes a day in their private quiet time daily. Martin Luther prayed two hours a day. John Wesley prayed two hours a day. Where are the Luther’s today? Where are the John Welsey’s?

So, reader, how much do you pray?

Here is what the sovereignty of God will do for you. It will help set you free from trying to make things happen. It will make you realize that only God can turn the water into wine. It will stop you — if you are tempted along this line — from trying to snap your finger and expect God to jump. It will keep you from thinking that God owes us something. It will lead us to pray like the leper, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean” (Matt. 8:2). The leper knew his place. He knew that God did not have to heal him. The practice of the sovereignty of God will remind us to ask for mercy first when we come boldly to the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16). We never outgrow the need of asking for mercy. The teaching of the sovereignty of God will restore a sense of the awe of God. There is no fear of God in the nation. There is lack of the fear of God in the church. What gave us a sense of outrage twenty years ago we now accept without much concern. We are asleep. We don’t know we were asleep until we wake up. We do things in our sleep we would not do if awake.

Open Theism

I will mention one other thing that I believe is very alarming. It is accepting the teaching of open theism. Many readers may not know what this is. But it was introduced to the Charismatic Movement several years ago. Open theism is based upon the premise that God is necessarily open to us for input. The teaching is that God does not know the future but looks to us for help to know what to do next. Imagine that! A God who does not know the end from the beginning, as Isaiah put it (Isa. 46:10). St. Augustine said that a God who does not know the future is not God.

If you don’t know whether you are an open theist, here is a list of practices that emanate from this faulty teaching. You may have absorbed this teaching without realizing it. Open theism centers largely on the concept of prayer. So far, so good.  According to the Bible, the purpose of prayer is to discover what the will of God is, then pray for this. If we ask anything according to God’s will, he hears us (! John 5:14). But open theism says the purpose of prayer is to change God’s will, that if your motivation to pray is not to change God’s will, you are wasting your time! This kind of thinking is a dead giveaway that open theism is man-centered.

As for praying for healing, it you are not healed it is your fault, say some. It is due to your lack of faith. This teaching has driven many conscientious Christians to despair, sending them on a guilt trip that never ends. Never once did Jesus condemn a person for not being healed. One leader said, “If the Apostle Paul had my faith he would not have had his thorn in the flesh.” This is a denial of Paul’s claim to be a pattern and example. This is putting himself above the Bible, generally, and Paul, particularly. Some open theists say that the early martyrs who died for their faith died because of the failure of the church to pray, that Stephen (Acts 7:60) should not have died. This, dear reader, is how far people who embrace open theism depart from Holy Scripture. It is the polar opposite to Paul’s teaching of the sovereignty of God. Some go too far as to say that God changes His plans every day, depending on how we prayed the day before.

The common denominator of charismatics fifty years ago was the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Today it is prosperity teaching. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus said we should pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” The church for centuries interpreted this to mean that since there is no rebellion in heaven — with the angels and the sainted dead, we should be sure there is no rebellion in our hearts. Open theists teach that since there is no sickness in heaven, there should be no sickness on earth. But there is no death in heaven either!

I would go to the stake for what I have written in this article. Thank you, Charisma, for publishing this.

[If you would like a more specific and in-depth analysis of open theism, see my blog at www.samstorms.org.]

 hope you will enjoy it.

Sam

Many of you, perhaps even most, are aware of the five hour and fifty-minute video produced by Mike Winger that exposed the prophetic hoax perpetrated by Shawn Bolz and what Winger referred to as the culture of cover up at Bethel Church, Redding, California. Sadly, neither Bolz nor Bethel are the only ones guilty of this sort of misconduct. So, how should we respond to it all?

Some have argued that this serves to discredit the entire charismatic movement and that we should all distance ourselves from it. I’ve even had a few people write to me and wonder, in light of all that has happened, if I have repudiated my beliefs about the contemporary validity of spiritual gifts. The answer, of course, is absolutely not.

I am as firmly convinced about the validity of all spiritual gifts today as I ever was, and nothing that anyone abuses or misuses in the purported exercise of those gifts has any effect whatsoever on my convictions about what the Bible says.

So, have Shawn Bolz and others been guilty of obtaining personal information about people from social media and passing it off as if it were revelation from the Spirit? Yes. But what does any of that have to do with what the Bible says? Nothing at all. So, what does the Bible say? It says in Acts 2 that in the church age in which we all live men and women, young and old, will dream dreams and see visions and they will prophesy (Acts 2:17-18).

So, have Shawn Bolz and Mike Bickle been guilty of sexual misconduct? Yes. But what does any of that have to do with the Bible says? Nothing at all. So, what does the Bible say? It says in 1 Corinthians 14:1 that we should earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially prophecy.

Did many who knew about Bolz’s misconduct choose to remain silent and cover up his sin? Yes. But what does any of that have to do with what the Bible says? Absolutely nothing at all. So, what does the Bible say? It says that when you prophesy properly and biblically people are built up in their faith, are encouraged, and consoled (1 Cor. 14:3).

Were there people whose lives were devastated because of some of Shawn Bolz’s alleged prophetic words? Yes. And it is tragic that this has happened. But what does any of that have to do with what the Bible says? Again, absolutely nothing. So, what does the Bible say? It says come to the meeting of the church with a revelation or a tongue or an interpretation (1 Cor. 14:26), and let two or three prophets speak while the rest judge and test and weigh what is said (1 Cor. 14:29).

Has the conduct of certain individuals and organizations that identify as charismatic cast a dark shadow on the movement as a whole? Sadly, yes. But what does any of that have to do with what the Bible says? Absolutely nothing. So, what does the Bible say? It records the words of the apostle Paul who said, “I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all!” (1 Cor. 14:18).

Are many of you afraid of spiritual gifts and what will be said and done at a conference like the Remnant Radio gathering in San Diego this past weekend? Sadly, yes. But what does any of that have to do with what the Bible says? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. So what does the Bible say? It says in 1 Thessalonians 5 do not quench the Holy Spirit by despising prophetic utterances.

Are people you know and love now skeptical of charismatic gifts and have they warned you to stay away from conferences like those that Remnant Radio sponsors and speakers such as myself? Yes. But what does any of that have to do with what the Bible says? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. And what does the Bible say? It records in 1 Timothy 1:18-19 the exhortation of Paul to his spiritual son Timothy that he be certain to wage a good fight against sin and temptation by appealing to and trusting in the prophetic words that he has received.

I have said all this at the beginning of this conference because I fear that some of you have become skeptical of the work of the Holy Spirit and are holding him at arm’s length, so to speak. Some of you are embarrassed by the self-serving and manipulative tactics employed by certain prominent charismatic figures. So am I! But I can assure you that all of us who are ministering to you this week do not believe anything or pray anything or act in any way that is based on the abuses and misuses of spiritual gifts on the part of anyone in the world today. So let me remind you again that Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 14:39, “earnestly desire to prophesy and do not forbid speaking in tongues.”

My appeal and prayer is that you will re-commit yourself to a humble and prayerful pursuit and practice of all spiritual gifts in spite of the sinful deeds and sexual misconduct of others in the charismatic community. There is one and only one reason for our belief in the contemporary validity of gifts of the Spirit, and that is the clear and consistent testimony of Scripture. May it always be so.

Sam

Prophecy is perhaps the most controversial of all the spiritual gifts listed in the New Testament. Many in the charismatic community welcome its presence as one way in which the Holy Spirit strengthens and encourages believers. Others insist that God no longer provides this gift, insofar as it would threaten the finality and sufficiency of Scripture. No other group promoted and practiced this spiritual gift with greater impact than did the so-called Kansas City Prophets. Their claims of a variety of supernatural and revelatory experiences have exerted a massive influence on the body of Christ, not only in the US but globally. This book describes who they were, where they came from, and what they insist were genuine prophetic events, together with a critique of their validity. Both their rise and fall contribute to a deeper understanding of the nature of this one spiritual gift as well as insight into the inner dynamics of the charismatic movement itself. Sam Storms writes as an insider within the movement and provides a fresh and honest evaluation of both the alleged success and obvious failures of this controversial chapter in the history of charismatic Christianity.

The best way to obtain the book is on Amazon. I hope and pray you find it helpful. Blessings!

Sam

With the recent disclosure of “prophetic” fakery and manipulation in the life of Shawn Bolz, we desperately need to hear once again Paul’s denunciation of those whom he describes as “peddlers” of God’s word (2 Cor. 3:17). Paul had in mind someone who dilutes the full strength of the gospel, perhaps eliminating (or at least minimizing) its offensive elements, or altering certain theological points, so that the finished "product" will be more appealing to the audience. The aim was obviously to gain as large a following as possible, and especially the money that comes with it.

In 2 Corinthians 4:2 Paul returns to that theme, but with a slightly different emphasis. Here he declares that he refuses “to tamper with God’s word,” but instead is committed to “the open statement of the truth.” Whereas in 3:17 the motivation appears to be monetary gain, in 4:2 the agenda is unclear. Certainly money may still be in view, but other factors ought also to be considered.

People often “tamper” with God’s word or traffic in what they claim is a miraculous spiritual gift (such as prophecy or word of knowledge) either to retain or expand their power base, to increase their popularity, or to avoid controversy and the discomfort it often creates. Some do so because of personal distaste for the hard truths of Scripture, to protect themselves against the contempt of those whose respect and acceptance they cherish, or in the interests of any number of personal agendas that require God’s truth be treated as malleable and merely a means that may be manipulated to achieve whatever end is in view.

A brief glance across the broad spectrum of professing Christendom, if only here in America, reveals several expressions of the sort of “tampering” that Paul might well have in view. Let me cite a few examples.

As just noted, Bolz has plunged the reputation of prophetic ministry and the status of charismatic gifting in general into the pits. By mining social media for information about an individual and passing it off as if God had revealed it to him, Bolz has both peddled and tampered with the word of God. I fear that many will not recover from the devastating mistreatment of one of the Spirit’s most powerful gifts.

Yet another example is the increasing trend toward either marginalizing or rejecting altogether the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. Such folk often insist they haven’t rejected penal substitution but wish only to recast it in such a way that its unsavory elements are discarded lest we give unnecessary offence to a society that longs for a more compassionate and less “violent” Christianity. Others argue that they still embrace penal substitution but have simply repositioned it to a subordinate, tangential role in our understanding of atonement. In other words, penal substitution isn’t altogether denied, it is simply de-throned from its formative status as the dominant and controlling model for what Christ accomplished and relegated to “one of many valid metaphors” for the sake of maintaining a more “holistic” view of Christ’s saving work. Once this is done, the notion of penal substitution is, for all practical purposes, never heard from again.

In the final analysis, few if any of these efforts to redefine the doctrine of atonement can escape the charge of having “tampered” with God’s word. The unadulterated, sharp edge of the message of the cross in which Jesus Christ has, in our stead, propitiated the wrath of a holy God is more than they can swallow. Many contend that they’ve merely adapted the gospel to a post-modern world but have stopped short of tampering with the truths of Scripture itself. I’ll leave it for you to judge if that’s true.

Another example of “tampering” with the text is the tendency to disregard certain teachings because of the difficulty they pose for life in the 21^st century. I’m thinking particularly of the explosive growth among evangelicals of egalitarianism and the repudiation of any distinctions in role or responsibility between male and female, whether in marriage or ministry.

Again, of course, those who’ve yielded to this temptation would never countenance my use of the word “disregard”. They would consider that an unfair, inflammatory, and pejorative assessment of what they’ve done. What they insist has occurred is that a new hermeneutical paradigm or model for reading Scripture has emerged that enables them to see that certain NT guidelines or principles previously thought to be timeless and binding on the conscience of Christians everywhere were, in fact, culturally accommodated or merely part of a trajectory of truth that liberates us from the explicit boundaries of NT teaching and elevates the church into that “ultimate ethic” toward which the text is, allegedly, pointing.

I’ve found that in many cases (not all, mind you, but many) it wasn’t that complementarianism was found to be biblically deficient or lacking in exegetical consistency. Rather, it made them feel like “fundamentalists” and threatened their acceptance and status within the broader evangelical community, especially the academy. Not wanting to be perceived as obscurantist or theologically naïve or culturally out of step, they relished these new proposals that appeared to undermine the traditional “hierarchical” (their word) understanding of the relationship between male and female in home and church. Wanting to be seen as progressive and in touch with the cutting edge of contemporary scholarship, a complementarian view of men and women was abandoned for an “easier” and “more palatable” perspective.

Then, of course, there are those who don’t like being branded as narrow-minded and arrogant exclusivists when it comes to the issue of salvation. The redemptive work of Christ may well be necessary as the foundation for any possibility of eternal life, but conscious faith in him alone is being discarded in favor of an inclusivism that now recognizes saving power in all (or most) non-Christian religions. The next (and seemingly inevitable) step for many is salvific universalism. Hell exists only in this life and on this earth, but is denied its eternal and penal dimensions.

Much could also be said of those who’ve tampered with God’s word to justify in their own minds an embrace of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and same sex marriage as a “right” that should be recognized in our society.

Perhaps the most egregious and destructive example of “tampering” with the text doesn’t involve any one doctrinal issue but reflects a diminishing loss of confidence in the functional authority of Scripture and a failure to believe and act upon the life-changing power of God’s word.

I’m persuaded that this is why we see so little expository preaching in our pulpits today. Although they would be extremely reticent to admit it publicly, countless pastors simply no longer believe that the biblical text, accurately explained and passionately applied, has the power to build the church. Operating with a secular standard of what constitutes “success” and under pressure to facilitate church growth (in every sense of the term), they have resorted to gimmicks, props, marketing techniques, and entertainment to the obvious detriment, and all too frequent abandonment, of exposition.

This inevitably leads to a loss of the functional authority of Scripture in church life. Whereas most would be quick to affirm the inspiration of the Bible in their statements of faith, few actually bend their beliefs to conform with Scripture or subordinate their personal preferences to the principles of the text. Affirmation of biblical authority is all too often only affirmation, with little effort made to actually yield or submit to the dictates of what God has revealed.

If Scripture is inspired, it is authoritative. And if it is authoritative, we must bow to its principles and truths even when they are uncomfortable, unpopular, or put a strain between us and friends who may believe otherwise. We dare not tamper with God’s word. Ever.

Even more staggering than the numbers is the indescribable diversity among them all. Big people, dwarfs, geniuses and dunces, just plain folk, rednecks, people of all colors and kinds and personality types. Likable people, hateful people, some heroic and some cowards, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. But all in all, all have pretty much been the same. All except for one. Amidst the billions, amidst both the diversity and the sameness, there is one who stands out. He stands out because he’s the point of it all. He’s why the billions of the rest of us have been here or are here or will be some day.

You couldn’t tell it from looking at him, had you been one of the few who were alive when he was. He didn’t glow or vibrate or carry a sign that said, “I’m the One.” He looked like everyone else. For all we know he was the one billionth person born into this world. Or the two billionth. I have no idea how many people preceded him. But he’s the point of it all.

It sounds weird saying he’s the point of it all. I walk through the mall or sit with thousands at a football game and no one seems any more important than anyone else. If any of them stood up and shouted, “I’m the point of it all” we’d look for a moment and then write it off as just another kook and go ahead shopping or cheering or booing.

So where do I get off saying there really was one who is the point of it all? And why this one? Why not one of the millions of Chinese people who’ve lived and died? Why not one of the millions of Sudanese or Australians or Finns or Eskimos or Americans? There’ve been a lot of amazing people in the midst of the average ones. We’ve seen heroes and heroines, champions and martyrs and philosophers and entrepreneurs and all sorts of extraordinary people. I have to admit, it strikes me as a bit pompous to say that there’s one who’s the point of it all, that there’s one who’s the reason why others are here and is the goal of where they’re going.

Almost everyone thinks they know who’s the point of it all. Millions of Muslims think it’s Muhammad, Buddhists think it’s the Buddha, African Americans think it’s Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Tiger Woods. Young conservative activists think it’s Charlie Kirk. They’ve got their reasons. They’re so convinced they’ll die for it. Many of them will kill for it, too. But there’s a big difference between the Buddha and Tiger and Martin and Bill Gates and anyone else that anyone else thinks is the point of it all. The one I have in mind is the Creator, the one who has always been there and one day said, “Be!” and the rest of us suddenly appeared.

But if the one who is the point of it all was born and looked like everyone else, how can I say he’s the Creator. Assuming there’s a God, and I assume you assume that or you probably wouldn’t be reading this blog in the first place, isn’t it preposterous to describe him as if he were a man who looked like everyone else? Yes. You’re right. It strikes me as preposterous. Yet, for reasons that I’ve never been able to fully understand, I believe that the Creator became a creature, that God became a man. When he did, he lived like an ordinary person. He ate and slept and laughed and cried and belched and blew his nose and cried and died. But he was still God. Am I stupid for believing this? Are you?

A lot of people think it’s stupid. But one thing’s for sure. Once you believe it, once he is the point of it all for you, life is never the same. Makes sense. You can’t go around believing that there is a God, that he made everything that is, and that he became a human named Jesus, and not be utterly and absolutely and irrevocably and eternally changed by it all. Some argue that we Christians are changed for the worse. But you’ll never convince me. That’s because I’ve met him. I know him. I talk to him all the time. He talks to me. He’s the point of it all.

Maybe I ought to pause long enough to explain what that means. It means that everything that is was made by him. It means that everything that is, is, for no other reason than that he says so. It means that everything that is, is, so that everything that is might know that he’s the point of it all. Well, now that it’s all perfectly clear . . . !

A friend of mine wrote a simple song that said, “Nothing matters but you, O Lord, nothing matters but you.” He was talking about Jesus. When I sing those words, even when I write them, or just think them, it feels good. It’s like I’ve finally arrived where I’m supposed to be. It’s like I’m finally doing what I’m supposed to do. For some of you, saying that nothing else matters but Jesus sounds a little grandiose. I mean, really, can’t we leave room for a few other things to be important, like money or sex or comfort or friends or football. Anything. Of course we can. All those things are important. They’re just not as important. In fact, they’re important only because, like everything else, they are because of him, through him, and for him.

He’s the point of it all. He’s the point of money. He’s the point of sex. He’s the point of comfort and friends and family and power and houses and clothes and movies and breathing and food. That means that apart from him those things, and everything else, are pointless. They don’t seem pointless. They seem like fun. They seem to be the reason why people live, work, steal, lie, and whatever else they do to get more of those things. But they’re pointless without him. As another friend of mine often says, “It’s all gonna’ burn someday.” He’s the point of it all.

I’m in a strange season of life right now. It’s hard to describe. It’s just that I’m frustrated more than I’ve ever been before by how futile and empty and vain all those other things are. It’s hard to believe that when you see most of the world killing each other to get them. And when they do get them, they seem so happy and content. At least, that’s how they make themselves look to everyone else. Maybe they really are happy and content. I can only speak for myself when I say he’s the point of it all and then hope that by hearing what I have to say about him you’ll agree and stop thinking and living like all that other stuff is the point of it all.

My goal is to do anything I can, by the grace of God, to enable you to see and perceive and grasp and savor and relish the incomparable splendor and supremacy of Jesus Christ (not just non-Christians, but believers who have grown complacent and perhaps arrogantly think they already know all that can be known of him). Why? Because, ultimately speaking, in the final analysis, he’s the point of it all. Because, ultimately speaking, in the final analysis, he’s the only thing that matters and nothing else matters except insofar as it is rightly aligned under and around and for him.

He is the center. All else is circumference.

In this final article we look at two more potential land mines.

14) Interpreting all Physical Manifestations as a Sure Sign of the Presence of the Holy Spirit

When God chooses to open the eyes of our hearts (Eph. 1:18) or draws near to us in power (James 4:8) or reveals some glorious truth concerning himself and his greatness and grace, there are often visible and vocal manifestations in one’s physical frame. The problem that many encounter is when they assume that some manifestation is always an infallible sign of the Spirit’s presence or that one’s failure to manifest is an infallible sign that the Spirit is absent. Operating on this assumption leads to intentionally manipulative ministry in which a pastor/preacher/teacher employs whatever tactics have in the past proven to be effective in inducing physical manifestations, be they shaking, weeping, laughing, convulsing, or falling on the ground, etc.

When average believers embrace the notion that such manifestations are a sure sign of the presence of the Spirit, they will often yield to the slightest touch or tactic that may provoke a physical expression of some sort. Thinking that those whom God truly loves will manifest in some way, as if the certain sign of God’s affection for them is some overt physiological reaction, they are tempted to emulate others lest they conclude that they are not as greatly loved by the Lord or that they have quenched the Spirit through some unrepentant sin in their lives. Might it be that some physical manifestation is truly the result of the Spirit’s heightened presence? Yes. But not necessarily.

During the First Great Awakening in the 1740’s, Jonathan Edwards witnessed numerous expressions of both genuine manifestations of the Spirit’s presence and self-induced actions that bore little to no fruit.

“It was very wonderful to see how person’s affections were sometimes moved-- when God did as it were suddenly open their eyes, and let into their minds a sense of the greatness of his grace, the fullness of Christ, and his readiness to save. . . Their joyful surprise has caused their hearts as it were to leap, so that they have been ready to break forth into laughter, tears often at the same time issuing like a flood, and intermingling a loud weeping. Sometimes they have not been able to forbear crying out with a loud voice, expressing their great admiration” (Narrative of Surprising Conversions, pp. 37-38).

“Some persons having had such longing desires after Christ or which have risen to such degree, as to take away their natural strength. Some have been so overcome with a sense of the dying love of Christ to such poor, wretched, and unworthy creatures, as to weaken the body. Several persons have had so great a sense of the glory of God, and excellency of Christ, that nature and life seemed almost to sink under it; and in all probability, if God had showed them a little more of himself, it would have dissolved their frame. . . And they have talked, when able to speak, of the glory of God’s perfections” (Narrative, p. 45) 

“It was a very frequent thing to see a house full of outcries, faintings, convulsions and such like, both with distress, and also with admiration and joy.” (The Great Awakening, p. 547)

“Many in their religious affections being raised far beyond what they ever had been before; and there were some instances of persons lying in a sort of trance, remaining for perhaps a whole twenty-four hours motionless, and with their senses locked up; but in the meantime under strong imagination, as though they went to heaven, and had there a vision of glorious and delightful objects.” (The Great Awakening, p. 550).

What did Edwards conclude from this, and how should we respond? The simple truth is that manifestations prove nothing either way. They may be the work of the Spirit but may just easily be the work of the flesh (and, on occasion, the work of demons).

The ever-present danger is drawing the conclusion that “if I were simply more devoted, more humble, more sacrificial, and loved God with even greater intensity, I would experience these manifestations like others do.” Or, “Many experienced intense physical manifestations. I guess that means revival is here.” Or, “No one experienced any physical manifestations. I guess that means the Spirit is not here.” No!

(15) Yielding to the Fear of Being “Ordinary”

These deviant expressions of Christianity have become so severe that one could justifiably argue that the people behind them have forged an entirely different religion. It’s not that the extremists I have in mind are a bit theologically goofy. My point is that they have at times so radically deviated from the orthodox faith and have implemented beliefs and practices that are so contrary to Scripture, that we should consider them as being part of an entirely different religion. Consider the Word of Faith movement or the Prosperity gospel as just two examples.

My concern here is with the why. Why did these otherwise Christ-affirming professing believers wander from the path of biblical orthodoxy and develop so many of what can rightly be called heretical doctrines?

This may at first sound strange, but the problem is not primarily theological. The underlying problem that has given rise to deviant theological beliefs and practices is ethical. Or perhaps a better way of putting it is to use the word value. They place a higher value on self than on Christ. It isn’t that they deny Jesus as Lord, but he exists for their sake, to promote them, to lead them to greatness, popularity, and wealth.

We must not yield to the fear of being ordinary. This is actually a subset of what we earlier referred to as super-supernaturalism. It is essential that we all acknowledge an impulse in our hearts to be important. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t strive in God’s grace to draw attention to his importance. Clearly, we should. But there is deeply entrenched in the fabric of our souls a yearning to be noticed, applauded, praised, and eulogized. In itself, that can be overcome by the power of the Spirit. But if not checked and suppressed and, to use Paul’s term, mortified or put to death (Rom. 8), it will quickly become an excuse or justification for deceit, manipulation, and lying.

We cannot afford to ignore how powerful this impulse is. Consider how it makes you feel when someone you regard as important or famous or influential sees you and calls you by name. “Wow. So-and-so knows who I am.” The flip side to this is the deflation of our hearts when we are overlooked, ignored, forgotten, or treated as little more than ordinary.

This tenacious tendency in our fallen, broken nature, is perhaps the primary reason why so many fabricate stories of the miraculous, or concoct alleged prophetic words, or justify mining the internet for information to pass off as divine revelation. There is a thrill that comes with being seen and spoken about as extraordinarily gifted. We feel validated. Our lives suddenly take on new meaning. Our egos are caressed and our sense of self-worth is elevated.

This impulse to avoid being ordinary is so powerful that we find ourselves willing to justify deception. There are some who believe that as long as others feel blessed by our “ministry” and we feel important, nearly everything is permissible. Or the longing to be important blinds us to our own shortcomings and clouds our judgment regarding truth.

In addition, being perceived as important also generates speaking invitations, large honoraria, and public praise, whether on social media or from the platforms of churches everywhere.

Conclusion

I do not want my critique of certain theological trends in the broader charismatic community to be interpreted as if I have any doubts about the contemporary validity of all spiritual gifts and our responsibility to desire them and facilitate their exercise in the life of the local church (1 Cor. 14:1). It is precisely because I so highly value what Scripture says about the charismatic work of the Spirit that I energetically oppose those who would, by means of their flawed theological beliefs, bring reproach upon the Spirit and the gospel itself.

In this article we look at two more potential land mines.

(12) A Repudiation of the Biblical concept of Weakness

Few things are as inimical to the charismatic world as weakness. Weakness is viewed as the absence of faith and a defeatist mentality. But in 2 Corinthians we discover that weakness means being “so utterly burdened” beyond your strength that you despair of life itself (2 Cor. 1:8), and this for no other reason than that you chose to be faithful to the gospel of Christ. Weakness means embracing your identity as a “jar of clay” (2 Cor. 4:7) so that all power may be seen as belonging to God, not you. Weakness does not mean suffering the consequences for your dishonesty or deceit, but enduring affliction and persecution and perplexity in order that the life of Jesus might be manifest in your body (2 Cor. 4:8-11).

For Paul, weakness meant exposure to a litany of undeserved dangers (2 Cor. 11:26) and an embarrassing nocturnal escape (2 Cor. 11:32-33). Weakness was what he felt anytime the thorn launched another painful, debilitating, or humiliating assault against him. Weakness is suffering financial hardship (6:10; 1 Cor. 4:11) in the course of ministry. Weakness is feeling deeply within one’s soul and body the frailty of creatureliness and one’s utter inadequacy to accomplish anything apart from the fresh and sustaining supply of power and grace.

Weakness means enduring insults without retaliation (2 Cor. 12:10) and suffering calamity without bitterness (2 Cor. 12:10). Weakness means any experience or event that requires incessant conscious dependence on the strength that God supplies. Weakness means any situation or circumstance, in the service of Christ, that is difficult to bear and is beyond your control and cannot be avoided without sinning.

That’s what I mean by weakness. But how can it be good? Weakness is good because without it we never experience the fullness of divine power. Weakness is good because without it mercy remains a mystery. Weakness is good because it compels the soul to look beyond itself for answers and in doing so magnifies the sufficiency of divine grace. Paul put it this way:

“So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:7-10).

[The verb translated “I am content” in the ESV (v. 10) is eudokeō. The Christian Standard Bible more accurately translates it as “I take pleasure in.”]

When the Lord Jesus told Paul that his “power is made perfect in weakness” (v. 9) he did not mean that in its absence power was defective or deficient, but that in response to our conscious dependence upon him, when weakness welcomes God’s intervention, it is afforded a great opportunity to be seen as sufficient and sustaining. Divine power performs at its best and reaches its optimal expression in relation to our conscious confession of the inability to do anything of value apart from his gracious presence.

Although Paul willingly embraced his thorn, it was only after he had passionately prayed that it be removed. “Paul is no Stoic, who sees the thorn as an opportunity for self-mastery and endurance. Nor is he a theological masochist, who glorifies suffering itself. When suffering hits, Paul prays for deliverance” (Scott Hafemann, 2 Corinthians: The NIV Application Commentary [Zondervan], 464). Clearly, he believed that physical affliction was something from which we are to pray to be delivered. At one level, the thorn was the work of Satan’s messenger and must therefore be resisted. At another level, it was used by God to sanctify the soul of Paul. Whereas pain is not inherently good (and only a perverse soul would think otherwise), it is instrumentally beneficial in the hands of a good God.

Furthermore, in “gladly” (2 Cor. 12:9b) acquiescing to weakness Paul does not mean that we are to seek out suffering on our own. He is not encouraging morbid, self-imposed anguish or asceticism. His affliction was God-given, for Christ's sake. Paul's joy was not in pain but in his experiential realization of the complete adequacy of God's grace in Christ to meet his every need in spite of it and to transform his weakness into an opportunity for the glory of Christ to be displayed. Listen to Tasker:

“Only a morbid fanatic can take pleasure in the sufferings he inflicts upon himself; only an insensitive fool can take pleasure in the sufferings that are the consequences of his folly; and only a convinced Christian can take pleasure in sufferings endured 'for Christ's sake,' for he alone has been initiated into the divine secret, that it is only when he is 'weak,' having thrown himself unreservedly in penitence and humility upon the never-failing mercies of God, that he is 'strong,' with a strength not his own, but belonging to the Lord of all power and might” (The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians,: An introduction and commentary. The Tyndale New Testament commentaries), [IVP] 179.

(13) Unhealthy Hankering after the Novel and “never-heard-before” Doctrines and Practices

Here I have in mind the tendency of many charismatics to yearn for and seek out what is new and unprecedented. When a speaker introduces his message with the assurance that no one in church history has ever noticed this truth or this interpretation of a particular biblical text, many immediately and naively embrace it (I, on the other hand, am immediately suspicious!). What they hunger for is something historically unprecedented, something entirely fresh, strange, and unheard of. This suggests to them that the speaker is uniquely close to God and privy to truths never before seen.

One recent example of this is Robert Henderson and his horrible, outrageously and egregiously unbiblical book, Operating in the Courts of Heaven. At the core of Henderson’s theology of prayer is that the Christian has more power than God, and that only when we secure a heavenly verdict and give God permission to act will our prayers be answered. Not only does Henderson contend that God is largely impotent to answer our prayers until we secure a legal verdict in heaven, but he quite literally misinterprets every biblical text that he cites to support his view. Too many charismatics are unable to see through his exegetical gymnastics and his twisting of Scripture. They are excited when someone comes along with a new and different and sensational interpretation of the Bible.

Yet another example of this hankering after the novel was the recent claim by Shawn Bolz that ChatGPT can possibly interpret tongues speech. Why would Bolz or anyone else propose this obviously ridiculous and ludicrous notion? The answer, at least to me, is obvious. It put him in the spotlight once again. When I read about this on the internet, I realized that Bolz had accomplished precisely what he had in mind: publicity, notoriety, and more money.