Charismatic
Chaos: My Experience In One Church
By
What follows is a letter I wrote to a brother in Christ who attended a Pentecostal church with me. He had caught up with me via e-mail a few years after I had left the church (and had gotten reassigned by the military to a different state). In the letter I address such things as deliverances, speaking things into existence, prayer and faith, and the atonement. Note: Not all Pentecostal churches are as unbiblical as this one was with regard to some of the issues I mention.
Dear Brother,
Before I proceed at this point, I want to make an appeal to you. I am going to provide you my reasons for leaving the church, because frankly, I haven’t had a chance to do so with anyone. I have touched on the main issue with a couple of people, but never gone into detail. I trust you with the info I’m about to provide that you won’t take it in the sense that I am trying to tear down the people or the leadership of that church, etc. These are just my observations. The people at the church were (are) some of the dearest Christians I have ever had the privilege of being associated with. It is the theology of the church that I had a problem with, and which eventually required my having to leave to it.
From the beginning I saw problems doctrinally, however, I was quick to put them all into the “non-essential” pile. The main reason was because the most I thought I differed with the church was over the doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with tongues being the necessary initial physical evidence of that experience, and I also believed in the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," whereas the church did not. I could live those differences (and did live with them). However, the longer I was there, I began to see more and more things that I thought were doctrinally problematic, and the more difficult it became to distinguish between non-essential and essential things.
My brother, I do not make that assessment in a haphazard fashion, and I am not trying to quibble over insignificant issues. In time, I found myself on opposite sides of the spectrum on almost every doctrinal issue, from church government, to the doctrine of salvation. Now, I want to reiterate, you may not agree with my assessment, and you may find yourself completely lining up with what they teach with regard to these matters, and that’s fine. I’m just conveying what the issues were for me, so that hopefully I can clear up any misconceptions in people’s minds.
Also, I really wish I could state this in person so that you could see my demeanor. It is very difficult at times to convey sentiment when writing. You may or may not agree with my assessment, and that’s fine. But these are some of the important issues I struggled with while I was there. It is with deep sorrow of heart that we left the church, and it is with that same sentiment that I now recount some of the reasons. In any event, here are some the areas that I found to be extremely problematic from a purely doctrinal perspective:
1. Christians Without The Spirit: One of the more serious problems was with regard to the doctrine of salvation. They teach that a person who has received Christ still doesn’t have the Holy Spirit in any sense whatsoever. Only after one speaks in tongues do they have the Spirit. This is not only wrong, but it denies essential Christian doctrine, because it denies the very essence of salvation itself (regeneration by the Holy Spirit) and what it even means to be a Christian (see Romans 8). At the fundamental level, what you have in essence is a denying of the Gospel, because it denies the work of the Spirit in regeneration, and posits all control to the “free will” of man. In this view, it ultimately is salvation by works alone, the work being a person’s decision, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.
It also ultimately confuses the nature of God. To them, a person has Jesus, but doesn’t have the Holy Spirit. So, they completely separate the essence of the Persons of the Godhead. When we are born again, we don’t just receive one “part” of God, and then wait around for the other parts of God to catch up to us. We receive God, all of God, the moment we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Sure, each Person of the Godhead had and/or has a different role, but it is still one God, not three separate Gods. It is one God revealed in three distinct Persons, not one God revealed in 3 separate persons.
Those things were significant for me, not to mention the bondage it creates in the lives of people who, feeling spiritually inadequate, and spend countless hours trying to speak in tongues so that they too can “leave the land of the have-nots” for the land of the “haves.” Their false teaching on this issue alone is enough to put them outside of the “pale of orthodoxy,” that is, outside of what is considered to be a legitimately Christian organization.
So, while I believe that they themselves are Christians, they have nevertheless engaged in a ministry that is erroneous in the most foundational and fundamental mark of what it even means to be a Christian, and by virtue of that, what even constitutes a true Church. In other words, the Church is composed of individual’s who are born again of the Spirit (meaning they have been regenerated, and by virtue of that have the indwelling of the Spirit). To deny that a Christian has the indwelling presence of the Spirit is to deny that he is in fact a Christian, and to deny that is, in essence, to deny what constitutes the Church. I shared my concerns with the leadership concerning this issue, and even made them aware that their teaching is diametrically opposed to what has been the position of the Christian Church for 2,000 years. Nevertheless, the leadership refused to change its position at all (a position, I would add, which puts them outside of what even most Pentecostal's believe).
At that point, I made what I now realize was a mistake. I simply decided to put the entire issue into what I call the "non-essential pile." In considering something as "non-essential," we are saying the issue, though important, nevertheless does not strike at a foundational doctrine of the church, and they are issues upon which well meaning Christian's may differ over, but really should not divide over. Again, it was a mistake for me to relegate the issue to that of a "non-essential," because the issue is, as I hope you can see, foundational and is essential.
2. Demonology: The things practiced here caused me considerable concern. For example, did you ever notice that the same people were always having spirits cast out of them, or being “delivered?” My question was, and is, “why?” And why is it that those things only happen in churches that allow those things to take place? For example, if those who engage in such “deliverance” activities are true to their cause, then why don’t they go out to the streets and start delivering everyone out there? Why is it that it is only on Sunday that these seemingly super-anointed superstars of the faith decide to exercise their spiritual muscle, "bind up" the devil, and deliver us from oppression? Now, I am not saying that there isn’t a devil, or that there aren’t times when we indeed must pray for someone who is being oppressed. But, every Sunday, the same people?
You know my brother, I’ve been in all kinds of churches. The bottom line is that the ones that do not engage in “deliverance ministries” are the ones that are the most productive in terms of the Great Commission, and the ones that do are the ones that seem to be in the most confusion. It is even debatable whether there should be such a thing as “deliverance ministries.” The reason is because Satan was dealt his fatal blow, and while he does roam as a lion seeking whom he may devour, the emphasis in Scripture is never on him. Jesus cast out demons to demonstrate who He was, and that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. He consummated His victory on the cross, and then sends the Church out, not to continue casting out demons, but to proclaim the clear message of the Gospel. The pattern we see in Acts clearly demonstrates that. While we do see certain instances related to demons in Acts (Acts 16:18, 19:13 - 16), it is just that: certain instances. It is interesting in the first case (Acts 16:18), Paul only cast the spirit after having been frustrated, and the main reason was because the woman was distracting from one thing: The proclamation of the Gospel. In other words, Paul’s primary function was not to establish a pattern for ministry, but to simply get to the point where the Gospel could be preached, and any distractions or impediments to that would be dealt with.
What is very eye-opening to me is that the doctrinally sound Churches do not pander to the devil, but preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, buried, risen, and ascended. They preach that the Devil was already defeated 2,000 years ago by Jesus’ victory on the cross! (Colossians 2:13 - 15). They teach that once you are born again, you don’t have to fear the devil, because you have the victory!
The big problem with the deliverance’s that occur (not just at that church, but in many other churches) is that the one being “delivered” is usually someone who is a born again Christian. It is impossible for a born again Christian to be demon possessed. However, I do believe that a Christian can be oppressed by Satan, and if that is the case, the way to getting over that is not by having someone wave their magically anointed hand in the air, or put it on your head and pray countless times, “I rebuke you in the Name of Jesus.” The Biblical method for an oppressed Christian to “get set free” is to submit to God and resist the devil, and this is done through prayer, Bible study, and just work in ministry.
The final point on this topic is that there seemed to be a demon behind every corner, and attached to every object. It is a “devil-made-me-do-it” philosophy that has more in common with medieval superstition than with Biblical Christianity. Demons do not attach themselves to objects like statues or dirt devil vacuum cleaners, and you will not have a demon transmitted to you if you happen to touch someone who is having an epileptic seizure (nor can you have an “anointing” transmitted to you by simply touching someone who is supposedly anointed in a specific area, such as Evangelism).
Now, how do I know all of this? How do I know my position is correct? Because I turn to the Scripture as my sole infallible source for doctrine and practice. What I find there with regard to Demonology is quite different than what we see at this church and many other churches. Granted, my assessment of what Scripture teaches with regard to this issue may be wrong, but at least I appeal to them and rest my case on them. In other words, I’m not going to tell you to just believe what I’m saying without basing my teaching on Scripture.
3. Speaking things into existence, and calling those things that are not as though they were: I don’t know how many times I’ve heard these things. Unfortunately, it has more in common with the New Age metaphysical movement than true Christianity. The only One who speaks things into existence is God, and He has already done that (the created order). Man is utterly incapable of speaking anything into existence since that is a prerogative of Deity. The same holds true for calling things that aren’t as though they were. That passage in Romans 4 is not saying that we do that, but God. Only God is omniscient and omnipotent, and as such only God has the power to do that. For us to even think that we could do that is the height of presumption and arrogance.
Not only are we incapable of doing those things, but what makes us so arrogant to think that we know the absolute best thing to speak into existence in any given situation? Of course, the refrain at the point is usually: “well, I know because I heard from God.” And how is it that these super-anointed superstars "hear" from God? Well, because God "revealed it" to their spirits, of course! Forget the Bible (and common sense for that matter). Even if what was "revealed" in their spirits contradicts what the Bible clearly states, it matters not, because, they say, "I know I heard from God, and the proof is in the pudding!" What is different between what they do, and what any other cultist does who claims that they had a revelation of what they were supposed to do? The answer is absolutely nothing, except the cultist is claiming that the revelation came from some other source than the God of the Bible, while these ones are appealing to the Name of the Lord (and as such, I would argue, are guilty of even greater sin).
I also find it a bit ironic that those who claim to have this power never “speak” peace in the world into existence, or speak into existence the abolishment of famine, racism, homelessness, sickness, death, sorrow, or pain. If they have, then they have failed miserably! Brother, it is all show and hype, and, as they say, “the Emperor has no clothes.” We need to wake up, refute the false teaching, and try to bring the church back to sound doctrine and practice.
4. Prayer and Faith: Prayer is not supposed to be a shouting match where the one praying basically preaches a sermonette as if God is deaf, or as if He’ll be impressed with our lofty words and knowledge of Scripture. Prayer is communication with God done in an unpretentious, reverent manner whereby we first and foremost submit ourselves to God, and acknowledge our desperate need before Him. Faith is not some mystical force whereby we manipulate God in to doing our bidding. Rather, it is an absolute trust in God that he is able to do what His Word says, and it is also trusting in God even when the answer we get isn’t exactly what we would have thought or wanted. In the context of Romans Chapter 8 you will see Paul speaking about suffering, and how the purpose for all of that is for us to be conformed to the image of Christ. God is causing all things, suffering included, for our good--conformity to Christ. Contrast that with the teaching by many that if we suffer in any degree, whether by sickness, or persecution, etc., it is because we have a lack of faith!
5. The Atonement: This was the issue that became the straw that broke the camels back for me. You remember that during the time when we were trying to build a sanctuary, the pastor and his wife came back from a trip they took and announced to us that the Lord had "dropped something" in their spirit. What was "dropped" in their spirit was that now, if we found one of our brothers or sisters in an "alt" (wrongdoing), we were to make that person aware of that, and they were to then "bring their sacrifice" to the altar. What was the "sacrifice?" Money, of course. And what was the money going to be used for? Why, the new church building of course.
Eventually this got to the point that we were encouraged to put “sacrifices on the altar” (money in the box at the altar!) for healing, forgiveness, peace, joy, blessings, etc. My brother, this was not only anti-Biblical, but it was blasphemous! It was a direct assault to the Blood of Christ, and I told the Pastor and his wife precisely that when I met privately with them on the matter. In that meeting I shared one passage after another that not only directly contradicted the practice that they implemented, but actually showed it to be utterly disdainful against the once for all, perfect sacrifice of Christ.
As I was reading the passages, they stopped me, and asked me if I was done yet! They then went on to say that it was the Spirit that told them do what they did. With that, I told them that if the Spirit told them something that contradicted the Spirit-breathed, infallible Word of God, then obviously it wasn't the Spirit that told them that. I then pointed toward the altar and told them both, "what is going on there is an abomination to the Blood of Christ!" I'm sure you can guess their response..."well, John, sorry you feel that way, but that is what the Spirit dropped in our heart, and that's what we're going to do." I had no choice but to leave. A couple of years after that, I had an opportunity to correspond with the Pastor (who was again upset with me for defending the truth concerning another issue), and this issue came up again. I will close this by citing for you a portion of what I wrote to him concerning this issue:
“Pastor,
As for the situation at the church when I was there, what I want you to understand, with all of my heart, is to realize that the concerns I raised were not personal with you. I had the deepest respect and love for you and the co-Pastor, as well as the entire Body when I was there. I was simply exercising my duty as a "leader" in the church and was greatly concerned with what I believed was a blatant affront to the all-sufficient sacrifice made by Christ on the cross. Pastor, with all due respect, when people are preaching that if a person wants to be healed, or needs joy and peace, or needs to have salvation for a relative, or anything else, to bring their money to the altar, and nothing is said to oppose that, we have truly lost our way, and abandoned the way, the truth, and the life. We have belittled the cross of Christ. Let me reiterate: If a person needs "healing," or joy, peace, etc., we don't direct them to their pocketbook, but to the cross. If you need love, and peace, don't drop a few dollars on the altar, but drop to your knees in humble submission, and look to the cross! God has commanded all men, everywhere to repent, and to obey His command to come to the cross. We aren't to trust in our feeble attempts at sacrifice, rather, we are to trust in the perfect sacrifice that was made once for all! When a minister believes there is teaching that undermines that basic, fundamental message, and a minister doesn't speak out, then that person has absolutely no business being a minister, I'm sure you'd agree.”
Your In Christ,
John