Over the weekend, I challenged Dr. Michael Brown to a debate. This isn’t the first time, as twice before I had reached tentative agreements to debate Brown on the tenets of Charismania. I have had numerous interactions with Brown, mostly emailing him to offer correction when he has repeatedly gone to the defense of Hillsong regarding such issues as their use of gay choir directors and their lascivious, “sexy Christmas” cabaret, which I wrote an open letter about in January.
This isn’t the first time that Dr. Brown has defended the indefensible and blasphemed the Holy Spirit by blaming the Third Person of the Trinity for the shenanigans of Charismania’s most notorious false prophets. Brown has defended and/or endorsed Benny Hinn, Rick Joyner, Mike Bickel, Brian Houston, Carl Lentz, Joseph Cahn, and many, many others.
When pushed to defend himself regarding his endorsements and associations with the most nefarious false teachers in the world, Brown sticks to the following game-plan.
- Claim that he isn’t aware of any controversies regarding the false teacher, and feign total ignorance regarding the substance of the false teacher’s doctrine, as he did with Benny Hinn. Never mind, of course, that a leading figure in Charismania claiming he wasn’t aware of who Benny Hinn was insults all of our intelligence; we are required to view the claim charitably as though it were made by a genuine brother in Christ.
- Claim that the false teacher has repented of his false teaching. Brown repeatedly does this regardless of whether or not there’s any evidence of the false teacher ever having repented for anything. Again, as he did with Benny Hinn.
- Claim the factual, but negative, reporting of his or another charismatic’s glaring doctrinal or integrity problems are “misrepresentations.” Brown hardly ever (that may be an understatement) goes on to explain what the misrepresentation is, but seems content to merely make the charge.
- When all else fails, claim the discerning Christian is a slanderer or gossip, or vaguely imply they don’t have the full story. Brown does this repeatedly, and I don’t know if he’s ever met a discerning Christian that he didn’t attack as a slanderer or gossip, in the same way I don’t know if he’s ever met a charismatic charlatan he hasn’t adamantly defended.
Brown has used these four strategies over and again to endorse or defend the world’s most infamous faux-miracle working, tongue-babbling, Spirit-blaspheming, Heaven-touring charismaniacs ever to suck a grave or bequeath a prophet’s mantle.
So then, how did Dr. Brown respond to me call for a debate?
And although I think we all might suspect who that Cessationist colleague(s) might have been, maybe someone who has been on the wrong side of a discernment issue a time or two recently and might be a bit sore over it, one thing is for sure. Whoever can countenance Dr. Brown as a friend or colleague, in spite of the great harm he regularly perpetrates upon the church through his endorsement of Charismania’s most dangerous leaders, but considers me to “write and say dangerous things” is perhaps more discernment impaired than we once thought.
What true and actual cessationist would tell charismania’s chief apologist that JD Hall is dangerous? And further more, specifically, what would those “dangerous things” that have been written or said be? Would it be something like what was presented in Modern Day Montanism, or maybe something that got too personal? Who knows. If I followed Dr. Brown’s formula, I would accuse him of unfounded gossip and slander. The difference between the two is that I’ve been very specific with my accusations, and he’s lobbied accusations from thus far unnamed ambiguousbots.
Furthermore, and let the record show, at no point has Dr. Brown ever “corrected me” privately on any matter. I have, however, corrected him repeatedly (as the Open Letter to Dr. Brown last January demonstrates). Neither did Dr. Brown explain at what points he has been misrepresented (because he has not been) in my last post.
As I will continue to assert, Montanism is not Christianity, but a heresy to be anathematized from the modern church the same was it was in the early church. “Cessationist Colleagues” don’t need to mollycoddle their charismatic counterparts as brethren, but call them to repentance for endorsing and defending, well, pretty much anyone for whom Michael Brown has put his seal of approval.
Source: JD Hall, Polemics Report, P & P Blog, http://polemicsreport.com/2016/10/24/too-dangerous-to-debate/ Published: 24/10/2016, Accessed: 25/10/2016