I don’t know what kinds of questions Perry Noble is having to answer in his world, but if you survey the comments on this blog you’ll find a number of challenges to my position. While we await Noble’s explanation, I’ll offer this personal defense.
You deserve it.
It has been quite chilling to see this response in the comments, though it’s not surprising that some NS members interpret Noble’s statements and actions as endorsing this view. The comments tend to take the same shape as NewSpring’s statements–they do acknowedge that Maxwell went too far, but they’re not sorry that it happened to me.
This is the attitude that sustained Maxwell’s campaign and why so many NewSpring insiders didn’t see enough wrong with what he was doing to throw a flag on it. Sure, Maxwell may be bad, but Duncan is worse. He deserves what he gets.
NewSpring’s lack of curiosity about how badly I might have been harmed suggests that I deserved whatever I got. On October 30, I had emailed Jason Wilson, NewSpring’s executive pastor, to ask for a meeting with Noble to to tell them what had happened, and suggested that Noble’s reassurance to his congregation that they not worry about Maxwell’s actions told me that they really didn’t know what he had done. On October 31, Wilson sent this response:
If you feel that there are other situations that may cause us to “worry” that have not been addressed, please let me know via email.
Note the quotes around worry. His message was that they still weren’t worried. Would you send an email detailing the serious and profoundly personal complaints that I had to someone like this? Me, neither.
You started it.
This is an argument more suited to an elementary school playground, but, because it still appeals to some, I suppose I need to answer it. Here’s an example of that sentiment from the a comment from “Bob.”
By your own admission this whole series of events began two years when ‘you’ initiated your opinions and criticisms against NS. You took issue with a billboard sign and some of the youth activities at this church which offended your personal sensibilities. In response, you submitted an article to a local newspaper and started a blog campaign about this church. It was your prerogative to do so. From there it’s apparent that things snowballed, escalated, and got very ugly on both sides.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you had simply said nothing and not concerned yourselves with NS and its activities, then none of this would have happened to you, your family, or them?
If you really want to go back to the beginning of the beginning, it was when I and many other Andersonians were subjected to NewSpring’s very public and disheartening attack on parenthood on the main roads in our city. I attempted to talk to Noble about that by emailing a friend in the church, then, when there was no response, by communicating with him in the same public forum that he was using (he on the highways, me in the newspaper).
(An aside on meetings. If you happen to scan through some of the discussions on this blog, you’ll see that a common attempt to cut off debate is to lecture us on the need to communicate with Noble face to face. If you can’t say this to Perry’s face, the lecture goes, you shouldn’t say this in public, to which I respond that I have attempted to meet Perry to say these things to his face. May we forever put to rest the idea that Perry Noble will ever meet with a critic? If he won’t take a meeting with someone who is complaining of criminal harassment from his church’s staff, or won’t meet after he has found that claim to be correct, he will never meet anyone at any time for anything. As it is, the whole meeting thing works against me whatever way I present it. If I say there’s a wall around Noble that I can’t breach, I’m accused of not even trying and told to shut up. If I say I’ve taken a run at the wall and dashed myself against it, I’m accused of being a celebrity stalker who just wants Noble to pay attention to me, so I should go away and shut up.)
The key issue here is forum, not chronology. As much as Noble wants to characterize bloggers as jackasses, he’s a pretty big one (blogger, that is) himself. He uses his blog to daily lecture pastors around the world on how they can build a church like his and have a ministry like his. Noble is more often to be found talking to other leaders on his blog than his own flock, though he realizes they are reading too. This is a man who is using the Internet to redefine the church in a way that goes much beyond his own particular church.
An important part of Noble’s redefinition–he calls it reformation–effort is tearing down the traditional church. You don’t have to look far on his blog or listen long on a Sunday to see him besmirching the honor, motives or practices of other churches in the community. Pastors are commonly described as prostitutes, and churches as elitist country clubs that give the middle finger to their community. Church goers (not his own, of course) are characterized as religious bigots who don’t know Jesus.
So long as Noble never offers specifics about who he’s talking about in these moments (and he never does), these anti-church and anti-Christian rants stand against every other church and most believers.
This is why I’ve always imagined that Pajama Pages is playing defense. I am trying to argue for the beauty and integrity of the local church in general. If you search through these pages, you’ll see that I never identify my own church; I’m arguing for all churches, not just my own. I love denominations for their mission of preserving important truths and modes of worship, even though I don’t agree with them all. I love the different styles of worship and preaching that you’ll find in churches all over town, even though I wouldn’t personally enjoy or endorse all of them myself.
This is a bad witness.
The idea behind this objection is that people will be less likely to come to salvation if they see disputes in the church. We should keep our disagreements hidden. (For NSers who embrace this position, you’ll need to ask Noble why he wanted this on the front page of the paper.)
Disputes aren’t ideal, though they’re nothing we need to be ashamed of or try to hide. The New Testament epistles are full of public disputes including instances where Paul calls Peter out as a hypocrite, condemns a particular group of teachers, and reports on persecution at the hand of a specific person. Unless we’re prepared to hide the Bible from the world, we need to acknowledge that personal and theological disputes and debates have always been a part of the church and were so important and profitable that they’re part of Scripture.
But they don’t help us with evangelism, you say. It sounds like a good theory, but I’m more concerned with what God says about that. If you will, read through 2 Timothy 3 with me. In verse 11, Paul reminds Timothy of the persecutions and sufferings he has endured, often at the hands of other believers whom he refers to as evil impostors. (Shush, Paul, we’re not supposed to talk of such things.)
In the next sentence, Paul instructs Timothy on the value of Scripture.
From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation though faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:15-16)
All Scripture includes the bits about nasty disagreements, which, according to God, can bring people to salvation. Paul doesn’t say, “All Scripture, except for the stuff that will make the unsaved folk wonder why we can’t get along, is God-breathed and useful.”
NewSpringers, if there’s a rule against disagreeing, what will you do when a flaming heretic comes into town and draws a crowd of 30,000 people? Will you say anything? If so, when would you start? If not, why wouldn’t you care? And, no, I’m not saying that Noble is a heretic, just that there are times when it’s important to speak up. You and I might have different triggers, but I hope that you do at least have a trigger.
There are some controversies that aren’t worth engaging, though the example of the church fathers shows us that there are times when public disputes are necessary and profitable.
You and your blog are full of hate.
Again, this is a complaint that is modeled by NewSpring’s leaders. Look at that Duffey-Maxwell conversation again, and you’ll see it. Duffey’s response to Perry Noble’s assistant, who wants to make me a “_____ dog on a chain,” is:
don’t read… he just hates on Pastor Furtick, @bcoop & @perrynoble… i’m in really good company!
I can be ignored and insulted because I hate. It’s also after this comment that Maxwell goes searching for his gangland beating posse.
Noble uses the idea that his critics are hateful to justify ignoring what they say.
If you are willing to ignore those who hate you then you can truly focus on THE ONE who loves you, called you and knows you!
The idea that I was a hater, clearly communicated by the church’s leadership, was likely what motivated Maxwell and friends to start their hateful campaign in the first place.
Not that hate is justification for any of this, but I am curious exactly how Noble and his supporters find hate in these pages. Surely the fact that I disagree with him is not hateful, for that would make him even more hateful than me (he publishes more “hateful” words that disagree with me to more people).
For those who find PP and me hateful, I invite you to scour these pages for examples of hate. Comments by others don’t count, and you can’t just say “all of it,” because it’s not all about Noble or NewSpring. The whole blog is fair game, but I’m especially interested in examples from before May 21, when Duffey was so sure I hated everyone.
The comments are open for you to show us what you find. Go for it.
UPDATE: After seven days and 70 comments, there is not one instance of someone pointing out anything hateful on this blog. For all the times I’ve been accused of hate and all the words that I’ve published on this blog, I would have thought someone would have come up with something.
The silent response is somewhat reminiscent of this other challenge I gave to Perry Noble’s fans.
This is a huge, complicated story, and I’ll have it for you soon.
UPDATE: I don’t mean to be teasing you, but this is going to take a while (probably late tonight or early tomorrow). The whole point was that I hoped that what has happened this summer not become public, so I don’t have anything ready to go. Before you jump to conclusions one way or the other, remember that, at this point, you only have heard one side of this story.
If you care to, please pray for my family. There are details that are about to become public that I had hoped to keep secret, even from them. When you read what’s coming, you’ll understand why.
He starts from the admirably humble position of assuring us that if someone doesn’t like him, it’s because they’re jealous of him.
If that bombshell doesn’t seal the argument for you, he adds this:
Why do “Christians” hate people who don’t believe just like them? (The reformed guys are usually the worse…and, being pretty much reformed in my theology I believe I can say that with integrity!) We all have different beliefs…but I would say if we could claim the Nicean Creed as our common ground…we should be mature enough to work through the rest.
Now, I’m not sure if he’s saying that because he’s reformed, he has a hate problem himself. He might be, because it does help to explain this characterization from just a few weeks ago:
We don’t fight battles with people that claim to be Christian but don’t like us. [emphasis added]
So, people who don’t like Perry are just jealous pagans. Hateful? Surely not.
As for working through differences, I also like Perry’s mature approach from a few weeks ago:
We don’t fight battles with bloggers. We don’t read the stuff, we don’t go on and comment, we don’t do that stuff.
Plugging your ears and shouting “I don’t hear you, I don’t hear you” counts as working things through?
This weekend, I heard an incredible sermon on the Prodigal Son. This sermon further strengthened my belief that God’s Word is living, because despite the fact that I’ve heard this story a thousand times, I saw it in a new way. I want to specifically look at one small section of the story. I don’t think I’m guilty of reading more into this than is intended:
Luke 15: 25-30
25“Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing.26And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant.27And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’28But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him,29but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends.30But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’
The older son skipped the opportunity to celebrate the return of his younger brother. He was upset that the father had chosen to bless the younger son. It was unfair. The younger son didn’t deserve it at all. He had wasted his inheritance on foolish living and prostitutes, yet the father was overjoyed to see his youngest son. He even ran out to greet him, and kissed him, and had him clothed in the finest robe.
The father in this story, showed a great act of grace and mercy. Out of the goodness of his heart, he decided to pour out extravagant blessings upon a very unworthy recipient. The older son didn’t understand. He just didn’t “get it”.
For the last couple of days, I’ve been questioning my own motives. I must admit, that on the surface I bare a striking resemblance to the older brother. I can see where an outsider would make that connection. After all, churches like Elevation and Newspring are being blessed. I think (despite the conferences and such) even they would admit that they are wildly unworthy. It appears that I am unhappy about it. Older brother syndrome. I see that.
Something else I’ll admit: I am wholly unworthy of the Father’s blessings as well. While I am pretty strong on theology and doctrine, I am pretty weak on sharing the Gospel with the people I encounter in my daily existence. Sure, sometimes they notice that I don’t cuss much, or that I try not to gossip. If they ask why, I might hint towards my belief in Christ, but in general, I live as if we have forever. We don’t. We are not even promised today. I know that many of my colleagues are completely lost in their sin…and I don’t care enough about their eternity in Hell to share the Gospel with them. I can give you a ton of excuses. I might even lose my job if I were to begin evangelizing co-workers. All that means is that I care more about my standard of living, than I care about the souls of the lost.
What does all this mean? Am I going to stop pointing out error where I see it? No. The stakes are too high. People are being led astray at an alarming rate, and I won’t be quiet. Some of the issues seem minuscule, but they have to be discussed. Deception starts with the small points. Overlooking even the tiniest venture from Scriptural truth will only lead to larger errors in the future.
What this does mean is that I have to rededicate myself to reaching the world with the Good News of Christ, starting right here in my office. My passion for purity of the Church has to be matched with a broken-heart for lost souls.
I won’t ignore error, and I won’t ignore the lost. I will try to join in the dance and celebration when Father decides to put His best robe on a younger brother.
When I make comments about refusing to let critics upset me, it’s usually b/c a critic has just upset me.
I appreciate Steven’s honesty. I have often wondered why the Turnstile pastors spend so much time talking about, blogging about, tweeting about, how much they don’t care about what their critics say. Perry Noble even took the time to develop a well-reasoned apologetic for his critics: SCOREBOARD. If you follow these guys on any given week, you will notice that it is extremely rare for them to make it a few days without addressing critics in some way. Why do these guys think they are above criticism? Perhaps the idea comes from Purpose Driven mentor Rick Warren, who made this statement in his book The Purpose Driven Church:
Do not criticize what God is blessing.
This is one of those weird statements that seems OK upon first glance, but might require a little more digging. What is Warren really saying here?
How do we know what God is blessing? Is it because of a large congregation? Financially prosperous? Large number of converts?
What about the false prophets Jesus warned against in Matthew 7:15 ? Wouldn’t it be possible that these false prophets looked like they were being blessed by God?
1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to test everything. That would seem to imply that we should even test things that which God is blessing. Perhaps, if God is truly behind it, it will hold up to criticism.
I think it is fairly obvious that what Warren really meant was:
Do not criticize what Rick Warren thinks God is blessing.
I have a slightly different concept: Criticize everything. I think this holds up pretty well in light of 1 Thes. 5:21 . God will not be offended if you test His work against scripture. Nor will God’s work ever fail that test. Not all criticism will be helpful. Not all will be scriptural. This is what the passage means by holding on to the good, and discarding the evil.
A question we routinely get here is, “How would you feel if people were criticizing you?”
I welcome it.
You may have noticed that we leave the comments open for you, and as long as you are civil, you are allowed to say what you think. Furthermore, if your criticism is well founded and based in Scripture, I may actually benefit from hearing it. So, I encourage you to criticize all that I say. If what I say does not line up with Scripture, discard it and correct me.
However, if you find that what I say does line up with Scripture, that may require action on your end.
After watching this clip, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or just be angry. I think I’m starting to settle in on anger, and here’s why:
He starts out by saying people have problems with multi-site churches because they played basketball for a team that didn’t keep score because everybody was a winner, and you think life should treat you fairly. Not only is this one of the more ridiculous statements ever made, it insinuates that ministers who disagree with Perry are just afraid of the competition. That’s right, Noble’s response to a serious, pertinent issue facing the modern church is to insult the manhood of those asking the question.
Next, he says that a pastor who criticizes the multi-site model is just an insecure pastor. As we’ve seen far too often with this crowd, it isn’t possible to have a legitimate biblical concern with one of these guys. It is clear: If you disagree with Perry, you are wrong, and the only reason you could have for that disagreement comes from some flaw in your character.
He says we have to stop competing with each other. This is quite confusing, considering that his opening argument was that we aren’t competitive enough.
He says when a Pastor walks out on stage and takes shots at other Pastors, he needs to repent before God. What a hypocrite! And I’m not talking about the fact that he does this every Sunday. He’s already done it twice in this two minute clip!
Finally, and this is by far the most serious error in this ridiculous little clip, Perry claims Acts 8:1 as the biblical backing for his multi-site model. One quick glance at that scripture shows that it says nothing about 21st century, video-driven, church campuses. In fact, the only argument that could possibly relate is by reading down to verse 4. It states that all the individuals who were scattered through the region preached the word wherever they went. This is much more indicative of individual church plants being sent out from one central place, than anything dealing with one Pastor preaching to multiple sites. Regardless, none of that is the point. If you read that passage of scripture, it is clearly about the execution of Steven and how God even used the persecution to advance His Kingdom. Perry Noble pays tremendous disrespect to the text by twisting it to claim God’s endorsement of Perry’s empire. I am not stating this as an opinion. Perry is dead-wrong in his treatment of this scripture. Now, there are only two possibilities: Either He’s an ignorant buffoon that is completely incapable of understanding such a simple passage, or he is purposefully twisting Scripture to accomplish his own agenda. I’ve seen him do this too many times now to believe that it was accidental.
Why is this such a big deal? 900 people were baptised at Newspring Sunday. With a shepherd who has no respect for God’s word, what is to come of all these new converts?
Last Sunday, Elevation passed out the flyer you see on the right, listing 12 Faith confessions to be stated aloud daily by each member. I thought I’d post them here for examination:
I am fully forgiven and free from all shame and condemnation.
I act in audacious faith to change the world in my generation.
I have no fear or anxiety, I trust the lord with all my heart.
I am able to fulfill the calling God has placed on my life.
I am fully funded to do everything God has called me to do.
I have no insecurity, because I see myself the way God sees me.
I am a faithful spouse and a Godly parent; Our family is blessed
I am completely whole physically, mentally, and emotionally.
I am increasing in influence and favor for the Kingdom of God.
I am enabled to walk in the sacrificial love of Christ.
I have the wisdom of the Lord concerning every decision I make.
I am protected from all harm and evil in Jesus’ name.
When did Furtick turn into a self-esteem coach? Notice the first word of each of these sentences. I agree that these sentences confess faith, but the faith seems to be more aimed at affirming the individual rather than professing the Truth about God.
For the most part, these are all “safe” in regards to scriptural accuracy, but have clearly bent the ideas towards empowering humans. It’s no wonder Elevation draws enormous crowds, when this is their statement of faith.
Now, let’s address a few of these specifically:
I am fully forgiven and free from all shame and condemnation.
True. Romans 8:1 says there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ. However, when one considers the make-up of Furtick’s normal audience, I wouldn’t be so sure that all of them can confidently make this statement.
I am able to fulfill the calling God has placed on my life.
I am fully funded to do everything God has called me to do.
Good. This should eliminate any need for fund-raisers at Elevation…Woops. Didn’t see this.
I have no insecurity, because I see myself the way God sees me.
Paul considered himself the King of Sinners, yet was pretty successful in ministry. I’d stop wasting time trying to elevate my own self-view, and start trying to see God for who He is.
I am completely whole physically, mentally, and emotionally.
Just finished reading a book by Al Mohler called He is Not Silent. Very good book that I’d recommend to anyone involved in ministry, even though it is effectually written for pastors. One particular thing that stands out to me is the three levels of doctrine defined by Mohler as:
Level 1 – Essentials of the Faith. This level includes things like the virgin birth, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the deity of Christ. If we don’t get these right, we can’t really consider ourselves Christians.
Level 2 – There is room within level two for disagreement, but these are serious enough that we couldn’t really worship together on a regular basis if we did not agree. Things included in this group may be infant baptism, charismatic gifts, and position on predestination.
Level 3 – These are non-essential to the Faith. It doesn’t mean they aren’t important or shouldn’t be discussed. It simply means we won’t have to break fellowship over a disagreement. One thing that pops in to my mind on this level would be eschatology.
The reason I bring this up is because it seems like some here only recognize Level 1 and Level 3. You either push to call someone a heretic, or you don’t think it’s worth making a fuss about. That makes discussion particularly tough for me, because I would say most of the disagreements that I share on this site fall into Level 2. I’m not saying the person in error can’t be a Christian. I’m not calling them a heretic or a false prophet. However, for the most part, I’m not nit-picking either. I’m pointing out (sometimes in a light-hearted manner) things that I consider to be very serious issues. I point them out because I think these issues need to be addressed by each individual believer, and sadly, some modern leaders seem to want them swept under a rug.
I want to hear from you. Which issues fall into each level for you? Is this completely subjective, or is there a biblical standard to follow? Does it matter at all, or is it enough for one to confess belief in Jesus?
Here we see Furtick once again slamming other Pastors…something he tells the rest of us not to do:
I am saying that the way we train pastors in our country prepares them to be more like Mister Rogers than Joshua. Or Jesus.
And most pastors who are formally trained graduate with a Ph.D in pomp and prissiness, with no clue how to engage the enemy, draw first blood, and strategically occupy a city with the rule of the Kingdom of God.
Because of the perception of Pastoral ministry we’ve perpetuated, the sharpest and highest potential young leaders in our country go on to do other things with their lives.
After all, who wants to give the best years of their lives to keeping a committee of angry white deacons happy about the carpet color and the type of flowers in the vestibule?
Why did Steven feel the need to attend seminary if MOST pastors who are formally trained end up with a Phd in “pomp and prissiness”? I’m not even sure what that means, but I’m fairly certain that it is an insult aimed at most pastors. Doesn’t Furtick display himself here as THE one with THE answers? The implication is that, unlike most pastors, Steven knows how to engage the enemy, draw first blood, and strategically occupy a city. Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says a pastor is required to do those things?
Is this really the reason why all our sharpest leaders choose to do something else? Is Steven inferring here that if we marketed the job of pastor a little better, bright young leaders would come from all around to get in on the action? Where does God’s will fit in to that description? Is there no such thing as a call to ministry, or is the pastoral role just a place to exercise leadership skills?
And…more lame attacks on the carpet color. I’m really tired of that urban legend. I’ve been hearing about churches splitting over carpet colors my whole life, but I’ve never actually found an instant of that happening. Kinda like the kid who ate Pop Rocks while drinking Pepsi and blew up his stomach.
Some churches are like mushroom farms: the people are kept in the dark and fed manure.
Here again we see that Furtick’s rules for bashing churches only applies to Elevation and his personal friends. He can say preachers are feeding their people manure all he likes, but remember, if we don’t personally know someone, we can only pray for them…or just shut up all together.
In this video we see Steven Furtick rage against churches with an angry little rewrite of the campfire favorite, “Kumbaya”. Here are Furtick’s new lyrics:
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya. Our Church is stuck in the 1950′s and we won’t change anything my Lord, Kumbaya.
An Entire generation is dying and going to Hell with no role model outside of Paris Hilton, my Lord. Kumbaya.
Give me another program, another Bible study, Kumbaya.
A few things I want to point out about Furtick’s rant:
It’s hypocritical. – Furtick is usually strongly against criticizing preachers, or churches, or Christians that you don’t personally know. This apparently only applies when the criticism is aimed towards himself or his friends.
His anger is all about style, not about substance. Note that he doesn’t say anything about properly preaching the Word. It’s all about churches being stuck in the 50′s and not competing with Paris Hilton for role model status.
Since when did Bible study become a bad thing? Seriously. The whole clip is drenched with this hateful sarcasm, and then the very last line…which he emphasizes more than the others…lashes out against having another Bible study. It makes you wonder what exactly is happening after those 1,000′s of people are being baptized. Shouldn’t Elevation be starting many more Bible studies to ensure the growth of all these brand new Christians?
Brad Cooper reports from Perry Noble’s recent staff pep talk, including this advice on how to respond to critics:
On Critics:
“Scoreboard”
And here I was thinking we were all on the same team.
I really don’t know if Noble is contradicting or following his own advice from an earlier post called Thoughts on Unity:
We don’t have time to debate methods. I am not getting caught up in it–nor will I allow the staff to go there. We realize who our competition is with…and it’s not with various websites or the church across town…it’s with the kingdom of darkness…and every single piece of artillery we have will always be pointed in that direction…and NOT at people on our own team.
UPDATE: Because there has apparently been a little confusion about what Noble meant, let me try to explain.
“Scoreboard” is used in sporting contests as a retort from a player or supporter of a winning team towards a player or supporter of a losing team who is complaining about the winning team. Instead of addressing the complaint, the winning player or supporter merely points to the scoreboard and reminds the opponent that he or she is losing. Outside of a contest where one side is clearly in the lead, Noble’s “argument” makes no sense.
The question is, what are the teams, which is the point of my uncertainty in the third paragraph. The most charitable interpretation is that he’s comparing churches. His church has more people and converts than the critics’ churches, so they need to shut up. However, that seems to contradict his Unity advice in showing that he is actually competing with other local churches.
A second interpretation, which seems more in line with what else he’s been saying lately, is that his critics represent the kingdom of darkness. In that case, his scoreboard retort is consistent with his promise to keep all his artillery pointed at the devil and his friends.
We’ve seen over the last few days how Furtick and Noble continue to insist that people believe their visions and that no questions or criticisms of their actions in pursuit of those visions can be tolerated. There is a deep danger in the way that they present their pronouncements as infallible, and then boldly and quickly pronounce anathema on their critics.
Let’s look at some examples of each.
Infallibility. Furtick specificially told us that when he hears from God, no-one may question him. The only reason that questions would be off the table is if you were sure that what you heard from God, and what you speak in response to it, is infallible. The consequence, as Noble has said, is that the leader must not be doubted.
A leader should never allow doubters to dictate the direction of their ministry…when God speaks our obsession MUST be complete obedience!
Not only does Noble not want to hear from any doubters, he dare not even think about them.
When God puts a word inside of you – “what would others think about this?” is a question that completely dishonors Him!!! HE MATTERS!!!
To ensure the aura of infallibility, they also present their behaviors and words as irrefutable. If you agree with it, it must be true, but if you disagree with it, it must be even truer. See if you can follow the logic in this Noble argument:
Church planter–do what God called you to do…if people are speaking out against you…it probably means God has spoken into you and you are being obedient.
Don’t waste the time God has given you on those who don’t like you…ever! If what you are doing is of God then critics can’t stop it!
Although we’ve addressed the appeal to fatalism on this blog before, this is a more aggressive variation, where because something is is proof that it should be. Under this logic, a leader can never be disobedient so long as he’s being effective and being criticized.
Condemnation. If leaders represent God’s truth when they speak and act, the next step is to argue that anyone who opposes them is opposing God. Noble forcefully and literally demonizes his critics.
The only person who would criticize a move of God is a jealous, angry, bitter person. And the other thought is that God would NEVER lead a person to criticize something that He in involved in. Well…uh…let’s see–if the criticism is not God led–then who is responsible? Hmm…just know that if you are doing what God desires…and you are being criticized…then it will help to view the critic as a tool of satan. (I make no apologies for that statement!!!) [emphasis added]
When it comes to dealing with critics…Jesus dealt with them. Remember the Pharisees? And when it came to dealing with them He pulled no punches, He even referred to them as snakes, vipers, and whitewashed tombs. This is the attitude I have to take–that the religious will always criticize a move of God…and it breaks my heart because when you boil it down–even though the Pharisees were religious–they didn’t have a relationship with Jesus!
Notice the equivalence. Someone who criticizes Noble is ipso facto criticizing Jesus, which means that they cannot be a part of the family of God.
Here’s another example of Noble characterizing his critics as heathen, while mixing in his irrefutable logic (that is, if you criticize him, it proves that he is right).
I honestly believe that a true follower of Jesus Christ will make religious people both uncomfortable and angry…and as long as those are the men and women shooting the arrows at me then I know I am walking in the right path. (John 15:18-21)
It’s not that I don’t care about you guys…it’s that I care enough to ignore you! You see, if what we are doing is wrong and sinful then the Lord will handle us…but if what we are doing here at NewSpring Church is of God…you can’t stop it (Acts 5:35-39) and are actually not opposing us…but Him. (BTW…you lose!)
There are several notable implications from this approach. First, is it really smart to be raising the stakes so high that you call the faith of your critics into question just for raising a question? Noble is drawing a line in the sand and saying that he’s on the Christian side of it, and the rest of us are on Satan’s side. When you’re a leader of a movement that is sensitive to some people calling it cultish, separating the family of God into saved and unsaved depending on your fidelity to a human leader is hardly going to make those fears go away. We critics are often pressed to affirm that we believe we’re all on the same side. The are you all on the same team? question would more fruitfully be asked of people like Perry Noble.
Second, what are you communicating to your own followers about the worth and dignity of Christians who are outside of your movement and, based on their own commitment to the Word of God, question the beliefs and methods of these charismatic leaders? When you call us sons and daughters of the Devil, what kinds of passions do you unleash and endorse among your true believers?
As this blog gets older, it has become quite noticeable how impossible it seems for any committed NewSpringer to criticize their church. Note, for example, one commentator’s tortured defense of Brad Cooper’s use of Bad A** Mother F****** to describe the church, as well as another’s commitment to confront sin and quick backtracking on that commitment.
The blind loyalty to corrupted leaders makes more sense after you read Steven Furtick’s perspective on what it’s like to lead one of these modern churches.
I think most leaders struggle with a measure of paranoia. For some it’s a fear of abandonment. For others it’s the looming threat of betrayal. Whatever form it takes, the power of paranoia can be paralyzing….
Leaders shouldn’t be oblivious to the loyalty level of those he leads. But it’s equally detrimental to give precious attention to reading into everything everyone says, approaching every day like it’s a witch hunt, consistently putting our team members on trial.
Because the fact is, there will always be someone saying something undermining about you. People (you included) are not perfectly loyal. And when you see that disloyalty in a tangible form, by all means, act on it. Don’t tolerate it. Be decisive and severe.
Furtick is here advising fellow pastors to stop their paranoid witch hunts, because they’re certain to perceive disloyalty somewhere if they’re looking for it. Notice also the Morgan Solution (TM); slightly imperfect loyalty demands severe punishment.
It’s also a consequence of thinking you can arbitrarily redefine church government, and by redefine, I mean ignore it and substitute absolute authoritarianism.
I believe each church must wrestle with the Scriptures and personalities that are present and allow the Lord to show them the best way to structure for maximum effectiveness.
I see how the New Testament describes a church led by elders and deacons, but not any talk about how it’s all negotiable if you have an irascible or ADD leader.
When followers must completely sell out to the leader’s vision, they dare not question it publicly. The dogged insistence on emotional compliance with vision even seems to infect Noble’s mid-level leaders. Note this account from NewSpring’s Creative Arts pastor:
I had a meeting scheduled with a person on my team to discuss programing and communication flow on Sundays. As we went through the nuts and bolts of those things I sensed a frustration level in this persons demeanor. This led me to think that this guy wasn’t fully bought into the vision of our church and I began to question him – strongly – on his buy in level.
Slightly questionable body language earned this team member a first-hand look at NewSpring’s enhanced interrogation techniques.
Beyond even the vision, it seems evident that they also won’t question the leader’s behavior lest they be shunned or disciplined later on. NewSpringers constantly assure us that this is not about a man, but they betray themselves with their convoluted excuses for the man’s (and, by extension, his hirelings’) poor behavior and language. If this was all about Jesus, what harm would there be in acknowledging specific examples when your man falls short?
It’s also interesting that Furtick assumes that paranoia is a normal part of leadership. I haven’t seen that quality in leaders of most churches that I’ve been a part of. (They’re almost certainly hiding it from me, but perhaps I’m just paranoid.)
There seems to be a political parallel here. Look through history and you’ll find that the more tyrannical and authoritarian the regime, the more paranoid the leader, and the more obsessive the leadership is about not tolerating criticism or complaints.
Pastor Furtick, if paranoia is a problem, perhaps you might try changing your system of church government.
This blog is mine alone and does not necessarily–or very often–represent the thinking or sentiments of anyone who disagrees with me, my wife, my employer, my friends, my family, my pastor, my brother, my church and, almost certainly, God. After I hit the Publish button, it doesn’t always even reflect my own thinking. It does seem to often reflect the thinking of Tommy F, Twit Conway and some guy in Minnesota, however.
