Perry Noble took a few minutes to coach his congregations on how not to respond to critics last Sunday. Here’s some of what he said (after bragging about asking God for permission to throw over the table of a young woman at a local restaurant who dared to talk about entertainment in church within earshot of Noble):
We don’t fight battles with people that claim to be Christian but don’t like us.
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.
You know why? That’s not our calling. Our calling is to preach the Gospel…and I don’t have time, and neither do any of you, to worry about what people say. We can’t control what they say. We can control what Jesus says to us, and whether or not we’re obedient to it.
Recently we had to release a staff member over him responding to a critic, and he went over the line and confessed some stuff that he did. He said some stuff that he shouldn’t have said. (We don’t have the unabomber. He didn’t blow up anybody’s house. Don’t worry.) And we had to talk to some church members that did some things. And we’re like, “Listen guys, we don’t fight these people.”…
Let me just kind of coach you. If you see people and bloggers and stuff, don’t fight with these people. Because here’s the deal. If we’re wrong, and we’re doing it wrong, God will, like, blow this place up, and they can come celebrate the bonfire.
But if we’re right, if we’re preaching the gospel and lives are being changed, it can’t be stopped. It’s in God’s hands, not ours.
Here’s the video.
In his talk and later that night, he reported this:
I loved coaching our church today on how to respond to critics…we DON’T fight with them (see Nehemiah 6:1-4)…as Rick Warren says…we OUTLOVE them, OUTLIVE them and OUTFRUIT them.
Sounds nice (except for the outlivethem bit), but Noble’s proof texting completely contradicts his don’t-fight advice. This passage is a favorite of pastors like Noble, but the problem is that most of his critics are not analogous to Nehemiah’s enemies. As I explained in more detail a few months ago, the differences are manifold.
Nehemiah was responding to a lie.
Nehemiah did reply.
Nehemiah faced real mortal enemies who plotted to take his life.
In calling for passivity, Noble once again paints his critics as enemies of God. So long as he keeps doing that, why would he honestly expect that his followers would take his advice seriously?
At the beginning of his coaching session, Noble acknowledged that he is a controversial character, so we assume that no-one should be surprised that he attracts some criticism. Instead of defending his controversial behaviors and beliefs, his argument to his congregation is roughly as follows:
People who don’t like Perry are not really Christians. This is the same as his Nehemiah argument. If you criticize Perry, you are the enemy.
Don’t read their blogs or even try to persuade them that we’re right. Just for context, this is coming from a blogger and major-league tweeter. If you have the truth on your side, where’s the threat in reading other blogs?
God will stop us if we’re wrong. Coming from a teacher of the gospel, this is the height of irresponsibility. It’s also what Joseph Smith said. It’s what every heretic says. And it’s what Peter said in 2 Peter 2:3: “Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.” Peter says that God will “blow up” false teachers, but not immediately. That’s why believers are required to test the truth of what a teacher says, not just assume that because he’s temporarily successful that everything is alright. It’s a fatalistic argument, and one we’ve dealt with before.
Perry’s warning against fighting isn’t terribly persuasive, especially given what else he said. He starts the illustration by asking God if he could fight a young woman at a fast-food restaurant who wasn’t even talking to Perry. The only reason that he didn’t is because God told him, after Noble sent up a quick prayer request, that he couldn’t. He then claims that his critics are sons of Satan, then he tops off the whole performance by wanting to hurl food at the young woman after hearing the testimony another young lady.
If this man were your boss, what kind of response to critics do you think would impress him most?
A while back I asked, When you call us sons and daughters of the Devil, what kinds of passions do you unleash and endorse among your true believers?
Based on his report of misadventure among his staff and church members, the answer appears to be “not good ones.”
Downing did a good job of putting the oft-quoted Gamaliel advice in its proper context last week. Before getting to the Judas Corollary, may I add two more points to his observations.
The advice was apathetic. Right before Gamaliel stepped in to call a ceasefire on the apostles’ enemies, Peter had clearly presented the Gospel to the assembled crowd, which included Gamaliel. There was enough information for Gamaliel to come to a proper conclusion about Peter’s claims about Jesus, but he limp-wristedly complained that there was really no way to know right now who was telling the truth. That’s why history books record Gamaliel as the first postmodern religious leader.
The advice was ineffective. Although the apostles weren’t killed, they almost were. After being persuaded by his words, the crowd hardly opened their hearts and minds to them. Note Acts 5:40:
His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
As Downing pointed out, Gamaliel is hardly someone we’d want to be taking advice from, given what we know about the subsequent behaviors of the people he influenced.
Now, part of what Gamaliel said was true (about the impossibility of thwarting God’s will), but that truth is not a sufficient guide for moral behavior. Think about how well Gamaliel describes Judas’ behavior.
Judas was effective. Think about all the times Jesus’ enemies had tried to trap and destroy him. In a single evening, Judas seemingly halted Jesus ministry and changed the course of history. If you’re looking for an example of a world changer or religious reformer, Judas is your man.
Judas had a personal relationship with Jesus. Knowing Jesus is not enough. Relying on Jesus to change our hearts is what we need.
Judas ignored his critics. If someone had tried to stop Judas, the critic’s efforts would have been ineffective, yet right.
Judas was squarely within God’s will. This illustrates the profound danger of the fatalism or God-willed-it argument. Just because God is in control doesn’t mean that I can’t be out of control. Just because all things work together for good doesn’t mean that my actions aren’t bad.
God uses everybody to carry out his will. Once, he used a donkey. Another time, he used a traitor. To say that we are acting in accordance with God’s will is always true, but it doesn’t necessarily make us good.
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
35Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
This passage of Scripture has become somewhat of a mantra for the “Turnstile Pastors”. We’ve seen Furtick employ it against carnal deacons , and here, Noble uses it against his critics. Who can blame them? It is an awfully strong passage. It appears that the Word of God is telling us to avoid hindering anything that may be scene as a movement of God. However, even the shallowest look into the context of this passage shows something quite different.
The first question that comes to mind is, who was Gamaliel? Certainly, for these powerful leaders of the modern Church to quote him so frequently he must have been an early church father…or something. Nope. Gamaliel was a rabbi with great respect among the Sanhedrin. He was a Pharisee, which strikes me a little funny, considering that in the same post that Perry invokes Gamaliel’s advice against his critics, he compares his critics to the Pharisees. Anyone seeing the irony in that?
So, here are just a few problems with using Gamaliel’s advice in the way that Furtick and Noble want to use it:
The advice was not given in regards to people who wanted to debate doctrinal issues with the Apostles. The Sanhedrin completely disagreed with the Apostles, and Gamaliel did too. The debate was as to whether or not the Apostles should be killed. Gamaliel was never implying that they should start agreeing with the Apostles, only that they shouldn’t kill them. For Furtick and Noble to compare their situation to that of the persecuted early church is both silly and insulting. There are people in the world who are suffering for their faith. However, American pastors living in huge homes paid for by their congregation might want to tone down the martyr act just a bit.
It goes against the words of Jesus and Paul when they warn against false prophets and teachers. Was Paul wrong when he wrote his letter correcting the Corinthians? According to Gamaliel he should have left them alone and let God deal with them. This is the problem with taking one small passage out of context, and not weighing it against the whole of Scripture.
It is just BAD advice. If Gamaliel’s words are true, then the Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists…etc…all are of God. Gamaliel equates longevity to God’s favor. This is clearly untrue.
So, my first article on Pajama Pages. Tune in next time when we discuss “Excellence as an Idol”.
Man, I’m feeling rather BAM…nah, I won’t go there.
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?
One aspect of NewSpring’s apologists that has genuinely surprised me has been the repeated appeal to fatalism, the idea that because everything is predestined it is inevitable, uncontrollable and acceptable. It has been invoked to disqualify criticism of NewSpring’s leaders’ bad behavior on the basis that God made them do it.
For example, one commentator said we dare not judge because God ordained NewSpring’s pastors’ bad language:
I do know that God knew about what Perry and Brad were going to say trillions of years ago. If they are in sin about anything that has been communicated from stage or any other medium then they will be held accountable…BY GOD, NOT YOU!!!
If God doesn’t want what’s going on at NewSpring to happen…it WON’T. He’ll wipe it off the face of the earth if He pleases.
There’s only one way to explain how this is happening – God is completely in control. Like many others have said here on your site, if God doesn’t want NS to continue, then He will shut it down. [Emphasis added]
It blames God for sin. If you’re going to argue that God approves of something you like merely because because it exists, logical consistency insists that God is also on the hook for evil.
It contradicts Scripture. 2 Peter 2:3 tells us that God’s punishment for false teachers is certain, even if not evident now.
Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
If we make the lack of judgment our litmus test for truth, we are susceptible to all the false teachers Peter warned us about. The whole point of verse 3 is that false teachers do endure for a while without punishment.
It invites unthinkable punishment. If we wait for God to wipe our false teachings off the face of the earth, in the words of one commentator, we are inviting fearful punishment for them. 2 Peter 2:4-6 tells us what kinds of eventual judgements await false teachers by comparing them to the angels’ fall from Heaven, the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. False teachers need to be confronted and corrected, not passively encouraged along a sleepy path to destruction.
It fails an important test. False teachers have a purpose, as explained in Deuteronomy 13:3-4.
You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
This explains why God will not wipe false teachers from the face of the earth; He uses them to test our discernment. If we favor fatalism, we fail that test and leave ourselves and our leaders defenseless.
Just to be clear, I am not making an argument here that Perry Noble is a false teacher. I’m sounding a warning that it doesn’t appear to me that some NewSpringers would know it or care if he were.
If you have been following the discussion in the various Reformation posts, you, as I, may have been surprised at the conclusions that NewSpring’s representatives have arrived at. We have had one contributor argue that there’s no important difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic church, so history’s verdict is that the Reformation was pretty much a waste of time. Another complained that Luther’s 95 Theses and the great documents of the Reformation were old and dated. As I survey the comment thread as I write, the arguments have not yet been refuted by another NewSpring member or leader, so we are left to assume that their NS colleagues don’t see a problem with the arguments or don’t think they’re important enough to clarify or denounce.
In case no-one comes along and does that, let’s set down a few Pajama Axioms.
Numbers are meaningless unless they are linked to an underlying truth. NewSpring supporters commonly point to the number of people responding to altarcalls or attending on a Sunday as proof that the church is a Good Thing. Numbers can count some aspect of an item, but they can’t always measure its value. Let’s consider some recent examples.
In 2001 Barry Bonds put hit 73 home runs, yet that number masked the likelihood that it was drug enhanced.
Through the late 1990s, dot com businesses made millions of dollars on the stock market, until it became apparent that the actual businesses weren’t really businesses.
For last decade or more, American housing prices have been increasing, proving that the housing market was strong, until it became obvious that those prices masked a great deal of bad debt.
Numbers aren’t an entirely useless argument, but when they are used on their own, you may just be hiding a big fat zero.
God’s mercy is not a sign of his approval. On a few occasions, NewSpring’s boosters have claimed that if God wanted NewSpring to fail, the church wouldn’t be there. Because it is there, he must want it to succeed. The lack of a lightening bolt from the heavens is taken as proof positive that everything the church is doing must be of God. It is an argument for an ethical system based on fatalism, and goes something like,
God has the power to wipe out evil things.
Some thing exists.
Therefore, the thing must be good.
It assumes that God only stays his hand for the righteous, and immediately and publicly punishes the wicked. How many times did David wish that were true? If God always acts in history as a noisy morality cop, how do you account for the longevity of the Holocaust, tyrants, abortion, and Billy Mays?
The persistence of error does not diminish its threat. One commentator on the Reformation threads supposed that the endurance of the Roman Catholic church after the Reformation meant that it wasn’t obvious which side was correct, but that we’d find out when we meet God after we die.
Almost 500 years of debate has not defeated either side. It seems that if one was so much more right than the other–someone would have won by now.
Just as God doesn’t wipe out evil as soon as it appears, he also doesn’t immediately eliminate error. Peter’s warning against false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1-3 puts the threat into a future perfect tense: there will be false teachers among you. The early church was warned about encroaching heresies, and Peter’s warning reaches down to us today. Until Christ’s return, sin and error will be with us. Even–and especially–error in the church. This is the great danger of stripping away the creeds and turning your back on the Reformers; these were moments in the history of the church when sober men guided by the Holy Spirit stood up to persistent error. If we ignore their teaching now, we’ll likely slip into the heresies they once fought against. Are we so much smarter than all the saints who have come before us?
The age of truth does not diminish its power. One of the most disappointing arguments in the last 24 hours came from a NewSpring insider who reasoned that we could ignore the creeds and Reformers because they were old and out of date.
I’m thinking those creeds were written by a man, and for a certain time period since Luther were wanting to invoke the church leadership to go deeper, could it be possible that they could be alittle out of date? Obviously, he didn’t intend for them to be the basis of a reformation so does that make some of these reformation documents old and out dated?
This, folks, is what we feared. This is why we don’t trust you when you talk about reformations. What truths no longer apply today? What sections of the Apostle’s Creed, the 95 Theses, or the Westminster Confession are worn out? God is the source of truth, and he does not change. If these majestic documents describe God accurately, their power and authority endure.
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.
