For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, - 2Timothy 4:3 (ESV)
Let me start by saying that the above link to a recent podcast from Dr. Michael Brown was about 50 minutes in length but this review only covers the first ten minutes. That is because it was all I needed to discern what Brown was saying. That is largely because we have heard these tired arguments before. It seems Dr. Brown must realize the utter weakness of his position because every other week he is again addressing his refusal to properly debate or answer his critics. So, he trots out the usual mess of arguments, such as unequal weights, destructive critics and straining out gnats. In these short ten minutes we can properly frame where the disagreement truly lies. The bottom line is Dr. Brown is all about protecting wolves while discernment ministries are all about protecting sheep. So let us reason once more beloved and try to properly contextualize the strategies and arguments Dr. Brown employs to ensure he is never properly held to account.
"I make a big distinction between constructive critics who speak with the Father's heart, who bring life, and redemption, who have a heart for restoration, and destructive critics who mock, who are not redemptive, who use double standards, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. I make a distinction between them." - Dr. Michael Brown
The fundamental disagreement underpinning Brown's contention is that the wolves that discernment ministers are exposing are actually good brothers in the Lord, who may merely be in "error." According to the bible we are to test everything and only hold on to what is good. It also says that we are to not associate with darkness. It also says that we are to expose the works of darkness. So, my biblical argument is that rebuking wolves is speaking with the Father's heart. Warning the body of false teachers that can lead them astray does bring life. The issue of restoration appears to be viewed differently by Brown than discernment ministries. Discernment ministries want to restore the sheep to the faith while Dr. Brown is referring to restoring the person he merely views as being in error. By the way, that is a completely reasonable position to hold. I do not know of any discernment ministries that refer to legitimate error in this manner. Let us look at people Dr. Brown has defended or provided cover for. This is what was not drilled down on effectively in the recent American Gospel roundtables. Discernment ministries do not view people like Benny Hinn, Joseph Prince, Jennifer LeClaire, Steven Strang, or Bill Johnson as merely being in error, for example. They are voracious wolves devouring the sheep of the Lord. Benny Hinn and Jennifer LeClaire should be low hanging fruit. Hinn was again this week trying to defend his very recent flock fleecing efforts. He is a proven false prophet and has amassed 50 million dollars by lying in order to steal money from people seeking God. LeClaire infamously taught about sneaky squid spirits and releasing angels at her command. Her ministry page is one big grift with her charging up to thousands of dollars to teach people how to be a prophet, seer, or some other made-up disciplines. Joseph Prince is slippery, but Brown himself has written an entire book against the error that is central to his false teaching. He also infamously preached that people who follow him, who he refers to as the Benjamin generation, will be the last before the rapture. Steven Strang, Dr. Brown's boss at Charisma News, is a virulent dominionist who just runs material politically. Additionally, he has smeared the victims of IHOP as being used by the devil and declared Bickle exonerated when he clearly was not. Bill Johnson, who Brown loves and has taught at his absurd school of the supernatural is a world class heretic. His church embraces nearly every fad false teaching today. These people are not merely in error. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. Discernment ministers wish to bring life to the sheep, not life to the wolves. We are interested in restoring the faith of those who have had it stolen, not to the thieves.
Pointing out false teaching by the way is not necessarily "mocking." As an aside, Jesus routinely mocked the false teachings of the Pharisees. He referred to them as white-washed tombs and said they would travel the world to make a single convert but make them twice the son of hell they were. Elijah mocked the false prophets of Baal by saying maybe their false god was busy in the bathroom. So, spare me the pearl clutching. Now, there are times for serious discernment and times for mocking. There is no reason to ever bring a single ounce of seriousness when people say they can command angels of abundant harvest or teach about sneaky squid spirits, which Brown defended on his radio show when he platformed LeClaire. People who claim God MUST heal us while wearing corrective eyeglasses like Bill Johnson, deserve to be mocked. Strang declaring serial predator Mike Bickle exonerated should be rebuked and mocked. The primary disagreement Brown has is that somehow, people like the five I have outlined, are just guilty of a little oopsie. Discernment ministries are by design redemptive. The difference between Brown and discernment ministries is that he believes in the redemption of those that are teaching falsely while we are concerned about redeeming the sheep who are being deceived.
That brings us to the double standards charge, a new favorite tactic of Brown. His accusation essentially is that if you criticize Charismania, you should also be willing to criticize other sources of false teaching, even if your own "camp." I find this argument understandable but relatively disingenuous. My camp is camp Jesus and is based solely upon His word. I cannot speak for all discernment ministers. I felt the arguing by Justin Peters defending Luther at the end of the first roundtable was not helpful. The actual truth is that Luther's teachings might be perfectly fine but we should not be defending antisemitic comments. Likewise, I have been critical of John Piper, and even the untouchable John MacArthur where appropriate. Johnny Mac fed his sheep into the COVID woodchipper and had no issue being interviewed by Strang on Charisma. We have to be consistent, and Brown is right about that. The issue is that the examples he thinks are equal are not. You can make the argument that someone like MacArthur is merely in error when it comes to Calvinism, and his COVID decisions. How? Because 90% of what he teaches is correct, but he just made mistakes in these areas. Brown is comparing these examples to folks he likes who are 90% wrong. Ironically, it is Dr. Brown who uses unequal measurements. Pointing out that Benny Hinn is an extreme huckster who has fleeced God's people for 50 million dollars by lying about God is not straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. Not even close. We can do this Michael Brown two-step until we are blue in the face. At the end of the day, he is defending people he thinks might merely be in error, but we know these folks to be wolves according to the bible.
