Article: Dr. Michael Brown - The Shepherd for Wolves

Dr. Brown often gets these points wrong. First he is confusing the Matthew 18 verses when a brother sins against you with when a wolf attacks the body of Christ. We are under no biblical obligation to reach out to wolves and ask them to stop devouring sheep. Secondly, he appears to be under the assumption that all believers are as learned as he is. Describing the error is not enough. Antinomianism for example can be very difficult to spot because so much of it is correct or sounds correct. They need to hear to stay clear of Joseph Prince. Merely pointing out error is half the picture just as merely saying someone is false.

"Obviously, if we're addressing a specific statement made by an individual, there's no way not to name names. But it's not always so cut and dry. In my new book, Playing with Holy Fire, I cite specific examples of errors and abuses that I have witnessed myself or heard from reliable sources. But I chose not to name names, despite some urging me to do so. (Those urging me to do so were in the clear minority.) To be sure, at other times, I have named names, as in my book Hyper-Grace. There, while writing the book, I could reach out to some of the hyper-grace authors and pastors to see if they were willing to reconsider their views. Plus, their teachings were documented in writing and in other formats, so I could quote them fairly and in context." - Dr. Michael Brown

It does not surprise me that most of the people who you associate with agree with your position on shepherding wolves. The end result is another book that may have some intrinsic academic value for those who are advanced enough hermeneutically but relatively useless for the average lay person sitting under deception. As for your assertion about naming names in your hyper grace book that would be news to me because you still pal around with and call brother the absolute king of hyper grace in Joseph Prince. This is someone who pals around with Joel Osteen but I bet you think he is fine too. Osteen is best buds with Steven Furtick but I suppose his narcissistic gospel preaching is just a small hole in his theology right? Are we sensing the problem and pattern yet beloved?

"When it came to Playing with Holy Fire, which is a wake-up call to the Pentecostal-Charismatic church, I did cite many disturbing anecdotes and examples. But some of them took place decades ago. What if the people involved have changed over the years? I would hate to blemish them if they have truly repented." - Dr. Michael Brown

What if they had changed? That would be an awesome testimony would it not? A real life example of repenting from grievous error! I am not embarrassed to say that I have had it wrong before. I believed for example in being slain in the Spirit until I held the Bible up to that belief. The truth is that Dr. Brown does not have any actual anecdotes like this. He is merely positing a for instance to avoid having to see that he is wrong. Repented sin is not a blemish - it is a cause for celebration.

"In other cases, some of the leaders I speak about are godly people, yet with some conspicuous blind spots. But the moment I point out that blind spot, others will reject their whole ministry, since we tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is it right to mention them by name?" - Dr. Michael Brown

Let me think about that for a second, yes. You continue to be more worried about protecting the wolf than the sheep. The shepherd's rod is meant to beat away the former, not the latter. By the way, stop minimizing what is being discussed. Joseph Prince does not have a "blind spot"; he has a damnable doctrine of demons. Jennifer Leclaire's sneaky squid spirit attacks is not a "blind spot"; it is a false prophecy. These things matter to God. Bill Johnson should be thrown out with the bathwater. That is entirely the point. He espouses prosperity gospels, traffics in false signs and lying wonders, operates a school where he teaches you how to operate the gifts of the Spirit, believes in mandatory healing despite wearing corrective eyeglasses, and is a main source for dominionist NAR teachings. Those are not "blind spots"; they are false teachings that lead untold numbers away from the true Gospel. Brown's defense of Johnson when I was on his radio show was that he knows his heart, he denies any false teaching, and that Brown himself had taught at the school. All carnal reasons for defending one of the most dangerous wolves on the planet.

"And since I cite so many examples from around the world, it's impossible for me to reach out to all those involved. This is yet another reason why I chose not to name names. Even more was this true when I relied on firsthand reports from reliable friends and colleagues--but only secondhand to me. I was also addressing general tendencies. So by citing an example, I was addressing the larger issue." - Dr. Michael Brown

A reasonable argument in 1918, not 2018. Through email, texting, whatsapp, Facebook, and Twitter you can reach nearly every human being at the same time on the planet. This excuse reminded me of the "I have never heard of anything bad that Benny Hinn preached." Also, who needs to rely upon reports when you have YouTube and multiple sourcing on facts. I agree that we should never say anything we have not confirmed but in the Internet age most things are easily verifiable. When Dr. Brown insisted that Bill Johnson's school did not try and teach you the gifts of the Spirit I was able to hop right onto their website and print out course descriptions that proved my point.

"Interestingly, in the New Testament, sometimes the writers named names (see 1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 4:14; 3 John 1:9) and sometimes they did not (see, for example, 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 John 4:1-6; 2 Pet. 2:1-22). When they didn't name names, we can assume that, by describing the error or abuse, the people would know who was being described. The same holds true today." - Dr. Michael Brown

Wow, disingenuous and inaccurate. The first set of scriptures deal with individual errors from individual people. All of which were named. The second set are general warnings about the proliferation of false teachers. The Peter verses clearly state they are about the future! Look at what Brown tries to do though. He wants to pretend that simply pointing out the error will magically inform people who is teaching the error. So he takes these three sets of general warnings and says the writers must have realized everyone would know who they are talking about. Nice try.

As for Christian leaders whose sin is failing to address the error of others, may the Lord give you the courage and resolve to speak the truth in love, regardless of cost and consequence. You cannot afford not to speak. So, there are times to name names and times not to name names. But it is always time to confront and expose error. It is always time to warn of spiritual danger. And it is always time to reach out in love, remembering that "love covers a multitude of sins" (Proverbs 10:12b, NIV). - Dr. Michael Brown

That Christian leader is you Dr. Brown. The time to name names is when pointing out heretical teachings. I am just following your advice here that it is always time to warn of spiritual danger. I understand that you might feel comradery or kinsmanship to these people that appear to labor as you do but our allegiance must be to Christ alone. After that we must tend to the sheep. Wolves cannot be shepherded Dr. Brown. They will not. The key verses today remind us of when Paul himself had to name Peter when he was being a mere hypocrite. How much more should we be diligent to do the same with teachers that are leading people to hell?

Reverend Anthony Wade - April 7, 2018

Next Page 1 | 2