Dr. Brown is defending his refusal to call out false teachers by name...

::::::::

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. - Galatians 2: 11-13 (ESV)

click here

In an effort to be transparent, I have always like Dr. Michael Brown. I found him incredibly learned, genial, and knowledgeable when it comes to dividing the Word. Then a few years ago he was a guest for an entire week on the Benny Hinn show. I spoke to him on his radio program shortly after to try and explain why he should not be so casual with his credibility to cast it away on such low hanging heretical fruit as Hinn. I remember at the time that Brown insisted he had not heard of the controversies surrounding Benny Hinn and I wondered how that could possibly be true. Perhaps the most disheartening thing was when he affirmed Joseph Prince as a brother in Christ who just has a hole in his theology. Yeah,a hole sucking untold numbers straight to hell. As I started to follow Brown more closely I noticed that he simply was right on doctrine but refused to call anyone false. What good is it to write an entire book on greasy grace and then call Prince a brother in Christ? I appeared on his show again years later at his request. He had taken issue with a devotional I had written where I explained he was a gatekeeper for the heretics from the NAR. Brown feigned ignorance of there even being an NAR and mugged me in the second segment of the show because I had the temerity to call Bill Johnson a heretic. Fast forward to today and it seems Brown has gotten some blowback for writing yet another critical book that refuses to name any names. He has taken to Charisma News to try and defend himself again. Let us reason together once more beloved as we slog through this defense, linked above.

"There are times when it is right to name names when calling out error and there are times when it is not right. How do we make that distinction? Let's start with the most basic premise of all: When we call out error, our goal is to be redemptive, not to be right. In other words, we are not calling out error to show how right we are. We are calling out error to expose evil, to warn people of danger, to urge people to repent. We are calling out error to save lives, not destroy lives. As for false teachers and heretics and wolves, we would love to see them repent. But if they refuse, then their blood is on their own heads. They will reap what they have sown." - Dr. Michael Brown

As always, Brown tries to sound like the reasoned voice in the crowd of pitchfork carrying villagers. What is too easy to not see is that while he says there are times when it is appropriate to name names, he simply never does it. As for his goal, he is wrong. The goal in naming names is to first be obedient to Scripture:

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. - Titus 1: 9 (ESV)

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. - Romans 16: 17 (KJV)

The Bible is explicitly clear here. Ministers of the Gospel are required to rebuke those who do not bring the true Gospel. It does not say to reason with them. It does not say to redeem them. It says to mark them. Now I agree that we do not do this in any sense to feel better about ourselves or glory in being correct but I have not seen any discernment ministry act in this manner. Brown is a master of setting up strawmen, false arguments, to avoid dealing with the truth. What is carefully woven into this opening however is the hard truth he cannot face. Brown protects wolves instead of sheep. His concern is about wolves repenting as opposed to protecting the sheep. I am not entirely sure however if that is biblical:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. - 2Peter 2: 1-3 (ESV)

Wolves do not magically become sheep. They do not repent. This is why discernment must be very careful to not criticize for the sake if being critical. An error is not heresy. If we do not have grace and mercy we are no better. Despite what Dr. Brown believes, we do not reflexively cry heretic but only after repeated and historical accounts of doctrines of demons being preached without repentance after being corrected. Once they are there however as an established wolf, our concern needs to be on the sheep they are now devouring and not rehabilitating the ministry of the wolf. Their condemnation is from long ago, not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

"But who, exactly, are the false teachers and heretics and wolves? Sometimes it is easy to see and sometimes it is debatable. And sometimes it is a matter of opinion. Whose opinion is right?" - Dr. Michael Brown

God's opinion is always right Dr. Brown. I agree that someone like Mike Murdock is easier to discern as false than Joseph Prince but the Bible applied to both of their teachings reveals the same thing; they are voracious wolves in the sheep pen. It is not a matter of opinion. It is back and white. Is what they teach biblically inaccurate, repeated over time, with a refusal to be corrected? The word heretic is not some incredibly high threshold. It simply means someone who teaches falsely. Jesus warned us consistently about them. We ought to pay attention.

"Do you know that some critics posted videos and articles after Billy Graham's death, saying he was a false teacher and heretic? And some of those same critics then blasted me as a false teacher because I spoke well of him. Virtually every day, I see fine Christian leaders called out as heretics and false prophets and wolves, simply because they teach something that some critic differs with. It's not always virtuous to name names." - Dr. Michael Brown

If someone blasted you as a false teacher because you defended someone else that would be wrong. You are a gatekeeper for false teachers. You are a shepherd for the wolves. I know you do not mean to be but that is what you are. When you spend a week on Benny Hinn's show you endorse him and what he teaches. When you cuddle up with Jennifer Leclaire and others who are fleecing God's flock you are providing cover for them. The other point here is that discernment ministries do not call out heretics because they teach something that we differ with but that they teach something God differs with.

"That's one reason that, whenever possible, I try to reach out to someone privately before writing about them publicly. (I'm not talking about the president or a TV star or the like, where that's not feasible. I'm talking about other Christian leaders or even non-Christian colleagues who are accessible.) And sometimes, the best thing we can do is describe the error. This way, people can see it for themselves and reject it." - Dr. Michael Brown

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

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.