F.L.E.S.H.

I have a 1997 copy of this book on my shelf. Is it the same, or has it been updated in some significant way since then?Though I disagree with Hanegraaff on some things at this point in my life, this book helped me all those years ago to understand that the counterfeit revival was not representative of true Christianity. Although I wasn’t saved until several years later, it help me slam shut the door on that particular brand of falsehood, and leave some of those haunting superstitions behind.

Hank Hanegraaff is a vapid polemicist - one who has built a ministry out of tearing down others. If my memory serves me correctly, it was Hanegraaff who tried to fill the shoes of the venerable Dr. Walter Martin, author of the book Kingdom of the Cults. I have to wonder if Hanegraaff thinks that everybody who does not think just like him is one.

There is adequate material for a dozen books on the abuses of power at the hands of Charismatic/Pentecostal Charlatans - but it is a misdirected effort make this a plank in the Cessastionist Theoligical Party Platform; which is the ax that people like Hanegraaff are often trying to grind. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - and there are adequate examples of pastorial/ministerial abuse/quackery throughout all theological backgrounds.

And while it may be true that the dichotomies of power and theological understandings lend themselves to greater abuse - this does not conclusively mean that Pentecostal Doctrine is outright heresy, nor does it mean that the theolgical principles and phneumatalogical assertions are bogus. The church has played a dangerous dance with the Idol of “Safety” as well - ascending to the notion that an isogetical process is allowable in the development of our Doctrine/Church Polity, as long as that Isogesis takes the form of a protection of the saints. This is a heretical and blasephemous notion: you cannot sanitize or make-safe the word of God or keep it from offending your sensibilites. But the obscene notion that a part of the New Testament is merely “history” - to be seen as the Old Testament would be: Dispensationalist Cessationism - is a gross misuse of these same intentions.

Highlighting the abuses of a Charismatic church does not invalidate their theology any more then yours would be by the failing of your own pastor. Total Depravity applies to every church and leader. We cannot overlook or distance ourselves from the fact that many traditions of worship are more conducive to attacting more “flakes” but we have to balance both our caution with an acceptance that God is not confined to any box but His own Word. The recent failure of Tod Bentley is a good example of discernment that at least had taken place in some parts of Pentecost/Charismatic ministry. Not everybody ran out and supported him, and I raised a lot of dander myself by suggesting this to some of his supporters who are also my friends. I advised them to “wait and see & check the fuits” as others had as well. That turned out to be good advice.

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your gracious correction. In light of this article, written by (I assume) one of Hanegraarf’s staff members - it would well seem a retraction would be forthcomming on my part. So I offer it to you, but add this to it as well. I have several of his books, and no where can I remember reading what he/they state in that article. Hanegraarf has earned a reputation of going after Charismatics and making it a central point to alot of what he talks about. That is not to say that he is not wholly right in his assertions. I honestly can’t stand Copeland or any of the Hyperfaith-centric assertions that he or his brood so often make - but even when I write/speak of them, I am compelled to state that most of what they say is an abuse of Truth and an overstatement/missapplication of Pneumatological doctrine. I submit to you it is absolutely important, when speaking as a pastor or as a theological leader (as Tim Challies; would be in the context of his ministry, here - or Hank when he is speaking/writing or otherwise commenting) that you do not just blindly attack something as wrong - but also counterassert the truthful posit of the brokenness in question: for example - I truthfully cannot adequately preach against Premarital Sex or Homosexuality, if I do not - at the very least - give some degree of concluding reference to the wonder and beauty of Sex as it was created and how it can be enjoyed from within the scripturally-admonished framework of a Marriage between a husband and wife. Otherwise it’s just theological bludgeoning - and, I submit to you, it is not building the Kingdom of God in the minds and hearts of your listeners/readers. I submit to you, that it is very good wisdom: that everything you endeavour to tear down, you should to a much greater degree work to build up.

If Hanegraarf’s position is genuinely Continuationist - then he needs to be talking about that; and that what the correct apphrension/application of that is -not just in his own personal life/but in his own ministry. This would build contextual traction in his arguments and make him Relevant and not just another ‘shouting mouth.’ I know that my own personality is much like his - but I have resolved to not just be another attack dog - though I might garner more adherents/adocates by being such as that. I am capable of admitting that I was wrong, but I am also working on making is second nature to get my brush wet and to be prepared to paint the truth - when first I endeavor to get my eraser out.

thank you for your words

Grace to you,

-matthew lipcomb

Thanks, Matthew, for your careful comment. As near as I can tell, the statement I pointed out is written by Hanegraaff himself; at least, his name is on it. I’ve heard him say multiple times on radio (I’m paraphrasing here) that he believes the continuation of the gifts is an in-house debate among Christians; not something that separates the true Christians from the false.

Your comment about proclaiming the true, not just tearing down the false, is useful. I have experienced and practice some of the gifts of the Spirit. Such things as speaking in tongues and singing in the Spirit can be a real blessing, though the center of my faith is not those gifts, but Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and was raised for our justification.

Matthew,

For what it is worth, Jesus did not always “counter-assert the truthful posit from the brokenness in question” when he was rejecting a falsehood or rebuking false-teachers.

Surely, we can conclude that over the tenure of the ministry of Jesus he did speak and live in a way that pointed to the truthful revelation of the glory of God. You are absolutely correct in stating (at least implicitly) that the general flow of our life and teaching should be affirming what is true rather than denying what is false.

This being said, however, there are often times where it can be correct to simply point out the errant ways of thought. I have already used Jesus as an example; here is a historical example: the original christological debate. The members did not find it wise to exactly articulate how the Godman was at once both man and God, but rather defined a box wherein orthodoxy lies. What was articulated was the lines of this box, the points of falsehood that must not be crossed.

All of this being said, I think Hank’s book and ministry in general is acceptable and has a place in Christian education. I do not agree with him on every point and do not always agree with the way that he says things, but I am not prepared to go as far as it seems you have.