Touch not the Lord's anointed

In the comments on my post In memory of David Wilkerson Mark D struck what I considered a rather discordant note, and an inappropriate one concerning someone dead but not yet buried, when he wrote:

Ive always liked David Wilkerson but could his speaking against Benny Hinn have something to do with his violent death? God said touch not my anointed! King David understood this truth and would not touch Saul even though he was trying to kill him!

However, there is an important point here. I don’t know exactly what David Wilkerson said about Benny Hinn. And I don’t think God would have struck him dead for it whatever it was – that isn’t how God works. Anyway, the breach between the two cannot have been too serious, for Hinn released a tribute to Wilkerson quickly after his death.

But it is indeed a wrong and dangerous thing to speak against those whom God has anointed for ministry. At least in some Pentecostal and charismatic Christian circles this wrongness and danger is often expressed in the sentence “Touch not the Lord’s anointed”.

This sentence has its origin as “Touch not mine anointed”, spoken by God, in Psalm 105:15 KJV. It is important to note that here “mine anointed” is plural, hence the NIV 2011 rendering of the verse:

Do not touch my anointed ones;
do my prophets no harm.

Psalm 105:15 (NIV 2011)

The poetic parallel suggests that “my anointed ones” here refers to prophets.

The same principle was laid down several times by David when he had the chance to kill King Saul, who was hunting him down:

The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the LORD’s anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the LORD.

1 Samuel 24:6 (NIV 2011);
see also 24:10, 26:9-11,16,23, 2 Samuel 1:14-16

1 Samuel 26:7-11: David spares Saul's lifeHere the anointed one, singular, is the king of Israel, Saul. But by this time he was a disobedient and apostate king whom God has rejected (1 Samuel 15:11,26). The Holy Spirit had left him and he was under the influence of evil spirits (16:14). And David had been anointed king in his place (16:12-13). Nevertheless that same David continued to respect Saul as the Lord’s anointed. He fled from him for his own safety (19:10), but refused to take any action against him.

Contrast what happened to the person who dared to finish off the dying Saul: David showed no hesitation in killing him (2 Samuel 1:14-16).

What applicability does this have to Christians today? Who is, or are, the Lord’s anointed who should not be touched? Commenter here Andrew Price pointed out correctly that the role of the Old Testament kings was fulfilled in Jesus, whose title “Christ” or “Messiah” means “Anointed One”. The same could be said of the role of the Old Testament anointed prophets. However, the New Testament teaches that every Christian believer, everyone in Christ, has an anointing from the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:20), is a potential prophet (1 Corinthians 14:31), and is even now reigning with Christ (Revelation 20:4 and Ephesians 2:6, as I explained these verses in a previous post).

So, I would argue, every true Christian is the Lord’s anointed, and so, according to David’s principle, others should not lay their hands on them. This doesn’t just mean not kill them: David would not even say anything negative about Saul. The Bible warns us against slander, gossip (2 Corinthians 12:20) and backbiting (Galatians 5:15), and this is the same principle in practical application.

Now there is a place for Christians to discern false teaching. If they do discern it, they should avoid listening to it. It might sometimes be appropriate to confront the false teacher personally, or to make a report to someone in authority over them. But, according to the principle which David set out, it is wrong to criticise them publicly – even if, like Saul, they have turned completely away from God’s path. If, on the other hand, they are truly ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit, to speak against their ministry is to risk the unforgiveable blasphemy against that Holy Spirit.

Thus, I would agree with Mark that it is wrong to make negative public statements about Benny Hinn and his ministry. It is equally wrong to make such statements about David Wilkerson or Todd Bentley, as Mark was quick to do, or about Rob Bell, as Adrian Warnock among others has done, or indeed about anyone who professes to be a Christian teacher. Each of these people is the Lord’s anointed. They would remain so even if they were to turn away from God to the extent that the Holy Spirit departed from them and they were under the control of evil spirits, as happened to Saul. I am not suggesting that this has happened in any of these cases. But if someone believes that this has happened to any teacher or preacher, the right response is that of David: distancing himself from the danger, and silence – and decisive action against those who do touch the Lord’s anointed.

On the other hand, David’s example shows that it is also wrong for Christians to invoke “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” to stop others criticising them. David could have claimed his own rights as the Lord’s anointed, and denounced Saul and others for “touching” him. But he never did so. While believers should not criticise their leaders, it is wrong for leaders to put themselves above criticism.

56 thoughts on “Touch not the Lord's anointed

  1. What then were Paul and John doing in 2 Timothy 2:17 and 3 John 9. They seem to me to be publicly naming people in the church whose teachings were false. Surely our approach to false teaching by believers must follow Jesus teaching on sin in the church in Matthew 18:15-17 which includes telling it to the church where there is no repentance. I would contend that public false teaching usually needs to be corrected publicly particularly when it comes from those whom have been previously recognised as teachers in the church.
    Saul’s disobedience and apostasy is publicly exposed by the writer of 2 Samuel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. David was not given authority by God to physically harm Saul but there is no injunction against criticism. We see this by the fact that David publicly rebukes Saul on several occasions e.g. 1 Sam 24:8-21, 26:17-22.
    I also have to disagree with you about Psalm 105:15. Reading this verse in context it seems clear to me that this concerns God’s protection of his anointed people Israel (and her prophets).
    As you begin to say, from the new covenant perspective, all believers are anointed to serve as prophets, priests and kings by their union with Christ. So this rebuke should be heard by all who might do them harm by false teaching, whether they be believers or unbelievers.

  2. Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
    So if I so much as hint at something dangerously false, such as suggesting that eternal condemnation couldn’t really be eternal because that would make God a vicious tormentor, then PLEASE publicly correct my teaching lest anyone I have misled decides to put their trust in some nice safe god whom I have helped them shape in their heads.

  3. Paul, sorry to be slow replying. I wrote a first response earlier, but it was lost because of a technical hitch. By the way, I prefer to discuss these matters here, not on Facebook.

    I certainly don’t want to go against proper biblical procedures for the church discipline of those who have sinned, which would include false teachers. The normal procedures are for the matter to be dealt with within the local church. When the matter involves a church leader, as 1 Timothy 5:19-20 explains, the matter is to be dealt with by the one with apostolic authority over the leader, in this case Timothy. Paul and John were right to denounce by name false teachers who were or had been under their authority. But there is no biblical mandate for well-known teachers being denounced by those with no authority over them. Note also Paul’s reaction in Philippians 1:15-18 to those who preach out of envy and rivalry.

    Do you really read 1 Samuel 24:8-21, 26:17-22 as public rebukes? For one thing these are not public, although there were perhaps a few witnesses. Then the worst accusation that David makes against Saul is that he has listened to some liars. Yes, Samuel rebuked Saul, but he was in the position of authority to do so.

    The main biblical antidote to false teaching is more teaching of the truth.

  4. “And prophets–let two or three speak, and let the others discern”

    I agree that every believer is anointed. David Wilkerson felt strongly he must speak against that which he believed to be a distortion of Biblical truth in many instances. While I greatly respected him, I did not always agree with his interpretations. Whether he was correct in his interpretation is another question, but the Bible has many examples of prophetic correction as Paul Shaddick has mentioned a couple already. No one should libel or slander anyone, but to exhort one another to examine what is true is only to be desired. We all need that, and the powerful need it even more. We have too many examples in Church history of how powerful leaders became corrupt. In some times during Church history, their power was so great, they were able to violently silence those who spoke against their behavior or teaching.

  5. Jay, I think I agree with you. But much of what has been written about Rob Bell, Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley and others goes well beyond the need “to exhort one another to examine what is true is only to be desired”. Yes, we should discern, but that doesn’t mean that we should anathematise or character assassinate those we discern to be wanting.

  6. Yes, I do believe we are of the same mind. David Wilkerson said some very strong words which perhaps were sometimes a bit too extreme. So in the same way, the one who declared Wilkerson’s death by auto accident a judgement of God goes too far. While it is true that King Saul had already lost God’s blessing by the time that incident with David happened, it is a bit ironic that God did not approve of Israel’s having a king in the first place. This fact should also remind us that while we are all “anointed” Jesus is and has always been the only king.

  7. The verse “love covers a multitude of sins” comes to mind.

    Peter, I think you pointed out the key criteria when you talked about authority. The Lord gives us areas of authority and we are responsible to help those under our authority. Criticizing another believer by name is not something to be done lightly, and certainly not on the basis of hearsay or rumor. Even then, I only have authority to speak such things to those the Lord has given me to serve. I do not have a worldwide ministry (as far as I know) so I will refrain from talking against people by name on my blog or in my comments [for those that know me, this is a recent revelation].

    How does that affect a blog (or some such similar venue)? I think you’ve done well here, Peter. It’s a fine line to tread—a straight and narrow path. I can understand Wilkerson’s feelings as a clearly called prophet. Did he go too far? That’s above my pay grade. Was he a prophet? I believe he was. But WE are called to discern the prophets. We know that prophets in the church age are human. I was reading some of Paul’s demonstration of his ignorance of marital life this morning in 1 Cor 7. Does that mean I disregard his teachings? No, but I do need to discern (I have the same issues with Roman priests teaching on marriage).

    When I teach, I do call into question some of Paul’s more obvious cultural and personal biases. That is part of my calling. I do have trouble with many who are called to powerful ministries when they get outside their calling. Benny Hinn as a teacher bothers me personally, but I would not speak against him. As a worker of miracles he clearly has a major ministry. A worker of miracles or a prophet is not necessarily a teacher. In the same way, as a teacher, you are right to question carefully any pastoral work that I do. It’s not part of my calling—I’m not good at it.

    Getting ourselves rightly joined within the Body takes time and maturity. Basically we are called to love and if we err it should be on the side of love and forgiveness [mercy].

  8. I loved David Wilkerson so much. I also love Benny Hinn, and I am a Jew. Both of these men have touched my own personal life.
    HaShem took Wilkerson home to be with him. Which I am happy of now.
    What is terrible is that a GREAT man that was a prophet of the most High is gone and all anyone can concentrate on is the evil Ben Laden.
    I am so grieved.

  9. I’m bemused by a world in which canonical scripture is fair game for critique, but Benny Hinn apparently isn’t. I’m left wondering which of the two – in that worldview – is practically treated as inerrant.

    As far as rebukes of the subject of the phrase ‘the lord’s annointed’ is concerned, 1 Samuel 13 seems to be fairly public. I don’t see that being a ‘healer’ excuses one from rebuke or correction – after all, most ‘healers’ also teach, and the way in which they conduct themselves presupposes a certain theology.

    I don’t agree with every Adrian Warnock says – but if you take Peter’s viewpoint, then he himself is guilty of speaking against someone who he has no authority over!

  10. Chris, my refusal to condemn, for example, Benny Hinn does not imply that I endorse his teaching, still less that I consider him infallible. Samuel had the authority to rebuke Saul, as God’s representative in Israel and the one who anointed Saul. I already took your point about me speaking against Adrian, although I don’t accuse him of false teaching or verging on blasphemy – see my post Ever feel like a hypocrite?

  11. “Chris, my refusal to condemn, for example, Benny Hinn does not imply that I endorse his teaching, still less that I consider him infallible”

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to David’s comment above; specifically the different attitude to the teachings of Paul vs that of Benny Hinn.

    “Samuel had the authority to rebuke Saul, as God’s representative in Israel and the one who anointed Saul.”

    Yes, and the situation here is more complex. Apparently there are a mass of people who are ‘annointed’ (by whom is unclear – even in the situation of Saul, God used Samuel as his chosen means) to say what they like to the wider church without censure – according to you – because no one is in authority over them.

    I say this is a stretch from the original text, which ignores examples in Acts, Galatians, Ephesians, and John 3 etc. where public censure is talked about specifically in the cases in which the integrity of the gospel is threatened. Futhermore, those censured were themselves ‘annointed’ – in some cases by Jesus himself.

  12. Chris, I do realise that there is an issue with teachers who are not under any kind of authority. I’m not sure if that applies to Benny Hinn – it doesn’t apply to Todd Bentley but that didn’t stop him being torn down.

    But perhaps one of the biblical examples you allude to is instructive here. When Paul discovered that his fellow apostle Peter had fallen into wrong ways, he didn’t pen an epistle to the churches he had founded telling them what an evil and blasphemous false teacher Peter was. No, he brought the matter to Peter personally (Galatians 2:11), and then to the group of those who had gone astray (2:14). It was only later, after the issue had been resolved, that Paul felt free to write to the Galatians about it.

    So, if we have issues with, for example, Benny Hinn, and can’t find anyone in authority over him to approach, we should take the matter up with Benny himself. Of course he may not listen to us, but that is his problem, not ours.

  13. “Apparently there are a mass of people who are ‘annointed’ (by whom is unclear – even in the situation of Saul, God used Samuel as his chosen means) to say what they like to the wider church without censure – according to you – because no one is in authority over them.”

    Certainly no mass of people and very few worldwide. I can’t think of any. Jack Hayford? Billy Graham? Not really for either of them. I think we need to remember that the epistles were written to a limited audience of people [a specific church or specific people] Paul felt he was called to talk to and teach. The fact that they became scripture would have certainly shocked ol’ Paul [or Peter] [or John].

    The basic point is that this type of correction is personal and should be done person to person. You can certainly critique a teaching or doctrine. I do that all the time. But to extend the same to a person is going too far. Do it without mentioning names unless you are building up in love. I’ve learned the hard way that getting names involved just leads to strife [and you know what the Lord feels about that]. You cannot believe the bruhaha when I taught once about how several specific people were involved with “blab it and grab it” theology. 😉 It completely shut down the discussion which had been very productive up to that point.

  14. “Chris, I do realise that there is an issue with teachers who are not under any kind of authority. I’m not sure if that applies to Benny Hinn – it doesn’t apply to Todd Bentley but that didn’t stop him being torn down.”

    Peter – I don’t see either Benny Hinn or Todd Bentley respecting the boundaries of their own authority. After all, their model is that of a parachurch ministry.

    “No, he brought the matter to Peter personally (Galatians 2:11), and then to the group of those who had gone astray (2:14). ”

    Actually, verse 11 reads like a summary which is then unpacked in verses 12-14. The rebuke appears to be public, the ‘all’ certainly indicates that the readers of the letter would have already been aware of the incident.

    “The fact that they became scripture would have certainly shocked ol’ Paul [or Peter] [or John].”

    I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a shock to the Holy Spirit.

  15. Hm … interesting discussion.

    Peter, you’re saying that we should remain quiet in regard to public teaching that we consider wrong and dangerous? Is that love? If dangerously erroneous teaching threatens people that I care about, then I’ll certainly denounce it and explain why it is wrong because I want to protect people. You’d agree with me there as long as it’s within my God-ordained sphere of influence. But, what if I wrote a blog post saying the same thing. Would it then be a blaspheme against the Holy Spirit just because it was now on the Internet?

    Also, this is extrabiblical, but what about the early Christian apologists who wrote treatises against what they considered heresy? Was it wrong for early church fathers to have written publically against Marcion, for example?

  16. I have some serious questions about teachings about authority. I am not so sure that any individual in the church has the right to assume authority over another. I think that illusion ended at the protestant reformation. The authority in the church belongs to the church community as a whole and another level to the local communities. Some might want to talk about “apostolic” authority, but I see not see this concept in the teachings of Jesus. Of course this is another debate about high church vs low church, but it is relevant to this discussion when there is a connection between the anointed and authority.

  17. Chris, I realise that for some people the whole model of a para-church ministry is suspect. However, Christian leaders like Peter Wagner have worked hard on providing proper accountability structures for charismatic ministries. I’m not sure if Benny Hinn is part of any such structure. I know that Todd Bentley is, and has been respecting the structure which he is in. That did not save his first marriage, of course, but since it broke up he has been working closely with Rick Joyner and others to whom he is accountable. I have written a lot about this on this blog in the past. That means that if you, or anyone else, has an issue with Todd, they should bring it to Rick, not spread it all over the internet.

    Yes, Galatians 2:11 may be a summary of 2:14. But surely “them all” is the group of those who had gone astray, not the whole church at Antioch. I’m not saying that the matter was entirely private. Another issue here is that Paul was one of the leaders of the church in Antioch so when Peter was there he was in some sense accountable to that church, although they were also accountable to him as an apostle. But the main point is that Paul first went to Peter, not to the internet or its ancient equivalent.

    Tyson, I’m not saying that the church should not oppose false teaching. But the biblical way of doing that is to preach the truth, positively. Sometimes that may also mean condemning specific errors, but that can be done without denouncing specific teachers as blasphemers going to hell. The Church Fathers didn’t necessarily do everything right, but they were mostly people in leadership in the church writing to those under their leadership, which does make a difference. Similarly there may be things which it would be right for you to say to your own congregation but not to publish more widely.

    Jay, I share your concerns about the language of authority. That is why I originally tried to avoid it in this post, although it has crept into the comments. I don’t believe in the kinds of authority structures in the church, including in para-church organisations, in which a leader presumes to tell others what they must or must not do. That is the concept of authority which Jesus condemned. I prefer to use the language of accountability structures, even if this is somewhat anachronistic for the biblical material. A church leader is responsible for the church he or she leads – preferably jointly with co-leaders. Similarly with para-church ministries. But such leaders ought to make themselves accountable to others, perhaps in a peer group rather than a hierarchy. This is what the mutual submission of believers (Ephesians 5:21) has to mean for leaders.

  18. “Chris, I realise that for some people the whole model of a para-church ministry is suspect. ”

    Peter – I’m not saying that the para-church ministry model is in itself suspect. However, combined with your particular interpretation of ‘touch not the lord’s annointed’, it has the potential to cause problems. And I’m not entirely sure what sort of recourse a pastor of a church would have the next time a travelling evangelist/healer pitched up to hold a series of meetings on his doorstep. I’m willing to be corrected, but I don’t believe that the leaders of churches in Dudley – outside that of the inviting church – necessarily have the access to bring any concerns to Rick Joyner.

    Furthermore, David’s command has to be seen in it’s original context. David had already been annointed as Saul’s replacement by Samuel, on an earthly level that in itself undercut the authority of Saul – he hadn’t been given the command to slaughter Saul and his family as a means to replace him. We have to see his command in the context of obedience to God. Additionally, we don’t live in a theocracy with infallible vessels of God who can go around an annoint people as messengers to the whole church in this way.

  19. Chris, you now raise another issue about relationships between different churches, across denominational boundaries. If one church invites a visiting speaker, or does any other kind of special activity, the other churches in the area have no authority to stop it. This is one of the perhaps regrettable consequences of our modern denominational system. But do we want to go back to the system Wesley rejected in which one unsatisfactory church leader could veto any true preaching of the gospel in his parish?

    Hopefully the leaders of different churches in one town at least speak to one another. So, to take your example, there should be some forum in which other local church leaders can express any concerns they might have about what Trevor Baker does in his church, including having Todd Bentley to speak there. Also it is hardly difficult to contact Rick Joyner through his ministry website.

    As for what you say about David, I agree that he “hadn’t been given the command to slaughter Saul and his family”. Has anyone around today been given the command, by “infallible vessels of God”, to character assassinate Todd Bentley, Benny Hinn, Rob Bell, or anyone else? It isn’t only this “touch not the Lord’s anointed” principle which tells us that it is wrong to slander our brothers and sisters in Christ.

  20. “It isn’t only this “touch not the Lord’s anointed” principle which tells us that it is wrong to slander our brothers and sisters in Christ.”

    Refraining from slander need not preclude robust critique – often calling people out by name when critiquing their public, published statements. I don’t think anyone benefits from the sort of blurring of the boundaries that extends slander out to any sort of critique.

  21. “Chris, you now raise another issue about relationships between different churches, across denominational boundaries.”

    Actually, I don’t think is a separate issue at all. It’s a direct consequence of your model where there is right of only some to speak across church boundaries.

  22. your model where there is right of only some to speak across church boundaries.

    Chris, that’s not what I said. I am saying that no one has the right to speak negative personal criticism publicly across church boundaries. If anyone has concerns about something that is going on at a church, not their own, they should speak privately to the leaders of that church. If they have concerns about a particular teacher, they should speak to that teacher or to someone the teacher is accountable too.

    I don’t accept that there is a distinction between “calling people out by name” and the kind of divisive gossip which is clearly forbidden in the Scriptures, even if technically according to modern law it is not slander if it is true. By gossip we usually think of what people say privately to their friends, but if it is wrong to say something in this way, how much more wrong it is to scatter it all over the internet!

  23. “If anyone has concerns about something that is going on at a church, not their own, they should speak privately to the leaders of that church. If they have concerns about a particular teacher, they should speak to that teacher or to someone the teacher is accountable too.”

    That assumes that each church has neat, non-permeable boundaries. It also assumes no parachurch ministries. AFAICT when Benny Hinn – to pick one example – last spoke in London. it was at an event organised by him without reference to any of the churches in London. Which would be fine, except that he clearly – in his choice of advertising – targetting as his audience those Christians in London (many of whom are presumably members of another church). Again, I’m not aware that there was any forum for ministers in London to raise concerns with him about his particular message.

    “I don’t accept that there is a distinction between “calling people out by name” and the kind of divisive gossip which is clearly forbidden in the Scriptures”

    That labels as gossip all the cases in Paul epistles where he condemns people either by referring to them by name or as the purveyor of a particular doctrine (which within a fairly small community would instantly identify them). To pick a practical example, i see no difference between what Paul was doing and what Mark Meynell does here:

    http://markmeynell.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/the-cruelties-of-the-prosperity-gospel-a-very-modern-heresy/

  24. The term “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” is not found in the New Testament, and instead, we are repeatedly told to watch out for false teachers, etc.

    Here’s something interesting. In Matthew 24:5 Jesus says, “For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ’ and will deceive many”. The Greek for christ, christos, means “anointed one”. So maybe Jesus is warning about those who come and claimed to be “anointed” (eg Benny Hinn) but are actually deceivers.

    I write as someone who has spent a lot of time checking out people like Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley. My conclusion is that they are definitely deceiving people and preaching heresy, and I have no hesitation in warning against them.

  25. “I don’t accept that there is a distinction between “calling people out by name” and the kind of divisive gossip which is clearly forbidden in the Scriptures, even if technically according to modern law it is not slander if it is true. By gossip we usually think of what people say privately to their friends, but if it is wrong to say something in this way, how much more wrong it is to scatter it all over the internet!”

    Spot on! We can deal with the doctrine (speaking for it or against it), but it is the Lord’s job to deal with the people. If the person is an acquaintance (or better yet a friend), then by all means, go and share your concerns. For people in your care, you can certainly warn them to be careful. But in most cases we are just creating (or spreading strife)—which is one of the things the Lord hates.

    This is why Paul spent so much time telling Timothy to avoid such things.

  26. Chris, I don’t assume impermeable churches and no para-church ministries. Perhaps I should add “If anyone has concerns about something that is going on at a para-church ministry, they should speak privately to the leaders of that ministry.” I trust any Christian event is organised by some church, organised group of churches, or para-church ministry, in which case it should be obvious who to speak to. If it is organised by one unaccountable individual, speak to her or him!

    Benny Hinn Ministries has a UK branch whose contact details are on his website:

    P.O. Box 30319
    London NW10 7ZP England
    Phone: 44 (0) 208961 1978
    E-mail: eurinfo@imail.bennyhinn.org

    So there should be no doubt who to contact if you have concerns about his visits to London.

    The people Paul names as false teachers are, I think, all people who were in some sense under his authority or had been. That is the difference between what he writes and what Meynell writes. In the circumstances I think that Meynell, as a respected church leader in London where Hinn was ministering, may be justified in naming Hinn as an exponent of the teaching which he is arguing against, and giving proven (if they are) details of his extravagant lifestyle. But Meynell does not use words like “blasphemy” and does not imply that Hinn is going to hell. If someone does feel the need and God’s call to name someone as a false teacher, Meynell’s is a model of how to do it, one which is sadly not often followed in the blogosphere.

  27. Sidefall, there is a big difference between claiming to be anointed by God with his Holy Spirit and claiming to be “the Christ” or “the Messiah”, with a definite article in the Greek of Matthew 24:5 as well as in English. This is not the verse to use against Hinn, whatever you may think of him, as he has never made this claim – although various other people have in recent years.

  28. Peter –

    “The people Paul names as false teachers are, I think, all people who were in some sense under his authority or had been”

    Peter wasn’t under his authority, it’s clear that more people knew about the circumstances than just Peter and Paul – or why even mention it.

    Additionally, I think you are being a little inconsistent:

    “I don’t accept that there is a distinction between “calling people out by name” and the kind of divisive gossip which is clearly forbidden in the Scriptures”

    “In the circumstances I think that Meynell, as a respected church leader in London where Hinn was ministering, may be justified in naming Hinn as an exponent of the teaching which he is arguing against”

    Which is it? After all, if you followed your own advice, your latest post would be title “Do certain critics of rob bell take the bible seriously?” or some such.

    “Meynell does not use words like “blasphemy” and does not imply that Hinn is going to hell. If someone does feel the need and God’s call to name someone as a false teacher”

    Actually, anyone looking back at your blog would see that not everyone critiquing Todd Bentley and others was using intemperate language, yet there was always some way in which you either dismissed their critique or passed off their critique as mere opinion.

  29. Chris, I already dealt with the dispute between Paul and Peter in a previous comment on this thread. Let me just repeat that by the time Paul made this matter public it had been resolved.

    I think we need to make a clear distinction between reasoned debate and denunciation. I am not condemning reasoned debate with others by name. What I am condemning is the kinds of accusations which have been thrown around against Hinn, Bell and others. I was also suggesting that Meynell’s special position as a leading pastor in London gave him some authority to speak out about Christian events in London, an authority which is not shared by every Christian on the internet.

    In past discussions about Todd Bentley, there were quite a lot of people using intemperate language, and others who were debating the issues in a proper reasoned way. My policy at the time was to respond to their accusations etc in more or less the same way. But I did have strong words to say at times about those who were clearly spreading lies or unconfirmed gossip. I tried to respond to each person appropriately. Possibly at times in the heat of the debate I lumped some of the wrong people together. If so, I am sorry. But I hope my intentions are clear. In retrospect I might have done better to ignore or reject the intemperate comments.

  30. “I think we need to make a clear distinction between reasoned debate and denunciation. I am not condemning reasoned debate with others by name.”

    Okay .. so presumably the following is reasoned debate rather than denunciation:

    “It is interesting to see the hoops that some try to jump through to defend Lewis while condemning Bell. ”

    Does that fall under the category of ‘calling someone out by name’ or ‘slander’ – it could be, given that your underlying accusation is that Tim Keller is being disingenous.

    After all, if you really consistently applied your own principles, if you really took the word ‘touch’ at face value, you wouldn’t write about anyone outside your local church – and probably wouldn’t publish it on the internet. If you really believed what you state you do about what the unforgiveable sin consists of, you’d fear to commit it by accident.

  31. When I say touch not the Lords anointed let me explain. In my thirties God would lead me into different college groups of various denominations and I would minister to a lot of different people one on one and after the meetings. I never tried to show up the group leader and always did everything decently and in order. In this one particular group a sister of one of the gals was living w her boyfriend and attending the church! I told her this was wrong and one day she went to the Pastor and slandered me and lied about me and he kicked me out of the college group. She died 6 mos. later of cancer. You never want to speak against someone who has been anointed and set apart by the Holy Spirit to perform a task. It will bring judgement just like when Ananias and Saphiras lied to the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts when they kept back part of the money when they sold there house! If they would have just said here this is all we can afford to give they would have been fine but they lied to the Holy Ghost and said this is all of it. Peter’s shadow was getting people healed when he walked by, not the time to lie. When the Holy Spirit is manifesting judgement is swift. God is getting ready to take us into the Holy place in these last days and there will be no margin of error and as believers we need to be ready. It’s OK to point out error in doctrine, thats healthy and we are commanded in scripture to test the spirits and see if they are of God, 1 john 4:1 Every believer is anointed when they are born again but there are degrees of anointings that compliment particular callings. Such as the baptism of the Holy Spirit which brings an anointing for service and a Prophetic anointing that brings an anointing for equipping the saints according to Ephesians 4:11 The problem is there is bad teaching on this. What I believe is going to happen in these last days is God is going to raise up 5 fold ministry gifts, set them apart and commission them to go across the country in major sports arenas and teach the believers just like in the book of Acts with signs following and breaking of bread till we all come in the unity of the full stature of Christ. The Lord will establish his government for the Church, thy kingdom will come on Earth as it is in Heaven!

  32. Mark –

    “God is getting ready to take us into the Holy place in these last days and there will be no margin of error and as believers we need to be ready”

    If there is no margin of error, I hope you hold to a doctrine of Christian Perfection.

  33. Chris, I consider what I said about Tim Keller to be within the limits of reasoned debate. Note that I didn’t even actually say that Keller was wrong, I just questioned what he had said. I certainly didn’t condemn him. But yes, I do need to be careful what I say. An occasional reminder of this is good, but I don’t need you bringing it up all the time.

    I am not afraid of committing the unforgiveable sin by accident because the whole point of it, as I see it, is that it is a deliberate rejection of God and his Holy Spirit. This might include knowingly attributing the Spirit’s work to the devil. It might also include lying to God as Ananias and Sapphira did.

    Mark, I don’t know whether you are right about why the woman you mentioned died. But you are right that Christians need to be very careful what they say especially against those who are ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit. However, I don’t agree with what you say about “no margin for error”, as God is gracious to forgive those who repent of their errors.

  34. “I am not afraid of committing the unforgiveable sin by accident because the whole point of it, as I see it, is that it is a deliberate rejection of God and his Holy Spirit. This might include knowingly attributing the Spirit’s work to the devil.”

    In your world any Christian could have anything revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, disagreement with which would automatically be a rejection of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the word ‘touch’ is pretty inclusive, so if you want to apply it in the way you do then it applies to more than just criticism, so your minor disagreement above – which looks like an accusation of disingenuity – could be the NT equivalent of the small boys who made fun of the Elijah for being bald.

    I’m not necessarily saying that any of this is true – but it does tend to follow from your own guidelines, which you apply anyway fairly inconsistently.

  35. Shucks! Now it’s the big 12! I knew about political correctness. I wasn’t aware of the “Thou shalt not be inconsistent.” There are too many portions of scripture that can only be looked at as a paradox with the answer being not either/or but both/and.

    Next we’ll be after Jesus for letting the adulteress off the hook (though maybe that was just because of the injustice of letting the male part of that sexual act [that takes two people as I understand it] walk away with no apparent blame).
    😉

  36. Chris, you are putting into my mouth a lot more than I ever claimed about the meaning of “touch” and about what I attribute to the Holy Spirit. It is not the unforgiveable sin to question any particular prophetic word, but it might be to condemn someone to hell for it.

    David, thanks for the support. I am trying to be consistent with my guidelines. I haven’t been perfectly so. But I am not going to try to submit to Chris’ extensions of my guidelines to cover things I never said.

  37. “But I am not going to try to submit to Chris’ extensions of my guidelines to cover things I never said.”

    It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that you operate a set of sliding standards that protects those you approve of from criticism, whilst allowing you to critique those that you disapprove of.

    “It is not the unforgiveable sin to question any particular prophetic word, but it might be to condemn someone to hell for it.”

    Not every criticism of of Todd Bentley that was criticised on this blog condemned him to hell – anyone can search through your archives and verify this.

  38. Chris, I have not accused all who criticised Todd Bentley on this blog of the unforgiveable sin. In fact I haven’t accused anyone of it. I may have suggested that some need to be careful of this.

    And I will choose my own standards. I don’t care if you think I am inconsistent or hypocritical. God is the only judge I care about. Further criticism of myself on this matter, while not the unforgiveable sin, will not be welcome here.

  39. Pingback: Dealing with false teachers & bad prophecy | The Skilled Workman

  40. dont touch the lords anointed… many names mentioned, Benny Hinn at the beginnng and towards the end Todd Bently….My question is – “Are they the lords anointed”…because they are definately not christ like…just returned from FiJVi where B.Hinn on tv everyday and he is sitting on a 7foot high gold and whte throne…..speaking to guests and praying… mnore lke the pope …not chrst like at all. As for Todd, well everyone involved there ddnt test the spirit involved did they ?

  41. To rebuke a preacher who has committed errors of false doctrine or practice cannot be the sin of touching the Lord’s anointed, because it does not involve the use or threat of physical violence. Such rebuke is appropriate and even commanded in certain instances. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11.) “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” (Titus 1:13.) “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear,” (1 Timothy 5:19-20.) The office of elder here is the same as the scriptural office of bishop or pastor. Presumably it would also include televangelists and ecumenical evangelists, even though no such creatures are authorized in the New Testament, and they could not be higher in rank than the Apostle Peter, who Paul rebuked publicly before the congregation of Antioch… SOME pastors seem to have the idea that because they are ordained to the ministry, they are on a higher and more exalted level than their followers, but at the same time they are to be held to a lower level of standard of conduct. Because they are preachers, they say, it is inevitable that they will offend people, and they are not going to try to avoid giving offenses, because if they did, they would have to stop preaching. And if you dont like it GO, LEAVE ….my way or the highway..

    This is the very opposite of the teaching of the Word of God, which insists that preachers are to be held to a higher standard of conduct than their people: “Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12.) “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all.” (James 3:1-2.) – We have already seen that all Christians are the Lord’s Anointed, that all Christians are priests, and that there is an equality among all Christians, whether they are ministers or laymen. It is time for us to return to the primitive and scriptural state of things, in which all Christians are equal, having only one master, even Christ. “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” (Matthew 23:8.) “Ye ere bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23.)

  42. Jack, thank you for your comments.

    As I pointed out in the post, every Christian is the Lord’s anointed, and does not forfeit that position even for serious sin like that of Saul. So the principle surely applies to Benny Hinn, for example, even if he has gone seriously astray.

    But I agree with you, as I was also reminded by Andrew in a recent comment on another post, that to touch someone in this context means to harm them, not to correct them. But what is the intention of negative blog comments about public figures? Is it to point out to them their supposed sins or theological errors? Or is it in fact to harm them and their ministries by bringing them into public disrepute? The harm may not be physical, but it is potentially none the less real.

    You quote several verses about rebuking in the Bible. But you fail to note two common factors. First, those who were allowed to rebuke others had rightful authority over them – in the case of Paul rebuking Peter, because this took place in Antioch where Peter was a visitor disturbing the church in which Paul was one of the leaders. And then in each case the rebuking was done face to face, and at least initially privately, not through a public medium which the ones being rebuked are unlikely to read but many others will.

    So I continue to hold that the principle “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” is applicable in this situation.

  43. As I understand from this lovely debate, there is a difference between saying Benny your teachings are false so therefore I think your a Worthog, and pointing put the difference bet what he might say as heretical and what scripture says. N.B I say might say as heretical as I am not getting into a debate about his credibility. Also note I.was not trying to insult worthogs, or paster Hinn.

  44. Helen, I would suggest that it is OK to discuss someone’s teachings or ministry practices, and to point out where these are errant or unbiblical. But this should be done in a humble and tentative way, preferably qualified by something like “in my opinion”, and not out of anger. It should also be based on real evidence of someone’s teaching or practice, rather than on hearsay, or even audio and video clips which can very easily be taken completely out of context.

    What is out of order, in my opinion, is to use words of personal attack like “heretic” and “false teacher”, or to suggest that God will condemn any individual. It is also wrong to call anyone a fool, or equivalent – see Matthew 5:22.

  45. I did say I was not getting into a debate about Hinns credibility. That video I mentioned was unedited, and exactly as you see it. Also I was not saying he was heretical ! Any reference to that was about saying not personaly calling heretical. Other then that, as you said.

  46. Thank you, Helen. I didn’t mean to suggest you did anything wrong. But I have seen, in comments and links on this blog, Christian leaders called heretics, and selectively edited videos being used to discredit them.

  47. Hello to all who are involved in the discussion. I would very much like to get a response ASAP.As I ” by the way this is the first time I have asked for help with this”. About ten years ago I started going to a Pentecostal church.I have felt god with me all my life for some reason or another??.. I’m not sure why. I don’t even read the bible much anymore. I had a man come up to me a few years back and said ” i have a word from the lord for you!!”.. He told me of my recent past and spoke of the near future. Then he looked at me with what seemed to amazement ,Almost like he was looking at me like I would be doing something real big for God or something…It was pretty strange. He said that he would pray that no one comes against me because something bad would happen to them. I don’t like this but In the 8 or 9 years after he said this to me some things have happened to people who have come against me in different degrees almost like it fit the crime according for one person she was involved in a car wreck last year and suffered a brain injury and is now in a nursing home grinding her teeth away. I went to see her for the first time the other day. She cant talk and her hands are bent down. It was a very disturbing sight.She did cry when she saw me for the first time.I told her that I loved her and forgave her for for what she tried to do to me and my family. I know this is getting long so ill try to make this shorter.This thing that just happened tonight worries me as it involves the woman’s niece which is my step daughter and my wife’s brother. They have now come against me in a terrible way. What am I to be doing about this???

  48. William, thank you for this interesting story. It seems that God has a purpose for your life, so get back close to him and see where he leads you.

    We cannot be sure if the people you refer to were in some sense punished for coming against you or if it is just coincidence. But I would recommend that you pray for them, for healing and for restoration of relationships. You should also pray for the people who have now come against you, for their protection and that their evil plans will be turned round for good, for you and for them. Remember that Job was restored when he prayed for those who had come against him, Job 42:10.

    May God protect and bless you in these situations.

  49. PS to William: the e-mail address you gave with this comment is for a non-existent account. If you are a real person, please make sure that in any future comments you give a real address. I will not engage in correspondence with people who conceal their identity.

  50. But what about those who are anointed by God to expose false teachers in the likes of Todd Bentley, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, etc. If you can not speak against the anointed, than do not speak against those who are called by God to expose heretics for what they are.

  51. Chad, God doesn’t anoint people to disobey him or do evil, whether that is preachers like the ones you mention or those who “expose” them. God does anoint preachers, but does he ever anoint anyone to speak evil against Christians? I would simply advise anyone claiming that anointing to be very careful, that they are not the ones being deceived by the evil one leading to their own destruction.

  52. Hi all.
    I also have a problem with Christian that are spending their lifetime or destroying other Christians. The manner they do it qualifies them to be agents of the prince of darkness.one did mention that all should be done in love and care for one another.
    shalom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image