Dear Pastor - Why I Am A Mother Who Doesn't Want To Hear A 'Mother's Day' Sermon

~ by Susan Stilley

I still remember a particular Mother's Day Sunday when I was twenty-five and single.  I attended a small church and after the sermon, the pastor asked all the mothers in the congregation to come forward to be recognized and receive a long stemmed rose.  Pictures were taken.  There was one other non-mother sitting in the audience, Brenda, who was also a mid-twenties single.  As the mothers and grandmothers posed for cameras up front, the pastor happened to glance toward the audience and noticed Brenda and I sitting there.  He looked troubled, furrowing his brow and you could almost see the wheels turning.  He turned toward the vase of remaining roses and apparently, inspiration struck.

"Okay folks," the pastor announced.  "Now I want all of our FUTURE mothers to come forward!"

He motioned for Brenda and I to come to the front.  She and I gave each other a "Wow, could this be any more awkward?", kind of look but we knew we were stuck and so, we hesitantly trudged up the aisle. We smiled, somewhat sheepishly,  for our 'Future Mother' photos.  Our pastor beamed, pleased with himself that his quick thinking helped to avoid a ministerial/social faux pas.  The wicked part of me wondered what would have happened if I had declined the photo op and said, "Well...you see...I am unable to have children."  I would have waited a full ten seconds for the news to sink in before letting on, "Ah, just messin' with ya!"

Of course I wouldn't have done that.  Pastor was a real peach and he did mean well.  But the whole awkward scenario does beg some questions. What if I really was infertile?  How would trooping me forward have made me feel?  How did the pastor 'know' that either Brenda or I would even get married, let alone become mothers one day?  He didn't.  At that time I didn't have a boyfriend and no one was on the horizon.  Brenda had just recently broken up with someone.  Neither of us were emotionally hurt by this incident.  We laughed at the weirdness of it all and our 'Future Mother' status became a bit of an inside, running joke.

If this scene had played out for different women in different circumstances, they wouldn't have been laughing. In fact over the years as I have moved across multiple states and found myself sitting in various churches on Mother's Day, I have often cringed at displays of attention toward mothers that have probably caused more harm than good.  At one church where I visited, the pastor asked for all the new mothers that year to stand up.  Then he asked for mothers with one to three children to stand up. Then four to six children.  Finally, he asked those mothers with more than six children to stand up.  While everyone clapped I felt sort of sick inside, knowing that there were probably many women in the audience who had lost children in death due to accident, illness, violence, or miscarriage.  In what number category were these moms supposed to place themselves?  What was surely intended as a creative way to recognize mothers, inadvertently became for some, a poignant reminder of infertility and for others, a morbid tally of dead children, be it the infant daughter who never made it home from the hospital or the nineteen year old son who never made it home from Iraq.

Is it any wonder that some women just can't bring themselves to attend services on this day?  Not just a few, but many.  Any factor that would cause a sister in Christ to feel that she would be emotionally hurt by being in the Lord's house on ANY day of the year, is something we should take seriously.  We are called to 'build one another up' and yet so many women have experienced feeling torn down on this particular day.  Others are dealing with disappointments and griefs that are still fresh, and there is genuine hesitance about exposing themselves to messages that have the capacity to open those wounds.

Pastor, I know your job can be difficult.  I know lots of people have opinions on what should be the content of your sermons, the style of delivery, and even it's length.  I don't wish to come across as 'that guy' (or in my case, that gal).  But I do want to share my concerns and give you some encouragement concerning the upcoming 'Mother's Day' Sunday.

Gimme Jesus - Not Walt Whitman

The idea of honoring mothers is certainly a biblical one, rooted in the fifth commandment, reinforced in Proverbs and elsewhere.  Both Old and New Testaments are ripe with examples of godly mothers and so it is natural to turn to such for sermon material.  Yet I have often heard sermons miss the mark because they spend more focus on the women and their particular roles than on God who made their lives meaningful. We admire Hannah but we musn't divert our attention from the One in whom she placed all her hopes for herself and her child.  We are encouraged by the close bond of Naomi and Ruth but we must not ignore the Kinsman Redeemer.  We should give honor to Jesus' mother, Mary.  She was indeed blessed among women, yet she also recognized her own need for salvation as she sang, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."  (Luke 1:46,47)

Also missing the mark are sermons which rely too heavily on motherhood poems, quotes, and

anecdotal stories.  These can have a place in small measures but they should not dominate.  When I was filled with sadness over a miscarriage, I needed the words of Christ, not Walt Whitman.  When I was in mourning over the death of my own mother, I needed the words of the Apostle Paul, not those of Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.  Right now I am at a joyful stage.  I have six children ranging in age from fifteen to three and my fridge is festooned with handmade Mother's Day cards.  Life is humming along on a pretty even keel and do you know what I need now?  Not poems by Dickenson, Rosetti, Stevenson, Poe, Yeats, Angelou, Strand, or Wordsworth.  On a Mother's Day Sunday sermon, I need the songs of King David which declares, "To you I lift up my eyes, O you who are enthroned in the heavens!  Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master."  (Psalm 123:1,2)

Mothers Need The Gospel Too

Articulating a clear cut explanation of the Fall, the atonement, and how the resurrection of Christ impacts our individual standing before God, used to be standard fare in evangelical churches.  As 'seeker sensitive' messages increased, vigorous teaching of doctrine began to wane. This trend has affected even solid churches, particularly on Mother's Day, as was the experience of my friend,  Janet.   

When I had lunch with Janet she was hoppin' mad.  She had invited her parents to have Sunday dinner at her home on Mother's Day.  Much to Janet's surprise, her mother agreed that they would also come with Janet and her husband to the 11:00 am worship service, something they had never done before.  Janet's family didn't 'do church' when she was growing up and they approached life from a basic secular worldview.  Janet had some rebellious teen years followed by some partying college years.  She turned to the Lord and became a Christian at age 23. 

She tried to share her newfound faith but was met with skepticism.  Her father, an ACLU attorney, even tried to talk her out of it.  Not yet confident enough in her own knowledge of Scripture and with no familiarity of Christian apologetics, Janet felt ill equipped to counter her father's argumentation. Her mother, ever the peacemaker, suggested they stop all this 'religious talk' and eat some pie. 

Fast forward a decade.  Janet is elated that her parents will actually attend church.  After several years of strained conversations about Jesus Christ, she is excited at the prospect that her parents will hear the gospel.  Her pastor is an excellent Bible teacher and she is confident the Holy Spirit will use him to persuade her parents of the truth.

Such was not the case.  When it came to teaching the reality of who Christ is, her pastor punted.  Instead, he extolled the virtues of the Proverbs 31 woman to the point that he actually confused the message, giving the impression to Janet's mother that motherhood itself put women in a right relationship with God.  She had no challenging reflection of her own spiritual state as outlined in Romans, the fact that "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."  The 'good news' that Janet's mother heard was that God approved of the Proverbs 31 woman, particularly because of her industriousness.  Because Janet's mother was also an industrious, devoted mother, God must surely approve of her too.
 
Keeping Things Running

While there might very well be traditional expectations about a Mother's Day sermon and what it should entail, I think it is useful to consider the audience.   You basically have three categories.  Women who find the emphasis on motherhood emotionally painful due to their own losses or feelings of emptiness.  Women (and men)  who are unregenerate and need to hear the gospel of God's grace.  Women who celebrate Mother's Day wholeheartedly, either as mothers themselves or as women who celebrate the ladies and mothers in their life.

Please don't craft a sermon solely for the benefit of the third group at the expense of the first two.  Those of us in the third group will be just fine.  Sure it's nice to get a little 'back up' from the pastor, a reminder to the kiddos that they should take time to appreciate us.  Perhaps step up the chores they've grown slack about.   Maybe even "arise and call me blessed" when most of the time they arise to ask what's for breakfast.

But we know there are bigger issues at stake.  This situation brings to mind one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies, 'The Rookie'.  Dennis Quaid plays Jim Morris, a high school science teacher and baseball coach from west Texas.  Though he is 40 and twice the age of most rookies, his 98 mph fastball gets the attention of scouts and he is given his big break in the major leagues.

As Jim talks on the phone with his wife, Lori, he expresses concern about her staying behind to deal with the house, a stack of bills and caring for their young children by herself while he travels with the team.  She replies,  "Jim Morris, I'm a Texas woman, which means I don't need the help of a man to keep things running."

In the context of the story, what Lori is conveying  is that she appreciates Jim and understands what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity this is.  She knew there were big issues at stake - the chance for Jim to follow his dream as well as the example of perseverance set for their young, baseball enthusiast son.  Those matters far outrank the temporal frustrations of leaky faucets and juggling carpools.  She was letting Jim know he could count on her to keep things running while he takes his shot.

Likewise, mothers are a pretty sturdy lot.  We are used to sacrifice, whether we are giving up a  night's sleep for sick babies or giving up our plate of french fries for a ten year old who has eaten three hot dogs but is still  hungry.

For those of us who are believers, we are glad to give up listening to a Mother's Day sermon for the sake of our sisters in Christ who are hurting in mind and spirit.  We are certainly willing to give it up if it means the saving knowledge of our Lord can be preached more effectively.  Lots of visitors come to church on Mother's Day that do not normally attend..  There might very well be eternal consequences at stake.  Pastor,  may you feel free to craft the message that the Holy Spirit gives you for this day and may you deliver the truth in boldness and in love.  Know that we are in the background 'keeping things running' via our prayers.

  

Liberty University, Benny Hinn and The New Battle of Lynchburg

~By Susan Stilley

During the Civil War, Lynchburg was a strategic city for the South.  It served as a supply and hospital base and due to the railroad and canal, was an important connection for supplying the rest of the Confederate Army.  For this reason, Maj. General David Hunter of the Union Army sought to capture it.  He was unsuccessful.  Though the confederates at one point fell back, they managed to hold off the assaults until the Union army's ammunition was diminished.  Convinced his Union troops were outnumbered by Lt. General Jubal Early's forces, Hunter retreated across the Shenandoah Valley.

Today, Lynchburg is the home of Liberty University which is the largest Christian University in the world.  It is a strategic base which serves to equip believers who go on to serve in their churches and the broader culture. Proclaiming it's mission to be the advance of the gospel, Liberty has been spiritually targeted.  Like a savvy general, Satan has identified an important supply line and has sought to capture it.  He has attempted to do so by means of rallying criticism from the secular world as well as tempting those within.  The result has been a series of controversies and poor choices.  There is a new battle of Lynchburg today and Satan shows no sign of retreat.   

Enter Benny Hinn.  For several decades now, sober minded Christians have kept a careful and lengthy distance from Faith Healer Benny Hinn and the imitators he has spawned.  The intellectual rigor, Scriptural integrity and passion for truth that has characterized so much of the evangelical movement was ensconced on one side of a great ideological wall, while Hinn's brand of televangelist hucksterism resided on the other.  Yet in recent years, that landscape has changed.  An increasing number of spiritual charlatans have jumped the wall, not to grow in the knowledge of Christ, but to infiltrate.  To spread a false gospel.  Regrettably, men who should know better have invited such breaches.  Recently, the provost and VP of Academic Affairs at Liberty University, Dr. Ronald Godwin, appeared on Benny Hinn's television show.  Not only did he invite Hinn to jump the wall, he provided the ladder.



There is much I find disturbing about this video clip, starting with the very beginning in which Hinn holds up a framed diploma and asks his audience, "How would you like your name to be on a diploma that says 'Liberty University' and you have your name here?  And get this and put it on your wall?  Now...that is a very powerful question I just asked."

Powerful indeed.  So powerful, in fact that Benny Hinn and his guests, Dan Reber - Director of Liberty Home Bible Institute and Dr. Ronald Godwin - Liberty University Provost and Senior VP for Academic Affairs, spend the next ten minutes trying to convince Hinn's audience they should purchase a Bible survey kit which includes a book, study guide, quizzes, and 10 hour instructional DVD for...gulp... fifteen hundred dollars.

That's right, two zeros.  Fifteen HUNDRED dollars!  Of course like all good infomercials, the price tag isn't revealed in the 'on air' sales pitch.  Don't want to scare off any customers.   Once you probe further on the Benny Hinn Ministries website, you get the final tally.  The sticker shock is somewhat ameliorated by the fact you can break up the cost into three easy payments of five hundred dollars each.  Whew!  So they don't have to have ALL the money up front.  That's a relief.  We wouldn't want to think anyone was greedy here, would we?

The Bible study materials were written by Dr. Ed Hindson, Dean of the School of Religion and Elmer Towns, co-founder of Liberty and an esteemed leader.  I don't doubt the material is well done and helpful.  But that is not the 'selling point'.  The first selling point is the 'credentials' obtained via a diploma from Liberty, which Hinn raises tantalizingly before the camera in an impressive frame.  The second selling point is the offer by Benny Hinn himself of licensing and ordination through his World Healing Fellowship.  A discussion ensues about pastors in other countries who are losing their churches and property as a result of not having 'proper credentials'.  My question for Reber and Godwin would be this:  If you are aware of such incidents, do you think sending them to Benny Hinn for ordination is the best way to remedy the situation?   If Liberty University is the largest Christian University in the world with vast connections to churches and reputable para-church organizations all over the globe, are you really saying that the best solution to their problems is Benny Hinn? 

Furthermore, shouldn't ordination take place within one's denomination and local church?  The consecration or 'setting one apart' for the pastorate is most appropriate in a setting by which a man is evaluated and qualified by those who know him, know his character, and have heard him teach the Scripture.  Are you seriously suggesting that such a process can be fast-tracked for a price by a shady faith healer from afar?  God forbid.

Going back to the first selling point, that of the diploma itself, I couldn't help but wonder what kind of target audience were most apt to fall for this pitch.   I propose there are three main categories:

1.  The person who wants to go to seminary but can't afford it.

In this case, it is especially grievous that Hinn, Reber, and Godwin are playing (perhaps unwittingly) on someone's vulnerability.  This person earnestly wants to study theology formally but doesn't have the resources to do so.  Perhaps he is married with children.  So here is a person who is already financially strapped and he is encouraged  to spend fifteen hundred dollars on an overpriced study set?

And suppose he takes the bait and forks over the big bucks?  What then?  After all, listening to ten, hour long lectures does not a pastor make.  Good grief, I listen to that many lectures in a typical week on my i-phone while grocery shopping and waiting for my kids to get out of Little League practice.

A better counsel for this person would be to find a spiritual mentor, his own pastor perhaps, and learn from him as Timothy learned from Paul.  Take advantage of the numerous classes, lectures, chapel sermons from universities and seminaries that are available online for FREE.  We don't live in the 1970's.  There are a vast amount of resources online, even if you don't have access to a brick and mortar school. 

2.  The layman who wants to study and feel a sense of accomplishment. 

I can't quibble with either of those motivations and if he has the money to spend, he can spend five thousand dollars if he so chooses.  But I have to wonder, shouldn't the material in a basic Old Testament and New Testament survey course be the same material that is standard fare at a Bible teaching church?  If there is a need to beef up the lessons in a particular area, perhaps that money would be better invested in the local church to add another weekday class.  The average church in America has about 150 members.  Many fall well below that with bi-vocational pastors who hold full time jobs as well as their teaching/pastoral responsibilities.  I submit that money is best utilized to serve the local congregation, rather than be siphoned off to the likes of Benny Hinn or his associates.

3.  The person with ministry aspirations who wants a shortcut. 

Considering that this person is already a fan of Benny Hinn, I assume that his model of a 'man of God' is of the 'Word of Faith - Name It and Claim It' variety.  Is it prudent for Liberty University to promote a diploma/certificate plan specifically toward this demographic?  Does Liberty University really want a new cadre of heretical Benny Hinn apostles running to and fro in churches and across the cable channels, proudly boasting of their diploma with a golden seal from Liberty University?  Is it fair to Liberty students past and present who put in the hard, scholastic work or the solid professors who were probably embarrassed by this video clip, to see the school where they learn and serve potentially gain the reputation as a 'diploma mill'?

The manner in which Reber and Godwin make their pitch seemed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Much is made of the fact that this study kit is so 'easy'.  The instructional lesson is only thirty minutes a day.  You can listen to it when you are getting ready in the morning, or on your break. Simple quizzes.   Honestly, this approach sounded more like an infomercial for a 'Thigh Master' than an encouragement to study the Scriptures.  And if someone has aspirations to be a pastor and 'struggles' with thirty minutes of Bible study, then maybe he should rethink his calling. 

The Aftermath

In the wake of criticism, Liberty University issued a quick response on April 3rd, titled, "Liberty Not Partnering With Hinn", despite the fact that Dan Reber stated on the program that he was partnering with Hinn (even hand slapping 'bro-style' on the deal struck) and Ronald Godwin's appearance as Provost and VP of Academic Affairs would also seem to imply as much.

Further clarifications were added which you can read here.  Much confusion arose from the distinctions between Liberty University, the Liberty Institute of Biblical Studies, and the Liberty University's Liberty Home Bible Institute, the latter having been transferred to Dan Reber a number of years ago.  He has a company which markets certain courses for the LHBI and the IBS.  Questions regarding licensing rights, stipulations on marketing, and whether such courses could be transferred for credit or not, muddle things further.

Frankly, all the details on the legalities and relationships of the various entities are somewhat 'in the weeds'.  The average viewer of  Benny Hinn's program is not likely following up on any objections Liberty University is now having to Hinn's pronouncements.  They heard one message loud and clear:  Liberty University stamps their seal of approval upon Benny Hinn.  It's kind of hard to unring that bell.  And when you try to talk to friends, relatives, co-workers who sincerely believe that Hinn and his ilk are doing the Lord's work, it is hard to persuade them otherwise.  Why should they believe 'little old you' when their spiritual hero is in cooperation with the largest Christian University in the world?

Breaching The Wall

I want to give Dan Reber and Ron Godwin the benefit of the doubt.  In his statement, Godwin explains that he went on the program because he was chiefly concerned "that small church pastors in multiple countries are facing government takeovers" and that "Reber's motivation was to provide Bible education to pastors in desperate need of such education."

Fine.  I'll take him at his word, but this does raise another question.  Were Reber and Godwin aware of the excessive cost that Benny Hinn Ministries is charging for this Bible survey kit?  Surely these pastors in desperate circumstances would not be expected to shell out $1,500.  Would a separate fund be established for the purpose of sending the material to pastors in foreign countries who are facing the loss of their churches?

Godwin laments, "And I further relied on Pastor Hinn's personal assurance that no public pronouncements would be made without my approval - which approvals I never gave, orally or in writing."

So did Benny Hinn 'con' Reber and Godwin in some way?  Not having been privy to the discussions, it's hard to say.   As of today's writing, April 6th, Hinn has not removed any of the promotional material featuring Liberty from his website.

If Hinn did manipulate the situation for his own benefit, is anyone at all surprised?  No.  Manipulation has been standard operating procedure for the extreme charismatic movement for decades.  That is why you don't allow enemies of truth to cross over to your side of the wall.  They may offer peace and unity at first but beware of  the hidden weapon.  Satan's weapon is deception.  His goal is to confuse the gospel message so he lies and flatters and does whatever it takes for people to let down their guard.  Then he strikes.

Despite the millions of dollars Benny Hinn has managed to extract from his followers, many of them poor and in desperate physical condition, there is one thing he has never possessed.  Academic respectability.  I believe he thought an association with Liberty University would help shed his image as a charlatan who preys on the crowd's emotions.  He wants to broaden his scope and gain a hearing among the mainstream.  He thought Liberty would be his path out of the fringe element. Yet how can any theologian or serious Christian give one ounce of credibility to someone with such abberant theology? 

Hinn is an admitted necromancer who claims he received his special annointing via the spirit of Kathryn Khulman and at the grave of Aimee Semple McPherson.  He teaches that the Biblical Adam was a literal 'Superman' who could fly to outer space, having been given dominion over the fowl of the air.  He has denied the Trinity and has ratcheted the number of persons within the Godhead to nine.  Hinn claims that God gives him divine revelation and that God has spoken to him more than he spoke to Moses.  Hinn teaches that at Jesus' death, he shared in the nature of Satan.  He is a proponent of 'positive confession', the idea that words themselves have magical properties (he calls it faith) so that he can literally speak things into existence.  He teaches that we are all 'little gods', therefore we should never be sick.  Those who are not healed by Hinn's special powers are themselves at fault for their illness because they apparently didn't have enough faith. 

Academics should run for the hills where Benny Hinn is concerned, yet apparently, Hinn's angling for credibility from the other side of the wall is nothing new.  In his 2009 book, 'Blood In The Sand', the bio of Hinn on the back cover reads in part:  "He is founder of Benny Hinn School of Ministry, now with more than 11,000 students, offering a cooperative relationship with Liberty University in college-level studies."  Who authorized this 'cooperation' and what exactly does it entail?  I don't recall ever opening Liberty University Alumnis material from my mailbox and ever reading one sentence explaining a relationship between the school and greedy, fake, crackpot faith healers. 

This debacle runs much deeper than a simple, "Gee, I didn't know who had the copyright and the authority to sell what to who", mistake.  It strikes at the heart of what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler - not even to eat with such a one.  For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  God judges those outside.  "Purge the evil person from among you."  (1 Cor 5:9-12)

Paul is clear.  For those who claim to be a brother in Christ but who exhibit these wicked traits, we are to not even share a meal.  Even more, should we not share in a questionable infomercial broadcast to millions of people.  There is a redemptive purpose in Paul's instruction, so that such a person might actually come to a place of repentance.  But also there is the matter of giving the appearance of approval of the sinful conduct and bringing reproach on the church and the gospel. 

There may be differing opinions as to whether certain people in the church, particularly visible leaders, have fallen into idolatry, greed, heresy, or other sins.  In the case of Benny Hinn, demonstrable evidence over many years have proven him to be a swindler of the worst variety.  He preys on the most vulnerable, those plagued by illness, physical hardship and suffering and offers relief via his claim of a 'special annointing' by God.  He has bilked people out of millions of dollars and enriched himself, all at the expense of those whose faith is left shattered and their understanding of the gospel, thoroughly confused.

Empty Trains

The original Battle of Lynchburg lasted two days.  After the first day of fighting, trains could be heard throughout the night moving up and down the tracks.  The trains were empty but they gave a false impression to General Hunter and Union troops that the Confederates were receiving additional reinforcements.  Lynchburg citizens played their part in the charade by making much commotion with bugles, drums, and cheers.  After a second day of inconclusive fighting, Hunter was convinced that he was probably outnumbered and retreated at nightfall.

In the new Battle of Lynchburg, as well as the other various battles being fought across the spiritual landscape, we are in a much better position.  We don't have to depend on charades and empty trains.  Our trains are full.  They are full of believers who grasp the truth, just as they are firmly held and empowered by Him which is The Truth.

The question each of us must ask himself is this - am I willing to climb aboard for the battle?

Tale Bearing "from house to Howse" - Observations of a 'Perfect Storm' of Accusation

~ by Susan Stilley

I was warned by my husband a while back about radio host Brannon Howse for several reasons.  As someone who teaches at a seminary, one of his concerns is Brannon's misuse of Scripture.  The 'defense article' recently posted at WVW is a prime example.  Brannon dismisses criticism by likening himself to the elder in Paul's instruction to Timothy:  "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses."  (1 Timothy 5:19)  Over whom is Brannon Howse an elder?  He is not my elder.   He is not your elder.  The context of Paul's writing to Timothy is that of the local church, referring to those "elders who rule well" (verse 17).  Over whom does Mr. Howse believe he has a right to rule?  Has he simply ordained himself, 'Elder of Radio Land'??

I find it ironic that in this piece, he bemoans his 'persecution' by a nutty conspiracy theorist who sent him e-mails claiming Brannon was a secret Jesuit and/or Mason due to the color of Brannon's tie and a fleur de lis on his lamp. (This same person or one of his ilk can be found in the comment section).  Isn't it PRECISELY this kind of over-the-top conspiracy theories which was at the root of the recent blow-up with Christine Pack?

As I understand it, this flap between Pack, Howse and Chris Pinto (filmmaker and one of Brannon's ministry partners) really began with a simple photo.  Christine's friend, respected and seminary degreed Christian apologist  Marcia Montenegro posted a nighttime picture of the Washington Monument on her FB page.  She was told by a commenter that in so doing, Marcia was serving Satan (or something along those lines).  Understandably, Marcia took umbrage to the notion she was serving Satan.  Apparently, she has run into this attitude many times in the past as she lives around the Wash D.C. area and frequently posts scenic pics of the city and it's monuments.  The symbolism associated with the monuments are considered by some to originate with nefarious secret societies .  A few posts followed by both Montenegro and Christine Pack on the proper place of conspiracy theories in Christian discourse.  Some commenters brought up the name of filmmaker, Chris Pinto and his film, 'Riddles In Stone'.  I have enjoyed some of Pinto's work and I didn't view the discussion thread as demeaning to him or his work.  No one referred to him as a kooky conspiracy theorist.  There were actually compliments paid to Pinto, though there were some criticisms that there are pitfalls to an over-emphasis on certain conspiracy theories and symbols.  I found it to be a healthy discussion that actually deserves a wider hearing and further conversation.  How do we accurately represent real history in a way that does not lead to fear mongering and/or spin off into speculative theories?  Is it possible that Christians can obsess to the point they are better versed in supposed global networks (Bildebergs, Rothchilds, Illuminati, etc.) than they are in Scripture? 

It's a shame that Chris Pinto did not join in the discussion (he indicates now that he was aware of it going on) for I'm sure that Christine Pack would have welcomed his input.  I would have liked to have seen such a dialog take place, particularly in regard to our Christian witness.  That seemed to be of particular concern to both Pack and Montenegro.  I have been a Christian long enough to remember a host of faddish conspiracies that came and went.  At one time, urban legend had it that Procter & Gamble were placing satanic symbols on all their products.  What kind of credible witness was it to the world, when they watched well meaning, yet naive Christians checking their detergent boxes to make sure they weren't contributing to the devil's schemes?  As I have heard Pinto encourage that we should always place our trust in Christ and should not be fearful, I think he would have enhanced the discussion.  Incidentally, the commenters were comprised of both men and women.  Hardly the gaggle of gossipy tale-bearing women as Brannon has tried to frame it. 

Brannon is not interested in honest discourse on his program, website, or FB page.  He is interested in a fan club.  If you merely question a particular statement or teaching of one from his inner circle, you are 'attacking a Christian brother' and must be vanquished, either by deletion/blocking or ridicule on-air or online.  Yet I have heard him rail in the most incoherent manner toward others and he calls it, 'calling out false teachers'.   That is why his first reaction to Christine's thread is that she is 'attacking his ministry'.  


Not every disagreement is 'an attack'.  I have had disagreements with Christine Pack myself.  I think she is astute in many observations and she is studied in her specific field of apologetics where the New Age is concerned.  She also appears to be committed to studying from the works of the Reformers and great minds of the past.  I do think she has some gaps in her knowledge (as we all do) and she is sometimes prone to conclusion jumping.  But do you know what has happened at the times we have disagreed?  She and I have both 'manned up' so to speak and hashed out our differences, using Scripture and reason as we both best understand.  It's nothing personal.  She doesn't lament I am trying to 'tear down her ministry'.  We part ways on a friendly basis.  That is what God honoring people are supposed to do - we are to act like adults.  We should follow the example of Walter Martin when he described his frequent public debates with Hal Lindsey.  They would have heated, vigorous debates over eschatology and then go out together afterward for spaghetti.

In contrast, we have the childish response of Brannon Howse, who resorted to name calling and ad hominem attacks.  To claim that Christine is a bad wife, bad mother, and runs an ungodly household was quite beyond the pale and won him few points among his readers/listeners, both male and female.  He impugned a homeschooling mom 'where she lived' and he did so viciously.  But as Chris Pinto stated in his 8/19/13 podcast at NOTR, it is wrong to make accusations without proof.  Does Brannon Howse have demonstrable evidence for his claims?  Did he install a spy cam in the Pack family home?  Did he hire a private investigator to follow the Pack children around?  Are there photos that depict her kids running around with scissors, emaciated, shoeless, and playing in traffic?  The person who could provide reliable testimony on such matters is Christine's own husband, who came to his wife's defense on Brannon's FB page.  His comments which sought reconciliation with Howse were summarily deleted and blocked.  At this point, Brannon has deleted so many comments (anyone who disagrees, even Scripture quotations) that his threads are now incomprehensible.

Brannon's latest gambit is that this whole issue is about nothing more than 'female tale bearing' and women rejecting their God given roles.  I think astute observers recognize this as a red herring.  (Defined by Wikipedia as "a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic").  And a diversionary tactic is indeed necessary when the alternative is defending the credibility of William Schnoebelen, someone who appeared in Pinto's films, a man who claims he was once a VAMPIRE with retractable fangs!  A man who describes in ghoulish fashion in several hours of videotaped interview , how these fangs emerged when aroused and that his saliva secreted cocaine as a numbing agent for his victims when he sucked their blood.  And it gets worse, but I won't elaborate here.   

William Schnoebelen may well be a genuine Christian  but his fanciful stories indicate a troubled pathos and a misunderstanding of Scripture.  Jesus told his disciples before his ascension, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."  (Matt 28:18)  Jesus has ALL authority.  That means Satan does not have the authority to turn people into biological vampires or shape shifters/werewolves - another of Schnoebelen's claims. 

When Christine posted that interview, the question of credibility was firmly established.  This was the point where I felt that Howse wasn't doing Chris Pinto any favors.  Howse decided to really go after Christine, malign her character in the worst possible ways and back her into a corner.  What did he think she was going to do?  Just roll over?  His vicious insults insinuated that she was just 'gossiping and murmuring'.  Remember what this whole issue was originally about - conspiracy theories and the radical fringe.  She counters that she is not gossiping at all but that she has legitimate concerns.  What better way to prove her point than to produce in living youtube color, a Christian ex-Vampire who used to be a card carrying member of the Illuminati?  

At this point, I didn't think Chris Pinto's reputation was particularly harmed.  This isn't the first time a source has later proved to be rather questionable.  It happens all the time.  No one would have batted an eye if Pinto said simply,  "You know, at the time of the interview, my sources said the guy checked out.  If I knew then what I know now, I would have reconsidered using his testimony."

That would have been it.  I wouldn't have thought any less of Pinto; in fact I would have appreciated the honesty.  Unfortunately, Brannon influenced Pinto to follow his lead and continue to bash Christine with the 'feminine tale bearer' narrative/red herring in his Open Letter to Christine Pack as well as his NOTR podcast of 8/19.   He (along with Brannon who posted and affirmed Chris' Open Letter) also chose to double down in defense of Schnoebelen.  The problem is, no one cares if so and so vouched for Schnoebelen at a conference years ago, worked in the same ministry office, or endorsed his book.  I can listen to the man's testimony myself and arrive at my own conclusions.

Now Howse is backpedaling in his support of Schnoebelen.  He belatedly realized that putting himself in the awkward position of defending a supposedly reformed Vampire is not exactly a brilliant public relations strategy.  He deleted his own comments of affirmation of Schnoebelen from his own FB page.  He now proclaims he never even heard of the guy until last week.  Undoubtedly true, but herein illustrates one of the dangers of Howse - his tendency to launch off on some campaign or tirade about a person or situation of which he knows nothing! 

Howse still endorses Pinto's Open Letter which itself contains some curiosities.  Nowhere does Pinto address the centerpiece of the whole controversy as pertaining to Schnoebelen, which is the morbid, fantastical, hours long video testimony by the man himself.  That is the crux of the matter and Pinto doesn't go near it.  The closest he comes is mentioning "Bill’s book in which he confronts the cultural fascination with vampirism."  No, the gripe wasn't about Bill commenting upon the culture of vampires in some anthropological sense.  We're not talking, Dian Fossey studying the gorillas in the mist.  A closer parallel to Schnoebelen would be a person who believed he had once been an actual gorilla.

Instead, Pinto chose to focus on an article on Schnoebelen that Pack referenced which came from a pro-Mormon website.  That apparently was enough to cast Pack as someone who was in league with Joseph Smith.  But if Pinto wants to maintain that a tainted source cannot yield any accurate information, doesn't that throw his own position into jeapordy?  He posits that a man who claims to have had real, honest to goodness, retractable fangs and who claims the existence of real, honest to goodness, shape shifters - aka WEREWOLVES is nevertheless a plentiful source of accurate information on other matters, namely subjects for which Pinto interviewed him for his documentaries.  Pinto might very well be right about that, but he can't have it both ways.  He can't cry foul about Pack's use of a biased or shaky source without discrediting his own.  I for one would be dubious about extracting  useful information from an ex Vampire on anything related to his ex Vampire days - that is, anything related to the occult or to the spiritual realm.  On the other hand, I suppose I could employ an ex Vampire to mow my lawn or perhaps do my taxes.  But I would keep a sharp eye.

As an observer, it seems to me that several different factors contributed to create a 'perfect storm' leading to this public fracas.  Several weeks ago, a public debate was announced between Dr. James White and Chris Pinto regarding Biblical manuscript authenticity.  I have benefited from some of  Dr. White's teaching over the years and more recently, I have appreciated Pinto's work as well.  That's why I fail to understand the hostility which erupted on the internet, following the announcement.  People started 'choosing sides' and hurling insults.  This was strange in that both men appear to be devout and fairly close theologically.  Still, people started rooting for 'their guy' as if this were some grand competition. I'm not sure if the 'Team Chris' and 'Team James' t-shirts had gone to press yet, but they surely couldn't have been far behind as both men and women online behaved more like teen girls on their way to a 'Twilight' movie, rather than sober Christians. Apparently, Paul's admonishment in 1 Corinthians 3:3-4 was forgotten:  "For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?  For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human?"

Perhaps it was because of this already hostile backdrop, that Montenegro's unrelated post - an innocent tourist picture of the Washington Monument, ultimately created such waves.  Perhaps that is why an online conversation about the proper place of conspiracy theories and the Christian witness, prompted a select group of women to go running to Brannon Howse with tales of one of his ministry partners being slandered.  If there is a charge to be made in this whole sordid spectacle of 'busybodies going about from house to Howse', it seems that the charge should be leveled there.

I am hopeful that Chris Pinto, who seems to be a gracious man, will reconsider his rhetoric and his tone.  When you think about it, it's rather silly.  A group of men and women have an online discussion about a broad subject at which time the merits of a particular film is raised.  The filmmaker reacts by calling one of the women a 'tale bearer', a 'discredited fraud' and practically in cahoots with antichrist?  Doesn't this seem to be a wee bit over the top?

As for Brannon Howse, the seas have been churning at WVW for a while, leading to this kind of perfect storm.  Howse confuses 'protecting his brand' with 'protecting gospel truth'.  The two are not one and the same and any man who assumes such a thing is in a dangerous position.  It leads to inflated egos and little regard for others whom he slashes and burns.  Nowhere was this on display more than the two day rant he went on this past spring against Dr. Russell Moore, former dean of Southern Seminary and now President of the ERLC.  At the instigation of Randy White (a Texas Baptist pastor who esteems himself a 'prophecy expert'), both White and Howse went on a veritable witch hunt, charging Moore with being a dominionist/reconstructionist/communitarian.  It was clear Brannon was not familiar with Moore's long record of faithful gospel preaching and sound theological teaching.  He took Randy's word, which consisted of nothing more than a few lines wrenched out of context from a paper Moore wrote on the kingdom of God, and concluded Moore was an NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) proponent 'in a suit'. 

My husband and I were appalled by the misrepresentations which took on the nature of a free-for-all.  Randy White claimed to have a direct link between Moore and some of the liberal leanings coming out of Fuller Seminary.  His proof?  He cited the fact that Russell Moore is a great admirer of Andrew Fuller.  What Howse and White fail to understand is that Andrew Fuller was a Baptist minister, theologian and missionary who was born in the middle of the eighteenth century and had NOTHING to do with Fuller Seminary!  It was Charles Fuller who began Fuller Seminary in 1947 as a way of combatting neo-orthodoxy.  Talk about not doing your homework!

Of all the slander spewed, the worst had to be the suggestion that Dr. Moore's decision to adopt his two sons arose from a warped eschatology.  This was a particularly distasteful charge.  Further, a scant amount of research would have revealed that Dr. and Mrs. Moore's decision came about, initially, because of infertility.  Since that time, God has gifted Moore as an articulate spokesman on the Biblical view of adoption.

My husband made a respectful comment on Brannon's FB thread, hoping to correct some of the theological misrepresentations.  I sent Brannon a lengthy e-mail detailing more fully (but not exhaustively) the errors of the broadcasts and stating that I believe a public apology/correction was in order.  Brannon replied that he was more studied in these matters than I.  To date, I know of no public apology to Dr. Moore from either Brannon Howse or Randy White.  

Whether Howse has done sufficient damage control in this latest matter with Pack and Pinto, remains to be seen.  Howse has mentioned the fact that he has heard from so many women and my husband observed why that is not surprising.  When men become fed up with something, they just move on.  They don't write letters, they don't make phone calls.  I think it is very likely that many men who were aware of how this recent issue unfolded, simply checked the boxes - ad hominem attack, red herring, giving credibility to Vampires (yikes!), bullying, 'tale bearing' hypocrisy...and they have officially moved on.   

Brannon will no doubt be tempted to strike out against me for writing this.  He is a 'fighter' and that's what he does, but he needn't bother.  I have no empire to maintain.  No Situation Room coffers to keep filled.  I'm just a simple, stay at home mom with six children who is heeding her husband's advice to stay away from Howse and his influence.  There is far more edifying listening material available for those who seek to grow in spiritual truth.