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.
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.
