It has now been over three years since Grace Fellowship responded to the various blog articles I’ve written about them and the podcasts done through Apologetics Live that highlighted the abuses and distortions in their teaching. They responded using an unusual method. They created a fairly well-produced private video. It actually is a good strategy. They don’t open themselves up to scrutiny by someone like me, but they can send it to the appropriate people with questions about their ministry.
I have sought to proclaim the truth of what happened to us and many others during our time at GFC. For those who might be new, we spent nine years at the church under the “authority” of Mike Reid and the eldership of GFC. We came to see the abuses, domineering society, and cult behaviors of what parades itself as an orthodox Baptist, 1689, Reformed Church. I’ve written many articles on the topic, all available for scrutiny and criticism. I have nothing to hide. I also have the required two to three witnesses to bring the charges, followed by at least another hundred who would affirm my charges and concur that these things do occur.
Not everyone agrees with me, which is the point of this article, but first, I’ve noticed a new attempt at damage control by the GFC brain trust. I looked up the term damage control, and the best description is “measures taken to offset or minimize damage to reputation, credibility, or public image caused by a controversial act, remark, or revelation.”[1]
Having a good reputation is important. According to Paul, it is a qualification for the office of elder in a Christian Church. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil (1 Tim. 3:7).
There are several interesting points regarding this verse. A man’s reputation in church leadership matters to people outside the church community. He is expected to have a good reputation. He should be a good neighbor to those who live near him. He should be well thought of by those who hear of him, and all this predicts how he will behave inside the church and in his private life. He should be an upright and a stable man.
I have had more than my fair share of conversations regarding Grace Fellowship’s leadership and its principal leader, Mike Reid. One would be hard-pressed to find glowing reviews of his character among the non-believing and church communities. His reputation does not meet the requirements listed above, and his reputation does, indeed, precede him. I’ve made this argument before, along with several other qualifications mandated by the Apostle Paul. Will anyone see it within the GFC community? Unlikely.
This brings me to the main point: if your reputation is known (Proverbs 20:11), and Mike Reid’s reputation is well-known, you should improve your reputation somehow. Recently, they came up with an idea to write an article titled “In Case You Googled Us,” a friend told me they were showing up at certain college campuses. People would Google them and then confront them over their wacky behavior. Others we’ve known of had even mentioned they did Google searches, and the negative press was overwhelming. The article is well-written in its form, but it is distorted and inaccurate. Given the writing style, it leads me to believe it was written by Tony Miano, and since Tony doesn’t know all the details of our history at GFC, I can understand how he has been influenced to believe what he wrote. I wrote a response to set the record straight on one significant error, which continues to be repeated, as if telling a lie more often will make it so.
As a side note, much of this could be avoided by cleaning up the mess they’ve created rather than trying to whitewash it. However, the issue is that they can’t backtrack on their mistakes. That would show weakness, and the pride of their sins would have to be crushed. That’s not possible for them to admit. They can’t possibly go back and acknowledge the pain and misery they’ve caused to so many people.
The last point in trying to perform damage control is to improve your Google Review scores. Today, no matter where you are going, you probably check the reviews. These reviews are generally helpful. Most people want to give a fair analysis of their experiences, whether it be a restaurant or a church.
Let’s take a restaurant, for example. If I go to a place and receive good food and good service, it doesn’t mean the food is always good, but if you see enough reviews that indicate the restaurant is good, you can expect it to be good in most cases. Your odds are reasonable; this is a decent restaurant.
If you went to a church and enjoyed the service, experienced friendly people, and what you thought was a good sermon, it is a snapshot in time. It might be a good church, but it doesn’t mean it is. You’ve been given a glimpse of an unrealistic reality. If the people were nice, that doesn’t mean the people are always nice. It also doesn’t mean they aren’t. What you need is more information. What if that great restaurant you love has a bunch of health code violations or gave a bunch of people food poisoning? These may not show up on the review, but if you knew someone from the health department or someone from the health department contacted you to inform you, that might help change your mind.
A church review is different from a restaurant review. Churches mostly have the same people coming to them. GFC is a small church, so it doesn’t receive visitors that often. What happens when a new face comes into the building? Have you ever heard the term love-bombing? They put their best foot forward and go out of their way to welcome them, and they will probably be invited to lunch after the service so the pastor can ask them how they liked his sermon (no joke).
Can one or two visits be enough to get an accurate understanding of a place? Well, yes and no. When you see signs like love-bombing, you should be aware. It’s good to be friendly, but not too friendly. One way to bolster your rating is to have all the member of GFC write glowing reviews and that is what they have chosen to do. Every review on there is from members less two. .
Certainly, hospitality, friendliness, and open arms are part of what it means to be a church of the Lord Jesus Christ, but that does not mean anything more than being friendly and welcoming. You may get the same treatment at your neighborhood Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Friendliness is not an inoculation against error, authoritarianism, or dozens of other potentially damaging actions.
Lastly, if you want to improve your Google reviews, not only have all your members write really nice things about how great the church is but also remove any negative feedback. That is the strategy they have utilized. Drown out, ignore, or remove dissension, but no matter how hard you try to whitewash your reputation it has a nasty habit of following you wherever you go. The only positive reviews are from the indoctrinated, and if you read them, it will tell you a lot about what you might be in store for if you attended GFC. Lord, help them.
Sadly, GFC continues the path it has been on since Mike Reid became the pastor. By all intents and purposes, he is the Lord of the Flies, and GFC is his kingdom. Perhaps somewhere in his mind, he thinks he’s doing the right thing. Perhaps. However, it’s hard to believe he has missed all the people he has hurt down through the years. Jesus said, by their fruits, you will know them, and for Mike Reid, that fruit looks like it has been trampled and smashed, and I pray nobody else inadvertently stumbles into this place because of the fake reviews.
If you insist you are not a cult, there’s a good chance you are a cult. That’s precisely what Grace Fellowship has done in their most recent attempt at answering their critics. As one dear friend pointed out, “Thou dost protest too loudly?” Yes, that is precisely what thou dost. There is no need to go line by line (as they’ve said would be done). Each of the points in their article has been addressed many times, and they have been attested to by multiple witnesses. But just for fun, allow me to make one point.
Here is the quote from the GFC article:
For the first few years after all this commotion began, Grace Fellowship Church made earnest attempts to reach out privately to our accusers to attempt resolution. This included reaching out to former, excommunicated church members (and where applicable, the leadership of their current churches), as well as some of the internet meddlers. In more than one case, we’d even gone so far as to offer to fly pastors of other churches out to meet us—at our own expense—in order to sit down together and examine these matters (see 2LCF, Ch. 26, Par. 15). All such attempts have been rebuffed.
The background is important. I met with Mike Reid multiple times (four to be exact), followed up with an email to confirm my thoughts, and spoke with the elders on one other occasion about legalism and our growing discomfort with the church. Then we left. We left knowing it wasn’t going anywhere. That was obvious. It was apparent to me, my wife, and the countless others who had previously left the church.
We wrote our departure letter and then had a few written exchanges. Within a few days, we were excommunicated for leaving the church. For almost two years, we never publicly criticized them. We didn’t comment on Facebook, nor did I write blog articles naming them. However, I wrote a series on a book called, Churches That Abuse, here. We received more than our fair share of communication from Mike Reid. He sought to reconcile, and we said we would, but I had to understand what it was he was trying to reconcile. He would never say, so we didn’t meet. In July of 2019, we moved to New Mexico. September 30, 2019, I wrote the first article naming them, here. This was over a year and a half after we left.
They say all such attempts (at reconciliation) have been rebuffed.
On December 6th, 2018, I said this in an email.
Mike,
Jen and I have discussed your message, and we are willing to meet.
However, we are not certain we understand what you are wanting to discuss in our meeting. Before we agree to anything, can you please email and tell us what exactly you have in mind to address?
Kevin
He wouldn’t directly answer the question, so we declined.
I responded to him in an email with this: March 21st, 2021. This provides context as to just how long all this was going on. We sought on numerous occasions to meet with them, but it was always on their terms, and we would not have anything to do with standing in front of a firing squad.
According to your note, you have made an offer before to meet with the elders of Heritage and us. While this is true, you have failed to mention our offer to meet long before that. I’ve copied our email correspondence if there is any confusion about the time frame the last offer from us took place.
At the very top of the email chain (dated 07 Dec 2018), we offered to meet, and we asked you twice the purpose for our meeting in that text message exchange, but you evaded and avoided the question by continuing to repeat the statement “for my cause in the matter” which in no way indicates the purpose for our meeting. Additionally, we extended an offer previous to that exchange in a letter that I wrote to you (dated 05 Nov 2018), but we didn’t get your response.
I’ve attached both of these documents for all to examine, and I’ve highlighted (07 Dec 18) where I said we would meet or work toward reconciliation and peace; I count 5 or 6 offers in that one exchange. I also pointed out that we need to deal with the root cause of our leaving in that email exchange. I have highlighted some of those crucial elements in these correspondences.
According to your website, gfc still claims to be a Confessional Church, citing the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (gfc’s confession).
In chapter 26, paragraph 15 says this:
Paragraph 15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification (this applies to us as it relates to you); or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures (You censured us by excommunicating us causing injuring to our reputations and future) not agreeable to truth and order (It was an unbiblical excommunication): it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned;29 howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers. 29 Acts 15:2,4,6,22,23,25 30 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 John 4:1
While you have attempted to say that gfc must adjudicate, that is not what the confession teaches.
They have maligned and distorted the truth (some might say bald-faced lies) to suit their own needs more times than I could possibly count, and their whole “non-response” article is loaded with examples of this distortion. I’ve never known of churches to write up something like this, even the most cultish of the cults. Normal places don’t have to defend their practices and then insult others to build themselves up. I have been firm and pointed in my criticisms, that is for sure, but this response tells me they are exactly what they claim not to be (a cult). But I’ll allow those genuinely seeking both sides to decide for themselves. I’ve linked it here, but I’ve also copied the text below in case they ever remove it.
We recently compiled a list of over 100 names of those who have been spiritually or mentally damaged by Grace Fellowship’s leadership, there are more. These are real people who left the church under duress. We hope and pray they are now in healthy churches. GFC is not a healthy church.
If the leadership of GFC would go back and begin to clean up their messes and repent of their harshness and authoritarianism, to name a few, we would gladly meet with them to discuss all of these things. We would never go back into the lion’s den and stand in front of them all and allow them to abuse us some more. We continue to hope and pray that they will repent of their ways, get right with the people they have hurt, and most of all, get right with the Lord for the damage done to the body of Christ.
Lord have mercy on them.
Kevin
The Grace Fellowship Article – Titled: In Case You Googled Us, linked here: as well as copied below.
Start Here:
Dear Reader,
If you’re reading this page, there’s a pretty good chance that you’ve come across some of the content out on the web containing various accusations made against our church and its leadership over the last several years. It’s also possible that you’ve been visiting our church for a while, and you’ve been sought out via social media by a particular couple who were once members of our church, with the intent to discourage you or scare you away from associating with our church any further. Apparently, in the minds of some, we’re like a cult or something.
While it remains our principled position to limit our interaction with those who revile our church and spread false narratives, we thought it may be helpful to take the time to address a couple things for the benefit of the type of reader described above.
Why No Public Response?
First, we understand that to some folks the absence of a response from our church to these things over the years could be interpreted as some kind of tacit acknowledgement that the allegations are true, and we have no defense. From time to time, the question arises, “If all of these allegations are false, why doesn’t Grace Fellowship Church respond publicly to all these allegations to clear her name?”
The answer to this is very simple. We do not recognize the court of public opinion to have any authority or standing as relates to adjudicating the affairs of the church. Sadly, in the social media-frenzied age in which we live, the internet is filled with all types of trolls who sit at keyboards all day and think it’s their Christian duty to render an opinion about everything going on under the sun—including giving their opinion on matters of church discipline in churches across the country which they aren’t a part of, involving people whom they’ve never met, and facts that they are in no position to know. Many such people go on to become self-proclaimed “discernment bloggers” who make it their so-called ministry to go around sticking their nose into ecclesiastical affairs they have neither the authority nor the information to adjudicate. They are theological ambulance chasers, hoping to garner attention by “exposing” the evils of this or that church and “protecting God’s people from wolves.” In reality, however, such men don’t know the first thing about caring for God’s sheep or loving the church, and wouldn’t know what a wolf looked like if it was staring at them in the mirror. Truthfully, such men and/or women are nothing but meddlers and busybodies. The Bible has quite a bit to say about these kinds of people, and we would urge the reader to consider this (1 Tim. 5:13, 1 Thes. 4:11, 2 Thes. 3:11, 1 Pet. 4:15, Prov. 20:3, Lev. 19:16).
To summarize, we believe the Scriptures give pretty clear instructions that we are not to feed the trolls. So if you’re waiting for us to give a detailed defense concerning every false allegation, half-truth, twisted truth, one-sided narrative, or flat out lie that’s ever been brought up in a blog or on a podcast about us, we’re afraid you’re just going to have to keep on being disappointed. The internet at large is not owed an explanation or accounting for how a local church conducts its affairs. We maintain that God has given the authority and responsibility to each particular church congregation to adjudicate its own affairs in the fear of the Lord and in obedience to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 5:4-5, 6:1-4. See also 2LCF Ch. 26). Social media keyboard warriors don’t get a seat at the table here, no matter how badly they want it or think they deserve it. That isn’t how church discipline works (see Matt. 18:15-20).
In addition, for our church to offer up our side of the story in each of these cases would require publicly divulging personal details about the lives and conducts of the accusers, which would publicly expose their sins and cast them in a negative light. We are unwilling to do this, even despite their willingness to revile us. We will not return evil for evil in these matters (Rom. 12:17-21). So far as it depends on us, we prayerfully hold out hope in the Lord for reconciliation with the parties involved, and we are perfectly content to wait upon the Lord to do such a work.
As a Reformed Baptist church, we believe in the autonomy and authority of the local church. We believe in the authority of God’s Word. And we believe in the biblical models for conflict resolution, church discipline, and reconciliation. We continue to extend an open, outstretched hand to anyone willing to be reconciled to us, but this reconciliation will only come through the mediation and adjudication of the church, not podcast debates and blog wars.
Judging a Matter
Second, while we won’t be publishing any sort of response to any of the specific allegations found online concerning our church, we would encourage you to remember that the Bible gives several cautions about judging a matter based on one side of a story (Prov. 18:13, 17, Deut. 13:14). Simply put, dear reader, don’t be so naive as to believe everything you hear or read on the internet. We would invite you to learn about our church and our doctrines by visiting with us, personally, rather than by listening to chopped up, out-of-context audio clips of our pastor pieced together by strangers on the other side of the country, or by listening to long hours of podcasts put together by discernment bloggers giving platform to the grossly exaggerated, one-sided narratives of former members with an obsessive hatred against us. If you think you’re getting an unbiased view of the facts from these sources, then we know a Nigerian prince who would like to talk to you about an inheritance coming your way.
Why Now?
After remaining publicly silent about these things for years, some may be wondering why we’ve chosen now as the time to say something. You may also be wondering why you’re detecting a slight touch of sarcasm as you read this.
For the first few years after all this commotion began, Grace Fellowship Church made earnest attempts to reach out privately to our accusers to attempt resolution. This included reaching out to former, excommunicated church members (and where applicable, the leadership of their current churches), as well as some of the internet meddlers. In more than one case, we’d even gone so far as to offer to fly pastors of other churches out to meet us—at our own expense—in order to sit down together and examine these matters (see 2LCF, Ch. 26, Par. 15). All such attempts have been rebuffed. It’s clear to us that our accusers are only interested in duking it out in a social media cage match, and will entertain no other outcome than the immediate dismemberment and disbanding of our church.
Perhaps most alarming is the stunning disregard for biblical ecclesiology exhibited by self-promoting internet “pastors” who honestly believe they have the authority to lord over a church hundreds of miles away on the basis of hearsay. We confess boldly in the Lord that such men ought to be ashamed of themselves.
While our initial disposition was to sincerely, soberly and prayerfully attempt to engage with our accusers, their long track record of hard-hearted indifference for the damage they are doing to the bride of Christ has left us with no reason to take them seriously, and we’ve resolved to obey the apostle’s command to give them no further attention (Tit. 3:10-11). And frankly, the Lord has taught us to laugh a little. He who sits in the heavens laughs at the schemes of the wicked (Ps. 2:4), and we’ve come to learn that sharing in His humor is sometimes the best thing for our souls. While our hearts remain filled with sorrow over the hard realities of persecution and grievous division in Christ’s church, we are confident that the Lord continues to build His church, and His great promise that the gates of hell will not overcome it causes us to remain as cheerful as ever (Matt. 16:18).
Unfortunately, due to our church’s relatively low internet presence (we have a pretty bland website that rarely gets updated, and we aren’t active on social media), our revilers have been able to do such a bang up job in producing and promoting content against our church that their stuff tends to come up front and center whenever someone Googles our church. We have to give credit where credit is due here. They have soundly beaten us in the SEO game, which means whether we like it or not, visitors and prospective members tend to stumble into this mud regularly, so we have to keep dealing with it.
In fact, we fully anticipate that even this very writing will be received by our revilers as blood in the water. As soon as they pick up the scent, we expect them to waste no time pouncing on this article, carefully analyzing every word to see what they might use against us. But this does not surprise or dishearten us. It’s the sort of behavior the Scriptures teach us to expect. When Paul warned the Ephesian elders that there would be wolves, he was sure to emphasize that they would be the grievous, savage type (Acts 20:29), not the kind you’d find in a Disney movie. But this article isn’t written for them. Our hope is that this writing might offer the judicious Googler a little insight into our perspective before forming an opinion about us.
Okay, but Seriously, How Weird are You People?
One of the overarching allegations about our church is that we’re “cultish.” Supposedly we’re all being led astray by a horrible, villainous pastor who rules the church with an iron fist and micromanages every aspect of the personal lives of every congregant. Frankly, as a congregation, we hold these assertions to be—if we may speak so plainly—pretty dumb. We’re certainly prepared to grant that our church is a little weird, but only because we’re black coffee Calvinists, and we still use paper hymnals (campaigns to convince the elders to move to a 1990’s overhead projector have thus far been unsuccessful, but we’re slowly grinding them down).
In seriousness, we at Grace Fellowship Church take the gospel and the doctrine of the church very seriously, and we do so in an age where these truths are being greatly assaulted even within many evangelical circles. To many Christians, church is a thing you go to on Sunday when you feel like it, rather than something you’re a vital member of (1 Cor. 12:27). To many Christians, being a member of the body of Christ is an ethereal concept, rather than a reality to be lived out in the context of a real life congregation. Many Christians are largely unknown in the churches they attend. Many have never even met the men whom they consider to be their pastors.
We believe this ought not be so. We take seriously God’s design for individual Christians to be joined to particular churches, to be in fellowship with particular brothers and sisters, and under the pastoral care of particular men appointed by the church as elders. We believe no Christian is meant to live their life in anonymity or seclusion apart from the love, nurture, and fellowship of the local church (Acts 2:41-47, 14:23, 20:28, Rom. 12:4-5, Col. 3:16, Heb. 10:24-25, 13:17).
The difficult thing about real fellowship is that it involves being close enough to people to sin against them and be sinned against. It also means having our own sins exposed. This indeed can be uncomfortable, but we hold that it is simply God’s good design for the continued growth and sanctification of the Christian, as we live out the Christian life together, and God continues his good work of transforming each of us more and more into the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29). The New Testament is filled with exhortations for Christians to forgive one another (Eph. 4:32), bear with one another in love (Col. 3:13), bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), to strive for unity (Phil. 1:27), etc. All of these commands presuppose that we’re going to be up in each others’ grill sometimes. And we say, “Amen” to all of it.
If this sounds cultish to you, then we’re happy to be guilty as charged. But in a world where church life has been largely relegated to a Sunday morning TED Talk, you’ll have to forgive us if we don’t take the charge too seriously. Besides, there are plenty of other Reformed Baptist and even Presbyterian churches with whom we fraternize that receive the same kinds of insults, and we’re pretty content to consider ourselves to be in good company (1 Pet. 5:9).
Fear Not the Chained Lions
In his classic work, The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan paints a brilliant allegorical picture of the Christian life. One scene in the book has to do with the Christian coming into the church. Following his conversion, Christian (the main character) finds himself ascending a hill called Difficulty. At the top of the hill is a palace called Beautiful (representing the church). As Christian comes to enter the great house, he is met by two lions blocking the way.
“. . .[Christian] made haste and went forward, that if possible he might get lodging there. Now, before he had gone far, he entered into a very narrow passage, which was about a furlong off the porter’s lodge; and looking very narrowly before him as he went, he espied two lions in the way. Now, thought he, I see the dangers that Mistrust and Timorous were driven back by. (The lions were chained, but he saw not the chains.) Then he was afraid, and thought also himself to go back after them, for he thought nothing but death was before him. . . “
Readers have long wondered what exactly Bunyan meant to represent by the imagery of the two lions. Many believe that these represented the powers of civil government and the state church which, in Bunyan’s day, were persecuting Christians to discourage them from joining local churches not sanctioned by the Church of England. Regardless of the specific interpretation, what we know for sure is that these lions represent forces which serve to discourage Christians from joining themselves to Christ’s church. These lions served to scare travelers from going any further, and instead to force them to go back.
Sadly, we observe that many such lions exist in the world. There are many people—professing Christians, even—who make it their aim to stop people from venturing into the safety and nurture of a local church. Some of these lions come in the form of arrogant internet trolls like the ones we described above. Some of them come in the form of former church members or apostate Christians who through their unbelief and hard-heartedness have given themselves to such disgruntledness that they now make it their life’s work to oppose and ridicule the churches they once called home. Our church is hardly the first to endure this kind of thing, and we won’t be the last.
So we’d leave the reader with this encouragement, from what came next in the story:
“But the porter at the lodge, whose name is Watchful, perceiving that Christian made a halt as if he would go back, cried unto him, saying, “Is your strength so small?” Fear not the lions, for they are chained, and are placed there for trial of faith where it is, and for discovery of those that had none. Keep in the midst of the path, no hurt shall come unto you.”
Whether you end up deciding to visit our church or not, we exhort you in the Lord not to be scared by the lions. Trust in Christ, and join yourself to a local church. Your soul needs it. Don’t let the internet trolls rob you of the nourishment and grace God has for you through the means of the local church.
The Lord hates a false witness who breathes out lies, and the one who sows discord among brothers (Prov. 6:19). We continue to pray fervently that those who strive to tear apart the body of Christ will be granted repentance. The Husband will not fail to avenge every offense committed against His beloved Bride. Let those who fear the Lord take heed and tremble.
May the Lord Jesus Christ be glorified through the sanctifying of His people. May His churches be filled. May the earth be filled with the knowledge of His glory as the waters cover the seas.
May the Lord bless you.
Warmly and Sincerely, The Members of Grace Fellowship Church
The growth of Reformed Theology in the last two or three decades has profoundly impacted Christianity today. It has been positive in some respects, but there are also negative aspects. The movement has also ushered in a resurgence of cessationist[1] views. This paper will provide an overview of the two primary views on miraculous gifts: continuationism and cessationism. Each view will be examined from the primary passage, 1 Corinthians 13:8—10, seeking to understand and explain how these viewpoints reach their conclusions. Based on the supporting biblical texts, each position will be fleshed out and evaluated for strengths and weaknesses.
Moreover, an alternative position will be argued for, most adherents of which are not firmly in either the continuationist or cessationist camp. This position is open to the possibility that miraculous gifts still occur in unique and special circumstances. Seeking to engage with the different viewpoints of the arguments will allow the reader to form biblically based decisions. Additionally, this paper will present and examine some arguments of prominent theologians with differing views on the topic at hand and seek to understand how each argues for their preferred position.
[1] Cessation is derived from the word ceased, indicating that spiritual gifts no longer operate as described in the New Testament. Continuation means the gifts are still operable in a normative sense. Additionally, there is an issue regarding canon and whether revelation has ceased and is firmly established in the books of the Bible, with no further revelation being authoritative.
Continuationism
How should a believer in the 21st century view the continuation of the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament? This is not an easy question to answer. First of all, what are the gifts being referenced? The New Testament contains many examples of gifts. For example, in Romans 12:6—8, Paul mentions prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, generosity, leadership, and mercy. Paul dives a little deeper into 1 Corinthians 12:1—11, introducing gifts of the miraculous kind, healing, working of miracles, prophecy, distinguishing spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. The website GotQuestions.org offers a succinct definition of continuationism:
Continuationism is the belief that all the spiritual gifts, including healings, tongues, and miracles, are still in operation today, just as they were in the days of the early church. A continuationist believes that the spiritual gifts have “continued” unabated since the Day of Pentecost and that today’s church has access to all the spiritual gifts mentioned in the Bible.[1]
Much of the debate involves the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:10, “But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.”[2] More attention will be given to the verse and the various interpretations, but in the parlance of the continuationist movement, “the perfect” comes at the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, anything listed as a miraculous gift is still active worldwide. Wayne Grudem comes to this conclusion.[3] Grudem states, “1 Corinthians 13:10, therefore, refers to the time of Christ’s return and says that these spiritual gifts will last among believers until that time. This means that we have a clear biblical statement that Paul expects these gifts to continue through the entire church age and to function for the benefit of the church until the Lord returns.”[4]
Grudem further clarifies his position regarding “the perfect” coming. He says:
The main point of the passage may well be that love lasts forever, but another point, and certainly an important one as well, is that verse 10 affirms not just that these imperfect gifts will cease sometime, but that they will cease ‘when the perfect comes.’ Paul specifies a certain time: ‘When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.’[5]
John Piper indicates that prophecy and tongues will continue until Christ returns. He points out verse 9, “…as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues they will cease…,” and he comes to this conclusion, “So this text is a pretty clear argument, I think, that the gift of prophecy and tongues will continue until Jesus comes back.”[6] Piper has also stated that he desires the gift of speaking in tongues but has never done so other than attempting to will himself to do it, and he feels as though his approach was not genuine.[7]
Gordon Fee is a well-respected New Testament scholar and formerly a professor at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, and an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God denomination. Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians is considered one of the best studies of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Fee agrees with Grudem that verse 10 refers to the end of the age. He says, “Thus the basic verb chosen to describe the temporal, transitory nature of the charismata is an eschatological one, used elsewhere in the letter to refer to the ‘passing away’ of what belongs merely to the present age.”[8] Fee argues that the verb choice recurs in the following sentence and that the contrasting nature has to do with eschatology and not with maturity, which is one of the competing interpretations. What that means, in short, is that the perfect coming could mean the church matures enough that the gifts pass away. Fee is clear in his assessment and understands this is not a consistent exegesis of the text.
The continuationist position hinges on this understanding of the perfect coming, which is the return of Christ at the end of the age. They provide convincing arguments that the continuation of the gifts flows naturally with the plain reading of the text and an understanding of the gifts being linked to the eschaton. Fee is also careful to identify the significance of the gifts as edifying to the church community. In his footnote speaking about prophecies, he states, “Not because it is superior to any of the others, but because it is representative of intelligible utterances, which can edify, in contrast to uninterpreted tongues, which cannot.”[9] Here is an important distinction in properly understanding charismatic gifts compared to some wild abuses of extreme Pentecostalism.
Cessationism
The second viewpoint to examine is that of cessationism. Cessationism is the belief that the miraculous gifts of prophecy, healing, and tongues have ceased at the end of the apostolic age. The Cessationist argues from the same passage as the continuationist but with a different emphasis. Rather than the focus being 1 Corinthians 13:10, the emphasis includes verse 8b, “As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.” Given the previous commentary by Gordon Fee, verse 10 completes Paul’s thoughts on verses 8 and 9, thus contextualizing the passage and offering a valid argument that to claim verse 8 as proof of cessationism would qualify as proof-texting or using it out of context.
The cessationist position seeks to offer additional proof of why these gifts have ceased.[1] It is important to contextualize the immediate and the whole letter to the Corinthians. What did Paul desire these saints to understand? 1 Corinthians 14, verses 1 through 3 confirm the gift of prophesying is more beneficial than speaking in a tongue. It is designed to encourage and build up the church rather than edify the speaker. This indicates a progression of the gifts. As the New Testament progresses, the topic of tongues and healing, particularly, ceases to be discussed. Paul does not mention the office of healing or tongue speaking in the pastoral epistles. However, he does highlight the office of pastor/elder and preacher. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Tom Schreiner writes,
The purpose in context is clear: the period of childhood is compared to this present age, this present era, when spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues and knowledge are needed. Paul does not demean these gifts in comparing them to childhood, but he does put a temporal limit on them. Just as the days of childhood are temporary, so are the gifts God has given the church.[2]
At this point, briefly discussing the gift of prophecy is important. The gift of prophesying in the Old Testament was one of the ways God communicated His truth to the world. He had chosen men who spoke with authority, and there were distinct ways to measure the validity of their message; these men spoke, “thus saith the Lord,” and that was to be taken as the Word of God. False prophets were subject to death, “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die” (Deut. 18:20). New Testament prophesying is speaking the canonized Word of God to edify and build up the people of God. The book of Hebrews opens its pages with these words: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Hebrews 1:1—2). Here, it shows a turning point: the Lord Jesus Christ is the last prophet, the final word and the prophets have passed, but speaking the inscripturated words of God is still an active and important element of the Christian faith.
Like other doctrines in the Bible, cessationists appeal to multiple scriptural references and church history. Writing an article on cessationism and a response to Sam Storms continuationist views, Pastor Josh Buice says this,
As a cessationist, I’m quite aware of the fact that no Bible verse can be supplied that states “all of the apostolic gifts will cease.” Just as the doctrine of the Trinity is supplied through progressive revelation, so is the doctrine of cessationism. As we read the Scriptures, progressive revelation makes it known that some gifts do cease because they were given for a specific time period and purpose in redemptive history. The office of the prophet has ceased and the gift of the apostle is no longer given to the church in our day, as Paul clearly stated that he was the last of the apostles (1 Cor 15:8).[3]
If the canon is closed and prophecy has ceased, then it is possible that the other miraculous gifts, such as tongues, knowledge, and miraculous healings, have also ceased. In addition, it is important to note the difference between the ordinary use of these gifts and the extraordinary gifts, which will be discussed in the next section. If the gift of healing, as described in Acts by Peter and Paul, were still in place, hospitals would likely be emptied of their patients. What kind of a faith healer would not desire to see a children’s hospital void of sick children? The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith states clearly, “The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible standard of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”[4] If the confession is true, then further revelation is unnecessary. Since the gift of prophesying is classified under preaching it is still relevant and necessary for the New Testament church.
Lastly, the cessationists’ argument appeals to church history as evidence these gifts are no longer commonplace. There are opposing views to this claim, notably by Sam Storms, who has written the gifts “were most decidedly not absent. They were at times less prevalent, but the same could be said about the presence of signs, wonders and miracles in biblical history as well.”[5] While Dr. Storms makes an interesting point, one would wonder how a decline in these gifts and a resurgence of the gifts in the early 20th century are intertwined. In the 2nd Century, the Montanists claimed they possessed the gift of prophecy and spoke in an ecstatic babble, similar to modern-day tongues speakers. One of the most famous Montanists was Tertullian. The Reformation period saw its own version with Zwickau prophets, and in the latter 17th Century, the Huguenots and then later the Quakers all used the ecstatic glossolalia[6] to receive a word from God.
The biggest revival of the modern Pentecostal movement began in Topeka, Kansas, in 1900, by Charles Parham, the founder of Bethel Bible College. Parham was an itinerant evangelist and faith healer. He asked his students to read the book of Acts and answer, “What is the biblical evidence of the Holy Ghost?” They overwhelmingly agreed it was speaking in tongues and quickly spread through the school. Other movements, such as the Azusa Street Revival, caused Pentecostalism to grow quickly, but like all movements, they encountered internal problems resulting in factions. Whether the ongoing work of miraculous gifts was truly miraculous through the post-apostolic era is probably in the eye of the beholder. Still, for cessationists there are real doubts about the validity of some of the movements.
There appear to be reasonable arguments from both camps that can confuse those seeking to form a doctrinal position, so where would one land if they are not fully convinced of either position? Is there another place to provide for the possibility of some of the miraculous gifts without violating the Scriptures? With that, there is an open but cautious position.
Cautious
Is it essential for Christianity to have firm views on the above positions? Or is it possible to maintain a middle-of-the-road perspective because of uncertainty? This third perspective explores that question. It is important to understand that doubts are not sinful, nor does it mean one is weak on theological convictions. Given testimonies of unusual events through the years of miraculous occurrences must be explained as demonic activity or a work of God. While it is imperative not to believe every spirit but to test them (John 4:1), is it possible that the Spirit of God continues to work in miraculous and unusual ways? Cessationism, in all fairness, does not prohibit miraculous works; the position merely articulates they are not commonplace, nor are they done in the same way they were performed by Jesus and the Apostles.
The third position provides an opportunity for those not residing firmly in either camp. When unexplained miraculous events are attested to, how should Christians receive this testimony? As 1 John 4:1 indicates, they must be tested. John Calvin offers sound advice:
But the Spirit prescribes an altogether different way: that believers be watchful not to accept any doctrine lightly and without judgment. We should be careful not to be offended by the variety of opinion in the church; we should rather discriminate between teachers, with the Word of God as our only norm. It is enough to make it our rule not to listen indiscriminately to everyone that comes along.[1]
A Christian must judge these situations and discern the legitimacy of claims to healings, tongues, and miracles. However, it is difficult to dismiss the many testimonies describing miraculous events. A more recent phenomenon in the past couple of decades has been dreams and visions in the Muslim world. These accounts claim they are visited by the Lord Jesus Christ in a dream. Since the canon is closed, most cessationists will claim no further need for special revelation.[2] However, the biblical accounts are replete with God appearing in theophanies or dreams. (Gen. 3:18, 18:1, Ex. 3:1—4, Gen. 28:12, Gen. 15:1, Ez. 8:3—4) Dreams and visions are also seen in the New Testament (Luke 1:5—23, Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 27:10, Acts 9:10, 10:1—6, 10:9—15, 16:9—10, 18:9—11, and 2 Cor. 12:1—6).
How does the topic of the canonical text play into dreams and visions from either the Old or the New Testament? And since the canon had not yet been inscripturated, what is the relationship? Cessationists will argue that since the canon is now complete, there is no further need for revelation, which is a reasonable position to take. However, what about places where access to the Scriptures is limited or not yet translated, such as Middle Eastern and heavily Muslim countries? Pastor Tom Doyle spent eleven years as a full-time missionary in the Middle East and Central Asia. He has experienced and recounted many stories of the Lord Jesus Christ appearing to Muslim people in his book, and he writes, “Each of their stories is really His story. Jesus wants you to know what He’s doing and to appreciate the power by which He still works today…. The stories in this book are about real people I know personally or are known by my family’s closest friends in the Middle East. If we couldn’t verify the experience, we left it out -no Christian fairy tales here.”[3]
The stories in Doyle’s book are compelling and gripping. If they have no valid connection to the New Testament Jesus, they should be dismissed. But Fatima’s story confirms the dreams through a hunger and thirst to read about Christ on the pages of the Bible. Doyle recounts Fatima’s story:
And it seemed that every day she met yet another person who had dreamed about this Jesus. Each one recounted a powerful, gentle Person who overwhelmed him or her, not with unendurable shame as the Muslim leaders did, but with a pure love that reached deep inside. This idea of a loving God is what astounded her. One friend described him as a shepherd watching over and caring for His sheep. Fatima’s soul ached for such an experience of belonging and acceptance.For months, the young woman pored over the New Testament online and saw for herself the glorious love of Jesus for His disciples. He was irresistible, and one night she bowed in obedience to His call on her life.[4]
Fatima would not have had easy access to the Bible as those living in the West would. So given the limited abilities, why would it be impossible to reach these people by way of a dream, vision, or theophany? While this is not considered the normal mode of gospel transmission, denying the countless stories of such occurrences is difficult.
The topic of tongues, as seen in the book of Acts, has also been attested to by witnesses that confirm missionaries going to people groups and not knowing the language but being able to miraculously speak in a foreign tongue without any training. While cautious, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones believes the gift of speaking in tongues continues. He qualifies that these gifts occur only as the Spirit moves upon a person, not at will, and if ever to be done publicly, they require interpretation.[5]
Conclusion
It is often difficult to reconcile the practices that commonly occurred in the times of the early church or the Old Testament. While caution should be the day’s rule, the miraculous gifts’ continuation must be critiqued and evaluated. These should never be assumed, but neither should they be denied or taken as a deceptive tool of the enemy. Whether it is appropriate to accept them as orthodox is another question and one not always easily answered.
God has not left the world without direction. These directions are complete in the Old and the New Testaments. However, this does not authoritatively declare God cannot work through other means. Although these means are rare, they are not impossible. There are good people on both sides of this discussion, and there are good people who have not made firm decisions, and in it lies an opportunity for increased love for those who disagree. The cross and the gospel are the central themes of God’s design to bring glory to Himself and reconcile sinful man. God has declared the answer, which is found in the work and person of Jesus Christ. May the Lord provide clarity, wisdom, and discernment for those seeking His glory.
Schreiner, Thomas R. 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Eckhard J. Schnabel, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018.
[2] Special revelation is a way God reveals Himself using miraculous means. These can include dreams, visions, the written Word of God or through Christ Himself, such as Hebrews 1:1—3 proclaims.
[3] Tom Doyle and Greg Webster, Dreams and Visions: Is Jesus Awakening the Muslim World? (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2012). xiv.
[1] It is noteworthy that this paper only discusses the continuation and cessation of the miraculous gifts. There is also considerable debate about the cessation of revelation. From this paper and this writer’s perspective, it is important to note that without the cessation of special revelation, it would be difficult to establish objective truth through God’s Word, knowing that it is subject to change. Theologians like Wayne Grudem offer explanations about the New Testament that space limits our exploration, but holding fast to the Word of God as complete is crucial to establishing the Bible as the final authority on all matters of faith and life. See Chapter 53, Systematic Theology by Grudem.
[6] Eerdmans Bible Dictionary states the erratic speech of “glossolalia” is not an actual human language, not to be understood in those terms, but directed toward God, and is referred to as “tongues of men and angels” (1 Cor. 13:1) by the Apostle Paul. Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 1011.
[2] All Bible translations are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
[3] Grudem gives three reasons for his continuing view of miraculous gifts. 1. He says verse 12 determines the context of verse 10 as the time of the Lord’s return, as we shall see Him clearly, as face to face. 2. Paul is emphasizing the greatness of love, “To prove his point he argues that it will last beyond the time when the Lord returns, unlike present spiritual gifts. This makes a convincing argument: love is fundamental to God’s plan….” 3. Grudem interprets 1 Corinthians 1:7 as Paul tying the possession of spiritual gifts to the activity of waiting for the Lord’s return.
Most people don’t think much about decorum, but in the world we live in, it is a lost art. The Cambridge Dictionary defines decorum as controlled, calm, and polite behavior. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we no longer live in a world that is controlled, calm, or polite. There is a modicum of decorum in certain circumstances, but in general, society has degenerated to baseness. Baseness is the state or quality of being dishonorable, cowardly, selfish, or mean-spirited; morally despicable character.
What in the world draws me to this conclusion? Am I being overly critical of society or holding people to a standard I have no business or expectation of having? I suppose so on some level that is true, but it seems to me that society has degenerated so quickly that many don’t even know what it’s like to maintain a social standard or mores. Allow me to illustrate my point from today.
Today is Thursday, and it’s the day my wife and I spend time together. It so happened that we took the kids to school together, and then I had to take her to get a loaner vehicle as her car needed some repairs. In the line for school drop-off, we were sitting behind a truck, and the license plate said something not worth repeating but having a sexual reference. Our elementary-age children are in a Christian school, mind you. Jen had to look up the reference, and it started a conversation between us talking about how people don’t even hide their depravity anymore.
The second instance happened as we were driving to our destination, and a commercial painting van was driving beside us, it had a sticker on the window that said, “For tailgaters: 1. Either go around or 2. Go to Hell.” It just so happens that we know this company; they painted our home before we moved to New Mexico, and we found out about the company from the church we attended. If I’m a business owner, I don’t want that on my vehicle, period. But if I’m a Christian business owner I couldn’t imagine allowing such a thing, assuming he knew of it.
The third instance involved a woman’s t-shirt where we went for coffee. It said, “F*$&! that Guy.” The woman was standing there talking with some people at a very upscale type of place as if it was no big deal to wear such a shirt. Of course, it’s not the only time I’ve seen these shirts with gross profanity in plain sight for any children that might walk past. I can only assume she is referring to a former president, or perhaps even a current one, but who knows for sure.
I look around, and I try to view things around me through the lens of a Christian Worldview. Since I’m a Christian we have a standard to live by. We don’t get to say whatever comes to our mind or do whatever we want to do. Paul told the Ephesians to let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths… (Eph. 4:29). To say that society has downgraded is an understatement.
As we left there was a vehicle in the parking lot that had a sticker that said, “I Hope Something Good Happens To You Today.” We drove away and said, that’s a message I can endorse and agree.
As a Christian, I have an opportunity to be different. To stand out as a light in a dark place. I’ll tell you, I’m not always so good at it. But I sure want to try to stand out. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of Christ and the gospel. Lord, help us to offer the hope of salvation in a sin-filled world. A world that no politician is going to save, only the work of Christ.
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with malice (Ephesians 4:31).
Over the years I have been accused of slander. While I have no doubt those who accuse me of such a thing are searching for a way to discredit me because I’ve said a lot of things about them. What I’ve said has been pointed and sharp. I’ve been critical and used a serrated edge in many instances, but slander is a whole different thing. Actually, since I’ve written most of these things, technically, it’s called libel, but that seems to be splitting hairs, at least from my point of view. I have written hard things about them, that is for sure. They don’t like it, that’s also for sure. In one case, they disliked it so much that they wrote the elders asking them to ask me to stop. To the credit of these elders, they investigated and replied that they didn’t believe I had done anything wrong and told us to obey our conscience.
The issue of slander is real in the church. There are people who say things or write things about others that are not true, or the truth is distorted. That might be what my accusers think, I don’t know for sure. We haven’t discussed it. No matter, they don’t appreciate it. The New Testament contains the word slander ten times. It’s a tough word. I don’t mean the word is hard to say, it’s something that can do real damage to people.
In the verse above, Paul tells the Christians in Ephesus that they need to put away these things. They all go together. Bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, slander, and malice. I don’t have to define each of these words for you, most of us have a good idea what they mean. But often slander, in most people’s minds, is saying mean things about someone. That is partially true, especially from the other person’s perspective.
The definition of slander is speech injurious to someone’s good name. It is effectually designed to tear down and hurt them, but the clincher is the statements are untrue.
Here is a helpful definition from the Pocket Dictionary of Ethics,
The act of uttering false statements, or disseminating misinformation, for the purpose of defaming or injuring the reputation of another person. Technically, slander occurs when the defamatory statement is articulated in a transient form such as audible speech. When the form is more permanent, such as in writing or a public broadcast, it becomes libel, and thus potentially a criminal offense.[1]
The Catholic Encyclopedia adds that it is known the person is innocent.
Slander is the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent. It contains a twofold malice, that which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor’s good name and that of lying as well. [2]
The warning here, and especially from Scripture, is that it is hurtful and sinful. The warnings are abundant, and Jesus says it comes from the heart (Matt. 15:19, Mark 7:22).
I wrote this in a previous article that I think outlines my point. If I said or wrote that someone was a bank robber and my intent was to harm their reputation, knowing it wasn’t true, that would qualify as slander or libel. However, if I wrote or said they were a bank robber and they had been arrested, tried, and convicted of being a bank robber, that is not slander or libel. In no way do I intend to say something untrue about them to injure them.
With the case in point, as it relates to those I’ve been accused of slandering, it is my opinion, backed up by my experience, and the facts that I have stated these people are what I’ve claimed. For example, I’ve written a lengthy article on why I believe Mike Reid and the elders of Grace Fellowship are disqualified from ministry. This is not just my opinion. It is backed up by the things I stated above. My experience, the facts, and other eyewitnesses. I have no desire to defend myself to them, that is a lost cause, but what I wish to do is make a point made by Andrew Rappaport in one of the podcasts I participated. He said, if those making the accusation of slander cannot provide the evidence of slander, then they are the one slandering. In other words, if Mike Reid claims I’m slandering him, and he does, he needs to show me where I’ve done so. If he can’t, or he won’t, then he is slandering me.
I have abundant evidence of their claim of my slander. I’d like to know where I’ve slandered them. I believe I can provide evidence of every claim I’ve made that is derogatory about them, and that is a long list. It is a list attested to by many witnesses. It’s not an off-the-cuff thing, like he is a bank robber. I take my Christianity seriously, and I don’t want to willingly slander anyone. What I know is the practices and the things that occur at Grace Fellowship are damaging to people. Countless people. And with no end in sight. If Mike wants to believe that is slander he is welcome to think that, but I think I have plenty of evidence to support my case. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but I expect I won’t.
Kevin Jandt
[1] Stanley J. Grenz and Jay T. Smith, Pocket Dictionary of Ethics, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 109.
[2] Joseph Delany, “Slander,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church, ed. Charles G. Herbermann et al. (New York: The Encyclopedia Press; The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1907–1913).
Uncommon Faith 