Televisiongate: We Killed, then Changed

Televisiongate: We Killed, then Changed 

            I am 45, so I remember well the video and television wars of the 1990s and early 2000s. In so-called conservative Apostolic circles, we were terrorizing the television watchers; not just the television watchers, but the home movie watchers. We were preaching against taking videos of birthdays and weddings. And we were certainly preaching against using video for church services. 

             But it’s even worse than that. We were not just preaching against TV as a matter of a local church standard or a personal preference; we were disfellowshipping preachers, pastors, and churches who did not align with us. In Tulsa, circa 1999, a preacher with the passion a Pentecostal can portray proclaimed that if you permit video, then “you are not my brother.” This scenario could be replayed many times over in many conferences all over America. Not only did we disfellowship them personally, but we also demanded that everyone else disfellowship him as well. 

            If you had anyone preach for you that used video, then we boycotted conferences at your church. I watched a former pastor of mine go through hell from some of his closest friends because he had a long-time friend and elder who used video preach for him. In the interest of transparency, as a teenager I was on the side of those who were opposing him. I watched the personal pulpit attacks. I watched the name-calling. I watched as we maligned their characters and questioned their integrity. 

            It is one thing to do that to pastors who have a paycheck every week. But may God have mercy on the evangelist that happened to preach for someone who allowed video. If he did not recant and repent, then his entire livelihood was taken from him. Pastors would call other pastors and tell them not to use him. And just like that, his revival schedule would disappear. Whether evangelist or pastor, if you had anything to do with video, you were anathema in that movement.

I wish I could create a montage of every abusive comment that preachers made on this topic. I wish I could capture the emotions of every person that we hurt and damaged by our vitriol. I wish we could compensate for all of the lost offerings because innocent men were “canceled” because they didn’t hold the same view we did. By the way, “cancel culture” existed in the church long before it existed in the culture. Most problems with society do. But we caused inestimable damage by our unchristian behavior over a non-essential issue. 

Fast forward to 2020. Many of those same preachers have multiple social media accounts. How often does it happen when watching Fox New live on Facebook that it notifies us that brother so-and-so is watching with you? Many of those men are now on social media recommending their favorite new conservative TV channel (Newsmax, OANN, etc.) and where to watch it online. They are buying the memorabilia of their favorite politicians like they are sports superstars, all the while denying fandom and hero worship. The former anti-TV men are now glued to a TV screen watching pre-election, election, and post-election news. 

I remember when it didn’t matter, we were told, whether you are watching TV on a big screen or a computer device. TV is TV no matter where you watch it, right? I remember when we ridiculed people for saying they only watch the news. I also remember the response that, “It starts with the news, but it never stays with the news.” Come on now preachers who are TV news junkies, can you tell us what else you are watching? Because, according to your former logic, people can’t and don’t “just watch the news.”

And here is the tragic part, we (corporately) changed no one has apologized for the damage they caused. We changed and no one has been honest about it. We changed, and no one is explaining why it’s okay to do the things over which we killed others. When ministry assassins begin to do what they killed others for, they need to repent. When ministry assassins begin to do what they killed others for, they owe them an apology. You do not have biblical permission to change as if nothing happened. Preachers who attack and try to destroy other preachers should be held to account. To murder your brother with the weapon of words is a sin against the image of God. We should take it seriously, but we treat it at best as a whoopsy. 

I have learned from this, and I pray others do to, to draw both biblical and fellowship lines with grace. I have also learned to mark the assassins among us and to avoid getting too close to them. They can’t and shouldn’t be trusted until they repent and demonstrate a true heart of love and compassion. 

            

 

How Jeff Arnold Has Changed Preaching

How J. W. Arnold Influenced Pentecostal Preaching

John C. Carroll

William Jessup University/Wilson University

Professor Dorisa Costello 

02/04/2019

How J. W. Arnold Influenced Pentecostal Preaching 

Introduction

            J. W. Arnold is popular and polarizing, charismatic and confrontational. Therefore, I have chosen to write about the significant impact that he has had on my love for preaching. My passion for preaching is twofold: I love to hear preaching, and I love to preach. Arnold has been one of my favorite preachers since I was a teenager. I not only like to listen to him preach, but I have cited him in many of my sermons. I am not alone in this. Many of my friends have either cited him or preached entire sermons of his. 

Conversion Experience

            Arnold has told his conversion story on many occasions. One of the more animated versions of his testimony can be found in a YouTube video titled, “STORE 2012 Jeff Arnold” (Arnold, 2013). He described the condition that his life was in immediately before his conversion. He was an alcoholic. He and his wife Patty were about to get a divorce. He described what he now believes to be the presence of God waking him like nudging someone on the shoulder. The waking event happened three nights in a row. Each night he got up and went to the kitchen and opened a can of beer and lit a cigarette. He felt a sensational presence in his room and house. He would get up and check all the windows and doors to make sure that there was no intruder. 

            Finally, after the third night, he went back into the bedroom and woke Patty and asked her, “If God were to call me to be a missionary to China, would you go?” Patty said, “Go to bed, Jeff. You’re drunk.” Jeff replied that he believed that God was talking to him and that he needed to go to church. He recalled the first time he felt the presence of the Holy Spirit in the little Pentecostal church they attended, and that it was the same presence that woke him up those three nights in a row. 

            He didn’t know that Patty had been raised in a Pentecostal church. The first church that they attended was another denomination. When they told Patty that if she signed a card that she would be saved, she said to them that she had not even received the baptism of the Spirit yet. She was expecting that she would receive the baptism of the Spirit and speak with tongues.

            The usher that was speaking with them at the altar got the attention of other people and told them what she was saying. Eventually, the pastor had them removed from the service. Arnold remembered how embarrassed he was that he had been thrown out of a church. He said that he had been thrown out of whorehouses, honky-tonks, hotels and other places. However, he had never been thrown out of a church. He felt like at that moment that was the lowest place in his life.  

            Eventually, he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which changed his life forever. His conversion set him on a course in his life that will cause him to go down in history as one of the most prolific Pentecostal preachers of his time. His vernacular, flamboyance, charisma and depth of biblical knowledge has changed how Pentecostals judge preaching for the rest of my life. For generations, Apostolics and Pentecostals of all stripes will be listening to J. W. Arnold’s preaching. God changed his life, and he has changed ours. 

Arnold’s Preaching Career

Children’s Evangelist 

            Arnold began his preaching ministry as a children’s evangelist. He was an accomplished ventriloquist and magician. So, he would travel and preach kids’ revivals. He developed an act with his puppets that communicated the gospel (Traffic talk with Jeff Arnold, 2016). He was effective and in demand. However, his gift as a communicator would not allow him to remain as a kids’ preacher. Pastors and leaders within his organization began to recognize his talents. Consequently, his speaking matured and so did his audience. 

Pastor 

            Eventually, he became the pastor of a church in Gainesville, FL. He remained the pastor there for three-plus decades until his recent retirement. For a new pastor like myself, staying in one church for over 30 inspires me to remain faithful in my role through all the ups and downs of serving God’s people. Arnold has preached about many of the issues he has faced over the years—but he stayed through it all. 

Preaching Style 

            Arnold’s preaching style is as polarizing as it is popular. He draws crowds that fill large sanctuaries and conference halls. Most come to listen to the revelatory nature of his preaching. Others come to hear what he will say. Rather, they come to hear how he will say it. He speaks with a vernacular that his childhood, Brooklyn, New York home gave him. He uses crude, but not vulgar, language effectively. He makes people listen to what he has to say. His verbiage commands attention. 

            In addition to his crass, Brooklyn accent, he is one of the most honest Pentecostal preachers. He often speaks about his struggles with different sins. He discusses openly his past lifestyle as well as his present temptations. A combination of these factors has been how Arnold has changed how my generation of preachers see preaching. 

            Arnold makes unique connections between texts of scriptures in a way that no one else we have heard. When he preaches about the characters of the Bible, he leaves you feeling as if he interviewed them for his sermon. It is almost like he knows them. I, and those who have grown up on Arnold’s preaching, have never heard another preacher speak the way he does. As a result, we strive to know our bibles like a person knows their best friend. 

Conference Speaker 

            J. W. Arnold’s style made him one of the most prolific conference speakers of more than a generation. He preaches in camps and conferences across all organizational boundaries. Perhaps the best example of his national platform is his long-running presence at a minister’s conference in Louisiana every year. He preached Because of the Times (BOTT) from 1983 to 2014. BOTT is just one of many meetings that Arnold graced with his ministry. Thousands of preachers and their wives attend annually. The sermons that he has preached at these meetings gave to us revelation of God and his grace that draws us closer to Christ. 

Ministry Themes 

            The primary themes of Arnold’s sermons are grace and the miraculous. His greatest message about miracles was “The Miracle is Looking for a Vessel.” His greatest message about grace was “A Refuge from Despair.” The message about despair has been a refuge for me more than once. Every Christian needs to hear “A Refuge from Despair.”

            “The Miracle Looking for a Vessel” let us know that all we have to do is make ourselves available to God and He will use us to do extraordinary things. We don’t have to have great ability, but we do need great availability. “A Refuge from Despair” reminded us that in Christ there is a place of refuge from the despair that often follows failures. Arnold let us know that some Christians may not forgive us, but Christ will. 

Cultural Respect 

Social Media 

            Beyond his ministerial resume, the respect that Pentecostal culture gives to him is significant. There is a Twitter account that is dedicated to his quotes (@JArnoldQuotes). When I last looked, his tribute Twitter account had 7,175 followers. There are also many memes on Facebook and Instagram of his one-liners. Arnold is among the most quoted preachers in the Pentecostal movement. The fact of how often he is quoted in various formats demonstrates how inspirational his preaching is to my generation of ministers. 

Preachers Who Plagiarize Him 

            For a preacher, the highest form of flattery is for another preacher to preach his material. Using this criterion for flattery would make J. W. Arnold one of the most flattered Pentecostal preachers. Jentezen Franklin, among others, has preached Arnold’s messages. “Jentezen Franklin is the Senior Pastor of Free Chapel, a multi-campus church. Each week his television program, Kingdom Connection, is broadcast on major networks all over the world. A New York Times best-selling author, Jentezen has written nine books” (Senior Pastor, Franklin, 2019). Franklin is just one of the mainstream ministries has made use of Arnold’s content.

            I will cite one example from Franklin to demonstrate my point. Franklin preached a sermon called, “Be the Vessel” (Franklin, 2014). Franklin’s sermon was taken almost exactly and specifically from Arnold’s 1989 message titled, “The Miracle is Looking For a Vessel” (Arnold, 2015). The Arnold sermon discussed here is one of his classics. In an academic context, Franklin would be convicted of plagiarism. The above example is one of many to demonstrate the impact that Arnold’s ministry has had, not only in the United Pentecostal Church, but also across denominational lines. 

Conclusion 

            A combination of the above points should provide a compelling argument for the significance of Arnold’s influence on my generation—a generation of preachers. His national presence in preaching conferences, the tribute Twitter account, the many memes of his quotes on all forms of social media, the number of sermons that he has on the internet in various forms, the number of times that preachers across denominational lines have preached his sermons should demonstrate adequately that Arnold has been an influencer.  

Reference 

Arnold, J. [The Pentecostals of Sarasota]. (2013, December 5). STORE 2012 Jeff Arnold. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWuqnqIuqLY

Arnold, J. [Because of the Times]. (2015, May 9). The miracle is looking for a vessel. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DPmXgsCMjM

Franklin, J. [Jentezen Franklin]. (2014, October 31). Be the vessel. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVcjlKl39-w

Franklin, J. (2019). Senior pastor of Free Chapel. Retrieved from https://www.jentezenfranklin.org/about

Woodward, M. [Traffic Talk]. (2016, July 12). Traffic talk with Jeff Arnold. [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWj6CoIHEhI&t=241s

The Need to be Honest with Scripture

I recently posted on Facebook about the need for hermeneutical honesty. The comments got so out of hand that I deceide to erase the post there. However, I have decided to reproduce that post here on my blog. My comments were as follows:

"Do we conservative Apostolics (of which I consider myself) care about hermeneutics in our preaching? I understand fully the concept of preserving traditional separataion. But a high view of scripture demands that you not commit crimes against the context of scripture to do it. We need a revival of biblical literacy and honesty. Preaching scripture soundly ought not to be too much to expect regardless of the setting. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I do need to respect your ability to interpret the Bible. If I disagree with you, then I will consider seriously that I may be wrong. I have a long history of being wrong, so I am aware that is a possibilty. Otherwise, I have no option but to dismiss your claims with respect."

I understand that much of the fury against the post was becasue of the timing. But anyone who knows me is aware that the above post is something that I have been passionate about for a very long time. My post was by no means isolating a recent sermon at PEAK 2018. Conversely, I am not suggesting that I am excluding said message from my post. The Facebook exerpt from above covers every sermon—including my own. I will go further and say, "Especially my own."

One of the primary purposes of preaching is persuasion. Paul wrote the following statement about preaching: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Corinthians 5.11, King James Version). My contention is that the way we handle scripture ought to have persuasion as its goal. We will convince no one of our view as long as we continue to demonstrate a disregard for context. As Apostolic preachers, we must start taking the Bible more seriously. As long as we misuse scripture to promote personal agendas we will continue to lose the respect of saint and sinner alike.

Finally, let me say that I am not a perfect interpreter of scripture—no preacher is. We all have room for improvement. Therefore, let us work hard to interpret scripture faithfully. 

As will every blog I post, I encourage you to comment below even if you disagree.

The Value of Debate

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. 

Proverbs 18:17 ESV

My last blog I discussed three reasons why I think Apostolics should engage in intramural debates. At the conclusion of that blog I stated my intention to blog about why I think that Apostolics do not debate. I still intend to do that. However, while listening to a debate, one of the speakers used this verse to demonstrate the value of debate. 

It is likely that the context—strictly speaking—is referring to taking a matter before a judge. The lawyer that presents their case first seems like they have an air-tight case. That is until the other lawyer presents their case and answers the first lawyer's arguments. The truth in such cases can only be discerned after both sides have presented their cases. A strong case does not mind questioning. When a strong case is questioned it only becomes stronger for it.

One ought to be aware of the person who refuses to have his argument questioned. This means that person is fearful that their argument will not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Truth is never afraid of questions. Few things frustrate me as much as someone who launches a public, personal or theological attack against someone and refuses to answer any one's objections. If you are going to argue for something publicly, then be man enough to field the questions that come along with it. Don't hide behind moderated comments and pulpits!

Why?

Because if truth is what you are really after, then you won't mind both sides of the argument being heard. People who refuse to field questions are only interested in "seeming right;" they are not interested in "being right." There is a way to have healthy and productive debate on any issue. It's not divisive; it is unifying if done properly.

The early church and the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 are an awesome example how coming together to discuss issues that are controversial can lead to consensus. Avoiding controversial issues does not produce unity, it only hides the conflict beneath the surface where it festers and grows. 

The Impact of Inconsistency on One's Argument Part II

I wrote Part I of this topic two blogs ago. I am following up on this post due to something I read in the last couple of days. It never ceases to amaze me how selective we are with our judgments of others. An former friend of mine once made the statement that, "If I condemn in my enemies what I condone in my friends, then I make myself the ultimate hypocrite." This is a true statement indeed. I must also add to this statement one of my own:"If I condone worse behavior in my friends that what I condemn in my enemies, then I am a malicious hypocrite."

It is so easy to condemn people against whom we are politically aligned while going to great lengths to condone people with whom we are politically aligned. We see it all the time in the political battles in our country. Republicans will condemn Democrats for a little of nothing, but will defend fellow republicans for the same thing or something greater. The same goes for Democrats to Republicans. This also happens often in Pentecostal fellowship politics. And it is more frustrating when it happens in the church—I might add. 

This is precisely why so many young men are disenchanted with certain segments of our movement. Brothers, I am not saying that we should start judging our friends the way we do our enemies. I am saying that we should start showing mercy to our enemies the way we do our friends. Furthermore, we should start showing the same mercy to both our enemies and our friends that we show to ourselves. The worst of the hypocrites is the person who condemns in others—both enemies and friends—what he condones in himself. 

I must confess that I have at some point in my ministry been guilty of every one of the above hypocrisies. I find myself having to repent repeatedly for this sin. Thankfully, I am having to do it less and less these days. The Holy Spirit is revealing me to myself and is causing me to become more self-aware. I am grateful for this, although it has been very uncomfortable.

So what does this have to do with inconsistency? It makes one wonder if you believe what you say you do when you condemn in your enemies what you condone in your friends. It appears politically motivated and it hinders your message. This may not always be fair, but it is the way others usually perceive it. I pray that the Lord will help me to show grace to everyone equally, and not just my friends.

"It Seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and To Us" Is Not a Blank Check!

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

INTRODUCTION 

Preachers often use this verse as their authority to preach against things for which they admit they have no prohibitive verse (s). Well...they actually only use part of the verse. But I will make that point a little later. So they use this verse as their trump card to every objection that anyone raises against their personal authority. They even use it to trump biblical arguments. 

I am writing this blog post to place this verse in its biblical context. It should not be used as a blank check to preach whatever one chooses. A pastor has the liberty to make certain requirements for local church membership for which he has no explicit biblical command. However, no pastor has the authority bind, either on his local congregation or the global church, as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. This applied to me when I pastored in Alton, IL. And it will apply to me if I should ever pastor again in the future.

As I stated earlier, we do not have the authority to bind as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. Furthermore, we do not have the authority to use our opinions as a basis to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. 

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT

The context of Acts 15:28 was whether or not to bind circumcision—therefore, the whole law—on Gentile converts. The Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised. This is the context in which one should understand the statement under consideration.

IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US: NO SCRIPTURE NECESSARY
This phrase is thrown around as though scripture did not figured into the apostles decision in Act 15. Therefore, this phrase is used to justify men binding their own opinions about contemporary issues on the entire body of Christ. This is the text many use to prove they don't need scriptural support for what they bind.  In fact, based on this verse, they can bind their own opinions on the body of Christ when the entire witness of scripture says the opposite.

So, did the apostles use this phrase because they issued a binding edict without, or contrary to, scripture? God forbid! Let's back up a few verses and see:

"And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..."  (Acts 15:15, 18 KJV).

Brothers and sisters, James and the others based their decision on written scripture. The reason  it seemed good the the Holy Ghost, the apostles and elders was because they consulted the written words of the prophets.

WHAT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US?
Notice the rest of the verse that never gets quoted:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

What seemed good to the Holy Ghost was not:

• To bind unnecessary rules for which one has no scripture. 
• To bind unnecessary rules that are contrary to scripture.
• To make ones own personal opinions the basis by which they judge those who do not comply. 
• To make 20th and 21rst century standards (many of which may be wise) perpetual, unbreakable law by which we condemn all present and future generations. 

CONCLUSION

"To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" is what "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."

If we are going to quote this verse, quote it all. And if we are going to use this verse, use it. Don't misquote and misuse it. 

Snake Handling: Bad Theology with Real-Life Consequences

http://news.yahoo.com/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite-173406645--abc-news-topstories.html

Mark Wolford is in the news after having been bitten by a timber rattler in a snake handling service.  I want to say first that this is a sad story and prayer should be offered for the comfort of his family.  However, there is another side to this story that also needs to be pointed out; doctrine has consequences.

There is nothing admirable, honorable or excusable about this situation.  This was an unnecessary and avoidable death based on a fatally flawed interpretation of scripture (Mark 16:17-18).  He was not the first, and he will not be the last to unnecessarily die.  

Just because this misunderstanding of scripture is sincerely believed does not mean that it is a valid belief; it is not.  These sincere and good people need to be converted from this false teaching.  Even though they call themselves Apostolic, this is NOT apostolic doctrine or teaching.  This was not the practice or teaching of the apostles concerning snake handling.  The apostles would have most certainly rejected and rebuked this tradition for a number of different reasons.  

There is not a single example of the apostles purposely picking up actual snakes to prove they were believers.  The only time an apostle handled an actual snake in scripture it was an accident, and he killed it (Acts 28:3-6).  This is the apostolic, and the Texas way of handling a serpent. 

Debate Firsts

I have had a lot of debate firsts: My first debate. My first oral debate. My first written debate. My first godhead debate. My first Eternal security debate. My first communion debate. My first baptism debate. My first impeccability debate. My first marriage and divorce debate. My first debate with a Church of Christ. My first debate with a Baptist. My first debate to be a moderator. I am sure that the list could go on, but last in the Weatherly-Pendergrass debate was another first.

MY FIRST DEBATE WHERE A POINT OF ORDER WAS IGNORED!

Thursday night of the debate I called a point of order 4-5 times and it was ignored by both the debater (Kevin Pendergrass) and his moderator (David Fanning).  I have never seen this happen in any debate.  Unprecedented!

Their excuse was that they did not think that they were breaking any rules so they did not have to acknowledge our point of order.  Any time a point of order is called by the other team you owe them the courtesy of acknowledging their grievance.  If they had call a point of order we would have given them the respect they deserved as out opponents.  It was disrespectful to say the least.