Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Posted on 10/05/2010 11:33:41 AM PDT by topcat54
Brannon Howse of “Worldview Weekend” responded to my article “A ‘Howse’ Built on Prophetic Sand.” The title of his response article is “Howse, Markell, Hunt, Ice, Reagan, McTernan, Salhus, and Rosenberg, Are Not the Enemy or the Problem with America.” As anyone who read my original article can see, Brannon never responded to a single point I made. This is bad form for the head of a worldview ministry. It sets a bad example for the church and the world. The following is an example of how the head of a Christian worldview ministry should respond to a critical article: (1) Quote what a person writes and (2) respond to what was actually written. Simply tell the truth, even if it hurts. The following email was sent to Brannon from a supporter of Worldview Weekend and American Vision. It says it all:
I will make this short: You really need to sit down with Gary DeMar sometime and hash things out. I appreciate the work to which each of you has been called, but I am pained to have to admit that he absolutely destroyed your rebuttal to his original article, “A Howse Built on Prophetic Sand.”Brannon’s comments are in bold throughout my following response article:None of us likes to be the point of criticism—and I have been the target of significant book content, unfairly delivered, so I feel the pain—but I hope you can take a deep breath and see that your reply was just as he characterized: full of misstatements and weak arguments designed to rally your troops, but which largely did not even come close to accurately representing his original complaint.
A man by the name of Gary DeMar wrote an article this week attacking me. I was not going to respond because I believe he is only seeking exposure and by writing about him, I am playing into his hand. However, someone on my Facebook page wanted my response and so here goes.
The first thing you will notice about Brannon’s article that he never mentions the title of my article or links to it. I wonder why? Of course, I didn’t “attack” Brannon, and my article is not about “seeking exposure.” My article points out that the message of Worldview Weekend is schizophrenic. On the one hand Howse emphasizes a Christian worldview, and on the other hand he publishes articles that argue that the world is coming to an end very soon. The amazing thing about his response article is that he does not deal with this or any other point I made in my original article. You can see for yourself in my original article . Brannon talks about everything else but what I specifically wrote about. In fact, he does not quote one thing I wrote. I wonder if he follows the same methodology when he critiques anti-Christian worldviews. Yes, Worldview Weekend conferences do expose humanist lies (no argument here), but they also engage in unbiblical and destructive end-time speculation that will in the long run immobilize Christians. Here’s just one example of an article published on Worldview Weekend’s site written by Jan Markell:
The church is not in the business of taking anything away from Satan but the souls of men. The world is a sinking Titanic ripe for judgment, not Garden of Eden perfection. Jesus will take dominion of the cleansed earth. For men to speak of doing that before the judgment of this earth is spiritually arrogant. I encourage you to flee such false teachers.Why bother teaching a Christian worldview since (1) our message is only about “souls” and (2) “the world is a sinking Titanic”? Why be concerned with a world that will inevitably sink in your lifetime? This is Gnosticism. For the Gnostic the material world is on a lower plane. Only “spiritual things” are useful and profitable. Francis Schaeffer dealt with type of dualism years ago. Why teach about worldview when Satan is in control of the world and Jesus won’t regain control until He reigns on earth? (You can read my response to Markell’s article here .) Brannon also mentions Thomas Ice as not being part of “the problem.” Ice also writes for the Worldview Weekend website. So how does Ice’s article on “ The Late Great U.S.A .” fit into the development of a Christian worldview? Should the attendees at the Worldview Weekend conferences bother with America since it’s inevitably doomed?
Brannon can dish out criticism, but he can’t take it when some of the articles he publishes are subjected to critical analysis. It’s OK for Markell, DeWaay, and Dave Hunt to attack positions other Christians hold (dominion theology, preterism, postmillennialism), but it’s not OK for me to point out the errors and schizophrenia in articles he publishes on his site. Can anyone say “double standard”?
From what I understand, Gary DeMar thinks the rapture has already occurred and as silly as that belief is, I do not write articles attacking him, making fun of him or ridiculing him. Mr. DeMar is free to have his end time belief and he is free to attack those that disagree with him.If you are going to hold conferences on Christian worldview and deal with opposing worldviews, it is imperative that you teach about them accurately. The worst thing you can do in this business is misrepresent your opponent. Notice that Brannon starts by stating, “From what I understand.” This is an admission that he doesn’t really know. He should have taken the time to find out. The next statement proves he doesn’t know: “Gary DeMar thinks the rapture has already occurred.” If Brannon actually read what I’ve written on the subject, he would know that I don’t teach any such thing. (On June 30, 2008 I sent him a PDF copy of one of my books that he requested, so he should know.) I’ve never argued that the “rapture” has already taken place. He next states, “I do not write articles attacking him, making fun of him or ridiculing him.” He implies that I’ve written articles attacking him, making fun of him, and ridiculing him. I haven’t. I’ve written articles critical of some of the articles he posts on his site and how those articles are contrary to the worldview message of his Worldview Weekend conferences. No, he doesn’t write articles attacking positions I and others hold. He lets his surrogates do it and then offers this disclaimer: “Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do, however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day.” I pointed out the following to Brannon in 2008:
Are you going to be a worldview ministry or an end-time ministry? You criticized John MacArthur about not caring about the election, and here you go dealing with end-time nonsense. You’re creating doublemindedness with your WV attendees. What are you training them for if it’s all a prophetic inevitability?If it’s an “attack” when I write articles critical of some of the articles he posts on his site, then what is it when he posts articles that attack positions other Christians hold? It was OK for him to criticize John MacArthur for his stand on politics (something I’ve done my self), but somehow the views of writers on the Worldview Weekend site are off limits.I’ve brought this subject up to you before with Jan Markell’s articles. You dismissed my criticism claiming that her views were not necessarily the views of Worldview Weekend.
Unfortunately, Gary has come to be known, by many of my friends, as a man that shows very little Christian love and encouragement to those of us that are preaching a solid Gospel, warning about the Emergent Church, and proclaiming Biblical evangelism.This statement by Brannon is a classic red herring (as is his entire response). I have never been critical of anything other than his linking Christian worldview with a this-generational end-time view of prophetic events. For example, David R. Reagan, one of his worldview lecturers, speaks on “Jesus is Returning in Our Time: The Key Sign.” If the “key sign” is in place, and Jesus is returning in our time, then why spend any time addressing worldview issues since there won’t be a world to view? I have not been critical of those who are “preaching a solid Gospel, warning about the Emergent Church, and proclaiming Biblical evangelism.” Where have I ever been critical of Brannon for this? For the record, American Vision has published a six-part series of articles critical of the Emergent Church movement (see here ). Brannon’s friends are upset with me because I have been critical of their teaching regarding eschatology. To Brannon’s prophecy writer friends being “unloving” means disagreeing with them and pointing out numerous interpretive errors in their arguments. So far, Brannon has not dealt with what I wrote in the article he is responding to. In fact, he never does. By the way, even if I’m unloving, it doesn’t by definition make me wrong. Another red herring.
(Read the rest of Gary’s response here .)
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Brannon Howse / Worldview Weekend ping
You wonder how they ever manage to hold their marriages and families together, in a castrated / truncated message that only has room for the personal soul, and the personal soul-saver, Jesus. Oh, wait. They don't. 90% or so of kids from evangelical homes head for the hills soon after leaving home. And our divorce rates are at least as bad as those of the unchurched. At last count, the most famous fortune-teller is on wife #4. He simply retitles and recycles his books and marriages as each is overtaken by time, perhaps. Same plot, just new faces.
By posting an article on an internet webpage one is submitting it for review and critique. Thus, it is rather childish for someone to say another is “attacking them” just because they voice reasoned disagreement with the article published. If House thinks Demarr’s critical analysis of his writing is off base then publish a reasoned argument making that case but don’t cry that DeMarr is “attacking me” and leaving it at that. This is exactly the kind of stuff the world does. And by the way, I don’t agree with DeMarr’s brand of preterism any more than I agree with House’s dispensational eschatology. I believe, however, that DeMarr generally trys to put forth his positions and critical analysis in a respectful, reasoned manner.
Might I encourage a good old-fashioned freeping of Howse’s site? Asking why he decided not to tell the truth about DeMar’s article?
For a short stint in my life I spent a year or so in a mediocre Christian College, during that year or so several marriages took place, with in a few years to a decade all of those marriages ended in divorce.
I had some unhappy repartee with him a few years ago regarding his Worldview Weekends. He may call them a "ministry" now, but in one of his emails to me he made it abundantly clear that they were a for-profit business and not a ministry when I questioned the high price he quoted.
On the one hand Howse emphasizes a Christian worldview, and on the other hand he publishes articles that argue that the world is coming to an end very soon.
I noticed that.
I actually went to a Worldview Rally, last winter sometime. Speaking were Irwin Lutzer, Mr. Howse, and David Reagan, of "Lion & Lamb Ministries". Mr. Reagan's presentation was bog standard dispensationalism, leavened with a comparison of the United State with late monarchic Judah. Ronald Reagan == Good King Josiah, and on from there. It was liberally illustrated with graphics by (and I found this quite amusing) Basil Wolverton's apocalpytic cartoons (produced in the service of Herbert W. Armstrong's cult).
I came away from it dubious about the whole "Christian worldview" enterprise. Get the gospel right, and the worldview will take care of itself.
Ping to read links and comment more later.
For the Howse-type of gnostic preacher, "Lord" is a synonym for personal spiritual coach, domesticated house guru.
"Lord, having Jesus as"
Issues, Etc. has been doing a series, just concluded, on "The Apocalyptic Anxiety of Pop-American Christianity" w/ Dr. Alfonso Espinosa. Y-all would probably benefit from listening.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
part 6
His thesis, which I don't buy into, is that American evangelical apocalyptic anxiety stems from lacking the Lutheran theology of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Nevertheless, it's quite interesting.
The last episode talks about LaHaye's actual theology, which isn't pretty. The Christian life is "stagey". Having "Jesus as Lord" instead of just Savior is one of the identifiable stages on the way to Christian perfection. Keswick higher life is alive and well.
Ugh. A noxious blast from the past. Been there, done that. Start defining your Christian life as a ladder of experiences, and pretty soon your head is up in a very dark and smelly place.
Best book I ever read on the dysfunctional coping mechanisms the American church embraces a century or so ago was Douglas Frank's masterpiece Less than Conquerors: How Evangelicals Entered the 20th Century. Get a copy if you can -- it's out of print.
Bottom line: A navel view can never replace a world view, no matter how you artificially enhance it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.