MondayMorningInsight.com > Is it OK to Accept an Invitation to Speak at a Church Conference So You Can Evangelize the Audience?

HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

Is it OK to Accept an Invitation to Speak at a Church Conference So You Can Evangelize the Audience?

Orginally published on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 at 7:38 AM
by Todd Rhoades

Boy, the discernment sites are all up in a tizzy over one of their poster saints, Ray Comfort, speaking at a Word of Faith conference. It's kind of funny to see Ray Comfort, someone who the discernment folks really respect(ed) on the same platform as Jesse Duplantis and Rod Parsley. Calls have been coming in from all over the blogosphere for Comfort to not speak at this conference. Here are some questions posed by one blog:

1.Should Ray be seen to be associated with such WoF heretics though we have faith in his motivation to preach the Gospel at such conferences?

2.Will such an approach, i.e. preaching the true Gospel in a heretical conference, be effective?

3.Or is this a case where we can bring up the fact that though Jesus dined with sinners, he didn’t partake of their sinful ways but spoke His truth to them?

Ingrid thinks he shouldn’t speak. So does Ken.

Ray Comfort responded:

“I have never turned down any request to speak because I thought that the church’s doctrine was unbiblical. In fact, they are the invitations I have gladly accepted because I know that false conversions are the fruit of their heretical doctrines. Unsaved people sit in pews in the millions in this country because they have never heard the biblical gospel–and I have to say with Paul, “How will they hear without a preacher?”

But sharing the gospel with these people in their own forum is not enough for some:

“Ray must do more than share his evangelistic message. God has already spoken on these wolves. Can His servant do any less than issue warnings about these lying prophets when he stands in front of thousands of their followers? When Dr. R. C. Sproul and Michael Horton confronted Word of Faith teachers, they were cursed to hell by these men publicly. Ray Comfort has been invited back repeatedly by men like Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Mike Murdock, etc. because he is not warning their followers of their lies.”

And another: “It does give one pause to wonder just how strongly Comfort has warned these Word Faith wolves—if at all—of their attempts to destroy the basic, fundamental truths of Christianity with the false non-gospel of health and prosperity and their “born again Jesus.”

And yet another admonition: “Brother Comfort, I pray that you’ll use this opportunity to expose these false teachers for what they are in accordance with Scripture (Jude 3), or avoid partnering with them “in ministry” so as to be obedient to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.”

So… Ray is finding himself in quite the turmoil.

Everyone in the discernment camp, while calling for Ray to change his direction, is still sticking by his side. Wonder what would have happened if Ray Comfort would have spoken at Saddleback or NewSpring?

What do you think?

This post has been viewed 1767 times so far.

There are 67 Comments:

Posted by Kevin Bussey

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 7:29 AM

I’d speak to Satanists if I was allowed to preach the Gospel. I don’t see what “POINT” a person is making by refusing to speak? I say preach whenever you get a chance!
Posted by

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 9:01 AM

The bottom line? People will associate Comfort with these guys if he doesn’t make it clear of his opposition. Walter Martin was only invited on TBN about every 6 years. It took that long for them to recover from him. Martin made it clear where he stood on the faith teaching and their bad doctrine taught. Walter was opposed to it and told them so. I think Ray is making a mistake here. I appreciate “Way of the Master” and tune in when I can, but he has to make a stand here or those who listen to him will get the wrong idea. Also, those who teach these word faith heresies will think he endorses their way of teaching. Just my 2 cents,

Blessings!
Posted by

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Unless I missed it, there is one point that has not been addressed in this discussion.. Pragmatism is a false concept that entraps otherwise solid men and women of God who have a blind spot in that area. They believe that the end justifies the means. It is never God’s will to use ungodly means for His work. These faith/prosperity guys have “a form of godliness” but are steeped in error. We are supposed to expose error and distance ourselves from it, not cohabitate with it.

Also, there is the question of the Great Commission. Presenting the Gospel is only part of the equation. We are to make provisions wherever possible for the discipling of new converts. That will not happen on TBN or in the event under discussion. In fact new converts will continue in the false teaching that has shipwrecked many a faith. It will be assumed that Ray has no problem with their unsound doctrine.
BTW, these speakers are all in the TBN family. It seems that brother Ray has taken pragmatism one step further. The Bible says we cannot serve two masters. I pray that Ray, a brother who obviously loves the Lord, will see the light on this issue and heed the exhortations of those who are concerned for the purity of the Gospel message, that he is unwittingly aiding and abetting the enemy of our souls. Also, he is doing the men at this conference a disservice by giving them the impression that their false teaching is compatible with the Word of God.
Posted by Matthew Tilley

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Couple of things:

Attitudinally is a “sort of” word ... but it is recognized by Merriam-Webster (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attitudinally). I used it not really thinking of it as a real word (it just made my point is all ... that the differences with these people are as much or more about their attitude than about doctrine)… but happens that it is!

My question was specifically thinking about speaking, not debating. I’m just trying to think through the consistency in logic for being upset by or comforted by Comfort’s participating in a Word of Faith event.

Based on DanielR’s comments, I’d assume that he’d accept with conditions (conditions on what his topic would be ... which would be something that specifically addressed what he sees as the issue with ken, ingrid and the gang)

I found iggy’s response the most interesting. The reason is that I think (of course, I don’t really know) that iggy’s line of reasoning is the line of reasoning that Ingrid and Ken and others have about Comfort and the Word of Faith conference. That is: “I disagree strongly with group A to a point that we have essentially irreconcilable differences, and the only possible point of cavorting with them would be moot as I would be trying to convert them to Christ and they believe they already have been converted.”

The one difference ... and I’m not sure how substantive this is ... iggy’s making the call for himself about his own involvemnt while these others (ken and ingrid) are making the call about someone else (specifically Comfort).

My two cents is that this is an interesting, useful debate for the body of Christ that should neither be dismissed out of hand as Pharisaical anomosity nor swallowed whole as the only truth based on a particular group’s point of view. A complex issue.
Posted by iggy

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Matthew,

You basically have it. Though I would sit one on one with a WoF person.

The BIG thing is that Ken and Ingrid and their minions have purposely gone out to harm me and my ministry. Even a a minor thing that was stated that was remotely true an apology is not enough. I am labeled and it is personal with them. They show no real grace or mercy or kindness. Ingrid even recently attacked me on Slice of Laodicea… without any regards to contacting me to talk further about the things said.

She did contact me after I sent her some quotes from Ken Silva that backed up what I stated.

She has yet to take down or apologize for her unkind and un gracious words.

The biggest difference is how the other regards people. I already deal with WoF people at churches I have attended and even some now. Over all they are loving and gracious people who have been caught up in bad doctrine and there is no need to demonize them.

It is God’s Kindness that leads us to repentance and we are to imitate Christ who is the prefect representation of the Father.

iggy
Posted by iggy

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 2:57 PM

BTW, These comments have been very good and I want to thank those who have been part of them. There is strong disagreement here, yet all have conducted themselves as Christian brothers (and sisters if I missed you) and not enemies.

Be Blessed,

iggy
Posted by Coram Deo

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 at 10:46 PM

At the base of this sad dust up is an apparent inexplicable belief by some that the faithful proclamation of the Eternal Gospel of Grace is somehow insufficient.

The Insufficiency of the Gospel
Posted by

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 12:33 AM

Coram, who is saying the Gospel is insufficient? The Great Commission is very clear. We are not only to share the Gospel, but MAKE DISCIPLES. if the Gospel is shared and someone is converted, only to be turned over to wolves to be devoured, does that honor Christ?
Posted by Matthew Tilley

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Does I Corinthians 5:11-13 play a role in this discussion?

Seems that Paul makes a disctinction between (as iggy has, I might point out ...) how to relate to someone who claims to be a brother, yet is obviously not, vs. someone who makes no Christianity claim.

Specifically thinking of the word of faith movement, some of their views on Jesus and human beings’ divinity might be legitimately called “idolotry” by orthodox Christians (not sure that the other named sins really apply in this case though ...).

Assuming that word of faith fits into one of the categories that Paul writes about (they definitely fit part one of the equation ... calling themselves brother), then there seems to be clear Scripture demanding us not to keep company with them or to even eat with them. Essentially saying that if they’re a brother and involved a deep error, separation is the best answer as a way to “judge our own.” Whereas you wouldn’t do that to an obvious unbeliever since (according to the last verse of the book), God will judge them accordingly.

But then ... I suppose one could legitimately ask whether this is exclusive to church fellowship (that is within a particular local body ... and not necessaryily applying to all relationships everywhere); but that’s a significant ecclesiological discussion ...

Thinking aloud ...
Posted by

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM

If a brother is in error, it is the loving thing to do to go to them and reason with them and seek to correct them. If one fails to do this and leaves the impression that all is a-okay, a disservice has occured. If the brother who is in error will not listen, then it is also a loving thing to do to break fellowship and separate and also a question of obedience to the Lord. It does not mean that one thinks too highly of themselves, but is honoring God above men.

If the group in question are not believers, then there is no basis for fellowship in the first place. If you are going into their group as a guest you are not free to dispute their beliefs anyway..

There is no biblical support for Ray Comfort’s participation in this meeting.
Posted by Derek

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Matthew,

You write: Specifically thinking of the word of faith movement, some of their views on Jesus and human beings’ divinity might be legitimately called “idolotry” by orthodox Christians.

To be honest, non of the major WOF players such as Hagin or Copeland have ever taught that human beings are, or become, divine. Their problem is that they have not had formal theological training and so they do not always use this best terminology when wrestling with texts like “you are gods” Ps 86:1 and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

WOFers are sincere believers that need our help, not our condemnation. That is why it is good for WOFers to open up to anyone outside of their tradition.

Derek
Posted by Brendt

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Daniel said:
Is it just me or is it odd that Ingrid Schlueter and Ken Silva object to the true Gospel being preached to people who they believe have been taught a false Gospel?

I thought that’s what Ingrid, Ken and their ilk wanted, for the “true” Gospel to be preached?

Actually, no, it isn’t odd, because your “I thought” isn’t accurate. They’ve proved time and again that the important thing is to point out the falsity of the “false” gospel. Preaching of the true gospel is a DISTANT second, er um, 43rd.
Posted by Brendt

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM

jud: ...people like Ingrid and Ken are a VITALE part of the Church body...

What does Dick Vitale have to do with this discussion?

Oh, you mean “vital”.

Yeah, I have to agree. I can’t count the number of times that I got turned onto the ministry of someone they attacked. I can’t wait to get to heaven and thank Ingrid for the countless blessings that I’ve received from Mark Driscoll’s teachings.
Posted by

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Derek, that is a nice way to say it but I am not sure I agree if it is accurate. These guys have by their theology in their books, speaking and ministries reduced God into an errand boy who is at the beckon call of our faith. They have a doctrine that does not fly in war torn, poverty stricken places in the world, yet they shovel it. I have heard Copland actually teach about becoming god’s, Rick Joyner has spoken about being super prophets… There is such a long list of error in their teachings that it cannot be chalked up to “they just don’t possess formal training.”

As for Comfort speaking here. I don’t really know for sure, I do know that I would but more than likely not get invited back. IMO The WOF heresy is so devastating to the kingdom members and their impact upon the world around them, I have no neutral feelings, just bad ones. My hunch is I would not be invited… Dangit!
Posted by Matthew Tilley

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Derek ... you make a potentially fair point as I have to admit not completely understanding the theological underpinnings of the Word of Faith movement. I suppose the larger point I was trying to figure out was if there might be a case, based on I Cor. 5, for turning down such an invitation. Generally, trying to find a Scriptural basis for Comfort speaking or not ... not simply one man’s (or woman’s) opinion of the matter.
Posted by Derek

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Leonard,

I don’t think when Copeland teaches that you are “little gods” that he literally means we are divine. He doesn’t have the historical/theological training to know the more orthodox way to communicate what he is trying to say.

Kenneth Hagin, in teaching the little god doctrine, meant by it that we are “in the god class of being.” Well that is chock full of theological problems. What he means to say is that we are created in the image of God. If he and other WOFers had theological training then I think they would choose different words.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that the effects of the WOF movement is devastating and a real distortion of the Christian faith. I cannot stomach their teaching. I think if you understand where they come from then you can kinda understand why they have gotten off base.

The two biggest errors of the WOF movement is an over-realized eschatology and a too high view of man. These are errors, not heresies. As long as we brand them as heretics they will never listen to us. If we love them as brothers, then maybe we can help to bring correction.

I have written on this at length here:
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com/reconstruction.html

Matthew—Got cha. My point was just whether or not we consider WOFers fellow believers with somethings out of wack or if we concider them hertics like Mormons and Jehovah witnesses.

Derek
Posted by

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 1:06 PM

Derek,
I appreciate your faith in these guys, I have lost mine. I think their teaching is documented again and again and when people have gone to them for correction they have dismissed these people as critics and cried foul. I do not attribute to them any altruistic but misled motives, I find them to be utterly off. My Junior High son would not come to their conclusions. This has to be much bigger than awkward wording because of untrained theology. Where does the Holy spirit come in? Where does historical Christianity come in? Where does the bible come in? If this were isolated, a statement here or there I might agree, but this is a pervasive and intricately constructed theology they have, all designed to make them powerful and rich. Here are just a couple snippets out of literally thousands.

“You don’t have a god in you, you are one.” (Kenneth Copeland, “The Force Of Love” tape # 02-0028)

Speaking of Jesus, Kenneth Copeland says: “I say this with all respect so that it don’t upset you too bad, but I say it anyway. When I read in the Bible where he says, ‘I Am,’ I just smile and say, ‘Yes, I Am, too!” (Kenneth Copeland, “Believer’s Voice of Victory” broadcast on TBN, recorded 7/9/87)

“Gods reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself. I mean a reproduction of Himself. He [Adam] was not a little like God, he was not almost like God, He was not subordinate to God even”. (Kenneth Copeland, “Following the Faith of Abraham” tape # 01-3001)

“Adam is God manifested in the flesh” (Kenneth Copeland, “Following the Faith of Abraham” tape # 01-3001)

“God’s reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself....Adam is as much like God as you could get, just the same as Jesus....Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh” (Kenneth Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham I, side 1.)
“Don’t be disturbed when people accuse you of thinking you’re God. The more you get to be like Me, the more they’re going to think that way of you. They crucified Me for claiming that I was God. But I didn’t claim I was God; I just claimed I walked with Him and that He was in Me. Hallelujah. That’s what you’re doing.” (Kenneth Copeland, “Voice of Victory” Vol. 15, No. 2, 2/87)

“[Man] was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God’s presence without any consciousness of inferiority...God made us as much like Himself as possible...He made us the same class of being that He is Himself...Man lived in the realm of God. He lived on terms equal with God...[The] believer is called Christ...That’s who we are; we’re Christ” (Kenneth Hagin, Zoe: The God-Kind of Life, 1989. pp. 35-36, 41)

This applies to the discussion in that it shows the depth of their deception and the cloud of confusion they create. I do not think Comfort would have any impact upon them were he to preach to them anyway.
Posted by Derek

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Leonard,

I don’t have faith in them, just a bit of sympathy. My spiritual journey includes a good bit of time in WOF circles and so while I get angry with they way they distort the truth, I still have a desire to change and correction in their line of teaching.

The last quote from Hagin is an earlier reference I made to the “little god” doctrine being a misconstrued form imago dei. I have more sympathy for Hagin than I do for Copeland, because I think Copeland took Hagin’s teaching way too far.

But I wonder if Copeland actually believes we are divine. He doesn’t use that language. He doesn’t use the language of divine nature/human nature. His statement of faith on his website says: We believe in one God-Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Creator of all things.

I would ask him how he believes in one God if we are all gods. I don’t think there is any hope to correct any of the big wigs in the WOF movement. I do think there is hope to change people, pastors, and leaders who listen to them.

Derek
Posted by

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM

I think there are scriptural arguments to be found both for going (to provide correction to the false teachers) and for not going (separating from false teachers), both what about their followers who are being taught a false message and need to hear the truth?

If someone, especially those new to the faith, is being taught a false message should we just abandon them to that falsehood? Or should we reach out to them with the truth?

It seems to me that is what Ray Comfort is trying to do. Not going in order to confront the deceiver but to reach the deceived.

Oh, and Brendt, I’m right there with you. I had never listened to Mark Driscoll until they jumped all over him about something he said and I listened to a clip. Now I think he’s a great communicator and teacher and I love listening to him. I figure if Ingrid and Ken don’t like someone I should check them out, chances are about even that they’re either in serious error or they just have a style that Ken and Ingrid don’t like.
Posted by

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I feel you Derek. I have had to clean up soooooooo much mess from these guys over the years and had so many people who were deceived by these guys I want to cry and shout. I have a bunch of my family sliding into there doctrine right now and of course I am just a big dummy to them now. Again I only picked a few statements from literally thousands and they IMO do not come from poor training because you can get that. They come from somewhere else.

Not trying to pick a fight here so thanks for the conversation.
Posted by Derek

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Leonard,

I do share in your struggle. I have had to help more than one grieving person who suffering through a faith crisis because their loved one was not healed, but died. The effects of the WOF teaching are really hurtful and it does leave a mess for us to clean up. I agree. Chuck Farah, who fought WOF teaching in the 70s and 80s from his teaching position at ORU said, “Bad theology is a harsh task master.” Thus, we should work hard to teach sound doctrine.

This best way I have found to correct those trapped in WOF teaching is to show them ALL the Scripture , not just their favorite healing, faith, prosperity verses. Show them the verses that show people dying in faith (Hebrews 11). Show them verses were good people got sick (Gal 4, Phil 2). Show them verses on contentment (Phil 4) and the deceitfulness of wealth (Luke 12:15).

Typically WOFers hold to a high view of Scripture, but they want to treat the Scripture like a book of incantations...verses that they can “claim” to get what they want. If we can show them all the Scripture, that is our hope.

Anyway Leonard...no argument here...just good conversation. I appreciate it...as always.

Derek
Posted by iggy

Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Peter,

In the strictness of the law, I would agree with you. Yet, we are under grace and love covers a multitude of sin. This is God’s love that does the covering and we partake in this.

I would never cosigne Ingrid or Ken to hell… In fact I do not believe they will go to hell but I do believe a severe chastisement will come on them if they do not change their ways. I see that God disciplines His children and if they are His, then God will bring done the switch if needed.

Already CRN is suffering financially with this attack on Ray COmfort. Ken is doing some major back-peddling to appease all he can by calling for, (ironically) unity and stating he is not judging Ray personally, but only the situation.

If only Ken took this stance with Rob Bell, Rick Warren and a cast of many others, including myself, then I would have no issue with Ken at all… but most often, it is personal against those Ken and Ingrid disagree with.

But, please, I see it wrong to judge them to hell even if they judge me that way.

iggy
Posted by iggy

Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 5:33 PM

My apologies to Peter, that last comment should have been addressed to Mark.
Posted by

Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Iggy and others. Mark is a hijacker of threads. He does not want discussion just argument. Best to ignore him.
Posted by iggy

Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Mark,

Again, I disagree about the hell part, I see that they are brothers and sisters in Christ and that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

In fact I see the true irony is that they will still be saved in spite of their sin due to the BLOOD of Jesus. The sad thing is that the blessings of peace and love and of a clean conscience is not available to them as they are in their sin.

They will not receive the blessing that is available as their pride does not allow them to set on them.

Jesus died for them, and if they called on Him they will be saved. If God started a work in them, then He will finish as he is faithful to His word. If not them God is a liar.

I trust in God to rebuke and to reprove them by the Holy Spirit. They are wayward sheep, but still sheep.

Again… the strictness of the law is as you state… but we are no longer under the law and there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.

iggy

Page 2 of 3 pages

< 1 2 3 >

Post Your Comments:

Hi... I'm Todd Rhoades. I'm a Christ-follower, husband, father and I love to connect leaders with other leaders. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step on Twitter.