PMAC92

@MikeWingerii I don't get the uterus reference. Help me understand. Thanks

You used the word interpretation and that is exactly right. We are both interpreting. The difference is I acknowledge that openly. You are presenting yours as the obvious correct reading. And you have misrepresented what I believe to be the majority of the charismatic position entirely. Nobody defending the charismatic church is arguing that exposing frauds will destroy it. They want the frauds exposed. What they are arguing is that Mike's underlying agenda goes beyond fraud exposure and is aimed at destroying the movement itself. Those are completely different arguments. The fact that you conflated them is exactly the pattern I have been pointing out all day , responding to a position that was never made.

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii His other statement is telling ppl who say he's destroying movement to look at own argument, that if removing frauds destroys movement what does that say about the movement? So he's saying to those ppl, that *their logic would indicate the movement is a fraud. He's 100% correct

I only want to expose the BAD guys in the movement. But, me trying to do this is being interpreted as trying to destroy the entire movement. This is one of the most disturbing things that has come out of this. If removing the frauds destroys the movement what does that mean?

You make a fair point and I will own it. "Secular logic" was imprecise language born from a general impression rather than a specific citable argument. I should have been more precise and I acknowledge that. This is a summary response to your question about my reference to secular logic. It is based on the body of his work that I have watched and the tentacles of the work of others he has inspired. I have not done a forensic analysis of all of his work. You are also right that logic, reason, and evidence are God given. They are part of being image bearers. I don't dispute that and I did not intend to imply otherwise. To be clear, when making the kinds of claims Mike is making, bringing evidence is not only appropriate, it is necessary. And the evidence he has presented does speak. When this all started Mike said he was not trying to take down the movement, just expose the bad actors, and that his hope was this would lead to a healthier charismatic church. Initially I gave him the benefit of the doubt. His demeanor makes that easy to do. But having followed this closely I have seen enough to question whether this endeavor is really about exposing fraud for the health of the movement, or whether it is rooted in a theological objection to the charismatic church itself. In fact the very post that sparked my original reply is instructive. He complained that his actions were being interpreted as trying to take down the movement, implying that was not his intention. Then in the same post he implied the movement itself might be fundamentally fraudulent. And then minutes later, in response to someone saying "if removing the frauds destroys the movement what does that tell you about the movement," he responded 2+2=4. He agreed. Explicitly. In his own thread. He is perfectly welcome to hold a theological objection to the charismatic church. But he should own it. And if that is what is actually driving this it would explain the singular focus on charismatics when fraud and abuse have existed across every denomination throughout history. Legal and evidential framing, while entirely appropriate for verifying specific allegations, has limits when evaluating matters of the Spirit. The concern is not logic itself but an approach that appears to require everything to fit an evidential framework, which by definition excludes entire categories of how God speaks and works. Noah built an ark because God told him to. One man. One revelation. No corroborating witnesses. No evidence anyone else could verify. By a purely evidential standard he had nothing to stand on. Yet he was right and everyone else was wrong. Jesus could do no miracles in his hometown because of unbelief. I am sure those were very rational people. Jesus himself said that the traditions of men were making the word of God of no effect. Mark 7:13. Logic only goes so far in the Kingdom. I am not saying the charismatic movement has it all right. But a framework that leaves no room for God to move outside of what is provable and documentable is itself a tradition worth examining. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." That is not anti-intellectualism. That is orthodox Christianity. Logic has its place. It is simply not at the top of the hierarchy when evaluating things of the Spirit. An approach that leaves no room for God to operate outside of what is provable and documentable is itself a theological position worth examining. That is what I was reaching for. Imprecisely. But genuinely. To be clear about my primary concern, it is the vitriolic and bigoted response from so many in the body. The broad based level of flat out hatred and bigotry from others in the church who call themselves believers has been shocking and ugly. All you have to do is read the threads on YouTube and X. Not just in Mike's content but in the work of the other content creators who have hopped on this gravy train. Mike has argued that Bethel has a responsibility, based on its influence and large footprint, to call out false prophets. I am simply using his own logic to say he should be doing the same, using his platform to tamp down the ugly response his content has helped produce (Donald Shrode does a nice job of this at the beginning of his March 26 YouTube video). He has done nothing. And more and more I am leaning toward interpreting that silence as evidence that this is theologically driven, not simply a good faith effort to call out fakery for the health of the movement. I will close with this. As I have gotten older I find myself increasingly humbled by how much I do not know. How much of reality is unseen. I don't know what I don't know. So I say all of this genuinely but not with absolute certainty. Which may be the most accurate thing I have said in this entire conversation.

This is begging the question: are spiritual discernment and reality-based logic, evidence and reason exclusive? It sounds fine, until you try to substantiate that claim. My argument is that there is no such thing as secular logic, logic is immaterial and transcendent reflection of the mind of the Creator God pressed upon reality; evidence is created facts in God’s reality; reason is a part of being an image-bearer of God. Believers are given to interpret and use those according to the truth by virtue of regeneration and faith. Now, I could potentially grant that you were merely describing Mike’s actions as stemming or based on secular worldview, but given the contents of his ministry’s videos it would be a much worse scenario for you. It would seem that you accuse Mike of being a non-believer who treats spiritual questions without a firm base in the Word of God, without illumination by the Holy Spirit. So, what makes you believe that spiritual discernment and logic, evidence and reason are in a dichotomy? How do you know it? For example, you could provide some examples of spiritual discernment methods and mechanisms that don’t rely on logic, evidence and reason.

Of course it is an assessment. All of our judgments about each other's motives are assessments. That applies to yours about me, mine about Mike, and everyone in this thread. We agree on that. I was not rebuking you personally for attacking charismatic believers. My rebuke has been about a pattern and a spirit I see broadly. What I will say is this -- Mike is sponsoring a group that is attacking charismatics and not owning it. He is doing nothing to stop it. You are defending him. If the shoe fits. And that 1 Corinthians 4:2-4 passage you closed with, I receive it. It applies to me. I would simply note it applies equally to everyone in this conversation. Including Mike. I have said what I came to say. Thank you for broadening my understanding with some valid points. That said, I don't need your agreement. I wish you well. Genuinely. I'll give you the last word...

>>On the channel -- fair point on the history. But he made a point of publicly celebrating crossing a million subscribers recently. That recent growth and notoriety clearly benefits his whole business. That is simply an observable fact.<< The numbers are a fact, the timeline is a fact—your assumption of His methods/motives is NOT a 'fact'. It is an assumption, based on your assessment. It has no bearing as a 'fact' about Mike Winger, only on your assumption/assessment of what you believe—which, by the by, could as easily reflect the state of your own heart—assuming what Mike's motivation is based on your own inclinations—rather than anything actually pertaining to Mike. I am neither stating that last observation as a fact, or as an accusation—you may have no such inclination. I have no opinion on that, and do not accuse or infer any such thing about you. >>I am arguing against the mob attacking the flock.<< Then perhaps you should go and rebuke them—the one sactually committing the sin that troubles you so much— instead of me—or Mike—who have/had NOTHING to do with their decision. To charge us—in any capacity—with the consequences of their decision to sin is beyond ludicrous. It is in itself a sin . >>But consider what you just did with it -- you are reacting badly to my rebuke of the treatment of charismatic believers. By your own logic the responsibility for that reaction sits with you, not me. You handed me that argument. I am simply using it.<< Is disagreement and rebuttal of a misapprehension 'reacting badly' now as well? If so, you have been 'reacting badly' from the first, and should see to your own plank before chasing after my speck, Sir. Sir, I have never treated Charismatic believers in the way you described. I am a 'Charismatic' believer myself—have been for decades. I have, in fact, been the recipient of such poor treatment as you describe. Therefore you not only have no right to 'rebuke' me for it— you don't even have a reason to mention it in respect to me. It has nothing to do with me at all. Jer 17:9 is true, the natural human heart is desperately wicked, but you overlooked something Jeremiah was unaware of— Once Jesus changes the human heart and the Holy Spirit takes up residence, the heart becomes regenerate and holy, at least as long as it remains in alignment with Jesus. Therefore Jer 17:9 no longer applies. That is what consecration entails for a mature believer. Sure, you can still sin, but you can no longer hide from it, unless you willfully and deliberately ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit—which I definitely do not advise, as that hardens the conscience and leads to the one unforgivable sin. And there, sir, lies the ultimate danger of the unrepentant frauds ... that the Holy Spirit will eventually cease striving and depart, leaving them in utter, inescapable damnation. If you depute that fact, you need to go read and study 1 John. As for your insinuation that I could be 'part of the problem', sir, I have always acknowledged that possibility in many situations and my conscience—unlike yours, apparently—is clear. I have been corrected before—I know my Master's voice. Now, you can look down your nose at me and doubt that statement, but in truth it's not your call and I merely follow the Apostle Paul: 1 Co 4:2-4Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.

With respect, you keep responding to a position I have not taken. I have said clearly, repeatedly, and directly to you in this very exchange that I have no issue with recognizing ungodly behavior or rebuking false gifts. That is a false premise you keep returning to regardless of what I actually say. At some point I have to wonder if you are engaging my arguments or the version of them you have constructed in your head. On Matthew 7:22-23, yes and amen. But that passage is being applied selectively. The supernatural language, casting out demons, prophecy, signs and wonders, makes it easy to point at charismatics. But the actual warning is universal. Many will say Lord Lord. Many. Anyone doing anything in the name of the Lord is subject to it. Including those who claim the gift of discernment. The passage does not exempt anyone. Least of all those most certain of their own righteousness. What God ultimately cares about is the heart. David ate the consecrated bread. Jesus asked who among us wouldn't pull our sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. His point was clear, the rigid application of the law in ways that crush people does not glorify God. It misses Him entirely. The law points to God. It was always meant to lead us to Christ. That is why we have a new covenant through His blood. Using it as a weapon against the very people that blood was shed for misses both the law and the covenant entirely. And if I have all discernment and knowledge but have not love I am a clanging gong. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. The form without the heart misses the point entirely. And finally, are you suggesting that no leader can sin or be imperfect? There are clearly bounds to what is acceptable in leadership. But demanding a standard of perfection from leaders and then torching everything connected to them when they fall short is a very long way over your skis, even when they need to be permanently removed. If perfection is your standard then applying it exclusively to the charismatic church makes the selective targeting even harder to defend.

With all due respect, I have to ask ... if you have issues with recognition of ungodly behavior and rebuke of false gifts, what are you going to do when the 'Antichrists' and False prophets Jesus warned about in Matthew 24:24—who will perform actual signs and wonders—How will you know the difference? How does Mt 7:22-23 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ even happen? Those are people who displayed real Spiritual gifts—even casting out demons—but never 'knew' Jesus? The fact that God can—and does—use flawed people to serve /His purposes is a given, but that does not mean the same thing as allowing 'imperfection' or sin in a leader. Jesus came from David's bloodline. But God didn't excuse David's sin with Bathsheba or s forego the consequences of it. Discernment does not come from opinions, learned doctrines, lists of behaviors or emotion. Discernment is not predicated on how you feel about something/someone—or whether you like them or not. Discernment is a Gift of the Holy Spirit, and it is promised to any who see it from the Lord. It comes from the recognition of the 'voice' of the Shepherd, from familiarity with his WORD, from alignment with His will.

I am not here to argue or convince anyone. I have said what I felt called to say. You argued that dark hearted people will always react badly to legitimate rebuke and that you cannot blame the rebuker for that reaction. I accept that argument. But consider what you just did with it -- you are reacting badly to my rebuke of the treatment of charismatic believers. By your own logic the responsibility for that reaction sits with you, not me. You handed me that argument. I am simply using it. And the Jesus analogy -- Jesus rebuked the leadership. The mob that formed around that rebuke then went after the believers in the pews. That is exactly the pattern I have been describing. Mike rebuked the leaders. The mob that formed around his content went after the congregants. I am not arguing against rebuking leaders. I am arguing against the mob attacking the flock. Which -- by your own analogy -- is precisely what the early church stood against. We can go back and forth all day throwing scripture at each other. I'll just say this. A wise man once said "God will never violate His word but He has no problem violating your understanding of His word." On the channel -- fair point on the history. But he made a point of publicly celebrating crossing a million subscribers recently. That recent growth and notoriety clearly benefits his whole business. That is simply an observable fact. The bigotry, the mob mentality, the attacking of ordinary congregants, the raising of theological differences to issues of salvation, the calls to burn it down -- whether new or not, whether confined to charismatics or not -- is not acceptable. I don't excuse it and I don't apologize for calling it out. I have absolute confidence in Jesus Christ. As do we all. That is not what I questioned. I questioned the confidence with which any of us render verdicts about other people's hearts and standing before Him. I will note that you have expended considerable effort defending Mike specifically. I simply observe that. I am genuinely willing to consider that I am part of the problem here. That may be the biggest difference between us in this instance. Jeremiah 17:9. It applies to all of us. Including me. All that said I have no doubt you are a lovely person. May the Lord bless you and smile on you.

>>Creating a million subscriber YouTube channel based on the biblical mandate to rebuke elders publicly, I highly doubt that is what was intended.<< I've watched Mike Winger for years, sir. Mike built most of his channel on basic Bible study and apologetics. He did not branch into rebuke until it became clear that no one else was going to take a stand for the veracity of the Charismatic concept. If you perceive otherwise, you're biased. Certainly every group/denomination/movement has had it's bad eggs, but as a believer who supports the movement of God via the Holy Spirit gifts in Jesus' church that' s not my bailiwick. If it's yours feel free to toddle off and deal with it. Please don't conflate valid rebuke with heresy hunters. The fat that there are those who utterly repudiate the gifts of the Holy Spirit doesn't even enter into the equation. It doesn't matter any more than the Jews disbelieving the resurrection entered into the death of Ananias, with Sapphira. >>The tone of absolute confidence in your verdicts is not a fruit of the Spirit I recognize.<< I have absolute confidence in Jesus Christ and His position as Head of His Church. I have absolute confidence He will deal with these excesses quite severely if men do not—just as He dealt with Ancient Israel. >>The real believers sitting in those pews, many of whom I know personally, who are now on the receiving end of vitriolic hatred and bigotry from people who have apparently been carrying this ugliness long before Mike's videos gave them a reason to release it. That is what I am talking about. That is what I have always been talking about.<< So now,you're blaming Mike's rebuke—which you admit was warranted and necessary— for some other people's lousy behavior towards 'Charismatic' believers. That's hardly fair. Besides, which, this particular phenomenon is neither new, nor confined to 'Charismatics'. Certain factions have always been wont to persecute other factions—it happened in Corinth, it happened to John the Apostle. Let's look at this claim of yours via Scripture: Jesus confronted the Pharisees and made them angry enough that they engineered his crucifixion. Not content with the death of Jesus, they then started persecuting the believers. Peter and John confronted them about it, adding to their anger. By your logic, it was therefore Jesus', Peter's and John's fault that the 'Synagogue of the Freedmen' stirred up the mob to stone Stephen. Additionally, it would be Jesus', Peter's and John's—along with Stephen's—fault that Herod got upset and killed John's brother James to please 'the Jews'. Are you seriously going to try to lay the bad behavior of a bunch of dark-hearted people and pretend Christians at Mike Winger's feet? If anyone is to blame for the 'bad rap' that the Charismatic movement has received, it is THE CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT ITSELF for failing to obey the dictates and discipline clearly laid out in Scripture—and it's as much the fault those 'sitting in pews' who continue even now to follow this falsehood and support it. At minimum they could have walked out. My parents were part of a handful of Charismatic believers who walked away from their original church over just such issues, and founded a new church. So don't even start making excuses. The refusal to confront is rooted far more in expedience and fear of losing place than anything else. In short, what you are doing is judging the motives of Mike Winger—and me—by your own discomfort. That sounds like a you problem.

Hi Aleksander - I never said logic and evidence are inferior. I said Mike over-relies ( I believe the exact phrase was "lean heavily") on them to the exclusion of spiritual discernment. Those are not the same argument. You built a different version of what I said and argued against that instead. And "would you even listen" as an opener is an interesting choice. It forecloses engagement before it begins. Which is itself worth examining as a logical move. As for the rest of what I wrote -- I notice you addressed one point and left everything else standing. I don't need your agreement. But I did notice.

I would love to, but would you listen? It seems you have an infallible, arbitrary standard. Here's my argument: Your words to Mike: "You lean heavily on secular logic. Linear. Evidential. Three dimensional. Requiring the things of the Spirit to bend to your definition of provable truth." This quote implies that the logic and evidence derived from external, visible reality are inferior to those of other logical processes that are not based on external reality or observable evidence. You have already given up logic, reason, and evidence. Any logical disagreement or evidence I could present (including the text of your own words) will potentially fall into the same "secular logic" category.

Look at the full thread. Mike says destroying the movement is not his intent, that is simply how people are misreading him. Then someone immediately posts that if removing the frauds destroys the movement, the movement itself is a fraud. Mike's response? 2+2=4. He endorsed it. In his own thread. Minutes later. And honestly he implied it himself before he confirmed it. His own post raises the question if removing the frauds destroys the movement, what does that mean? He knew exactly where that question pointed. He just wanted someone else to say it first. That is not a misread on my part. That is a contradiction he created and then confirmed. If you believe the entire movement is essentially fraudulent then say so. Own it. Let people judge for themselves. Playing both sides against the middle is not honesty. It is a strategy.

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii Didn't imply that it would destroy the entire movement, he said "But me trying to do this is being interpreted as trying to destroy the entire movement". "Being interpreted as" is the key phrase there.

With respect -- I don't think you read what I actually wrote. My primary concern has never been for the leaders. What they did was wrong. It needed to come out. I have said that consistently throughout this entire conversation. I hate false prophecy. I have long suspected the fakery and I am perfectly fine seeing it called out. My concern is for the congregants. The flock. The real believers sitting in those pews, many of whom I know personally, who are now on the receiving end of vitriolic hatred and bigotry from people who have apparently been carrying this ugliness long before Mike's videos gave them a reason to release it. That is what I am talking about. That is what I have always been talking about. My additional concern is the way his videos have become a premise, a permission slip, for people to take differences in theology and falsely elevate them to issues of salvation. That is driving much of the hatred. It is not discernment. It is weaponized doctrine. I have absolutely considered that God may be responsible for Mike's success. But God is responsible for a lot of things that are not endorsements. He used the Philistines too. That was not a stamp of approval on them as a people. God uses many tools to accomplish His purposes. Some fully aligned with Him. Some not so much. Size and platform are not evidence of anointing. That is actually one of Mike's own arguments against the charismatic church, so I am surprised to see it deployed here in his defense. And since we are on the subject of size and platform, Mike's own argument against Bethel was that their size and influence created a responsibility to call out false prophets. I am simply applying his own logic back to him. His platform is now enormous. By his own standard that creates an obligation to call out the bigotry and hatred toward charismatic believers that his videos have helped unleash. I have yet to see him do that. Not once. On the Book of Judges, I understand the comparison. But it assumes the charismatic church occupies the role of Israel in that analogy and Mike occupies the role of God's instrument of judgment. That is a significant theological assertion presented as settled fact. It isn't. Nobody here is arguing for turning a blind eye. That argument is with someone who is not in this conversation. You have constructed a position I do not hold and responded to that instead. Which is precisely the pattern I described in my original post. "Be ye Holy" cuts both ways. Be holy in how you pursue accountability. Be holy in how you treat the flock you claim to be protecting. An honest reading of the comment sections of Mike's posts reveals anything but holiness. They are producing contempt, verdicts, and a gleeful appetite for destruction. That has a name. If the real reason there is no power in the church is lack of holiness, and there may be truth in that, then that extends well beyond the charismatic church. Which brings me back to the question nobody wants to answer. Why the singular focus? My own experience is evidence that abuse and cover up are not unique to this movement. Not even close. Creating a million subscriber YouTube channel based on the biblical mandate to rebuke elders publicly, I highly doubt that is what was intended. That is not rebuke. That is entertainment. And it is targeted at one group. What does that tell us? Your certainty is off putting. You have a sliver of knowledge about an enormous number of people. Millions have come to Christ through these churches. They are real believers. I know many of them personally. The tone of absolute confidence in your verdicts is not a fruit of the Spirit I recognize. And finally, despite whatever we may disagree on I appreciate your faith. I don't doubt your salvation or your calling for a moment. You have seen real things. Real miracles. Real moves of God quenched by ego and sin. We agree on more than you might think. But may I gently refer you back to your own point about ego? The certainty with which you deliver these verdicts, about who is real, who is false, who will drop dead, who will come out fine, is itself worth examining. The same standard applies to all of us. Jeremiah 17:9. Every single one of us. At the end of the day I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am speaking ideas I feel called to speak. People can accept them or not. I don't need agreement.

You're blaming the wrong man. Have you not considered that perhaps God is responsible for Mike's 'success'? All of that 'collateral damage' is on the heads of the false, deceptive, sinning, lying, cheating leaders, not Mike Winger. And who taught the laity to excuse and turn a blind eye to their leader's grifting the flock in the name of Jesus? The same ones doing the grifting. When the laity sits back and allows their leaders to compromise God's standards, they suffer as well: read the Book of Judges ... We are instructed to rebuke and exhort the Brethren, to turn them away fro sin—or attempt to. Elders who sin are to be rebuked in Public. That's a Biblical mandate that seems to be largely ignored—because it makes people uncomfortable. But Jesus never said "Go ye therefore an be comfortable." Nor did he ever say, "Go ye therefore and be tolerant." He did say "Be ye Holy." and "Pick yup your cross and follow me." Jesus also called people hypocrites, Blind guides, fools and even satan(and that was Peter.) Jesus wasn't always 'nice' or even 'kind'—at least by current standards. After Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead because they lied to god , Scripture says:So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things. Ac 5:11 I'll just bet it did, too. we could use some serious fear in these miscreants. Especially when you note the result: And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed. Ac 5:12-16 Perhaps the real reason there is no real power in the church is because there is no real holiness or real fear of God in the church. At what point do you stop making excuses for them refusing to either listen or repent? If you think Mike's too extreme, you're going to detest the Two Witnesses. What are you going to do when these false men—and women—start experiencing God's judgement? Yell at God? The thing is, I happen to know that God is big enough—and Jesus cares far more about His church that anyone. He will do what must be done, even if that means liars dropping dead. Those who truly love and fear God will come out just fine. Those that don't will not. That outcome is in God's hands, not yours, not mine, not Mike's— God's hands. Personally, I would invoke 1 Corinthians 5:5. In fact, by God's direction and unction, I have put it before Him. That was the Apostle Paul's solution. That's good enough for me. FYI- I am a Mrs., not a Mr. God called my Husband and myself decades ago with the order to 'Speak MY [God's] truth into the darkness.' I've been around the 'Charismatic Renewal' Since it began in the Catholic 'People of Praise' community at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. I've see real miracles. And I've seen too many real 'moves of God' get quenched by ego and/or sin in the camp—specifically in leadership. It's long past time for people to stop playing at being Prophets and Apostles and get serious. Before the King returns ... “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food [i]in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. 47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying [j]his coming,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, 51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [all in Red letters]

@AirForceManAZ @MikeWingerii False logic? Respectfully... show me where. I am happy to improve and grow. My suspicion is you can't. That was a drive by but you know that. Put down the pom poms. This is not a team sport. It is the Kingdom we are talking about.

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii Pmac that was the longest false logic I’ve ever seen. Congratulations. Mike keep doing the Lords work exposing false prophets!

I am not here to defend Perry Stone. That is not my point and never was. My point is about a pattern. A pattern of weaponizing information in the name of the Lord. The Perry Stone audio was one example of that pattern -- not the subject of my argument. The subject is what that pattern produces. Witness this conversation. The contempt. The verdicts rendered on people nobody here knows. The complete absence of anything that looks like grace. And before you say it -- grace is not an argument for excusing wrong. It is the spirit in which the people of God are supposed to pursue accountability. That is the damage I am talking about. And it is happening in real time right here. And the scripture you are posting -- mind your own business, temptation is common to mankind -- are interesting choices for a conversation built entirely on rendering verdicts about people you don't know. Those verses cut in a direction you may not have intended. This is exactly what I was describing in my original post. This conversation. This spirit. This is what Mike's endeavor has unleashed in the body. I will let it speak for itself. I am not here to argue with you or convince you of anything. I have said what I came to say. Peace to you. Genuinely.

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii His position? Stop the hero worship. Perry is not a special exalted one. He's a dude who created a good grift. Not in a "position" any different from anyone else. This is the problem: we think those "in the ministry" are more important than those with jobs and must be restored.

Nobody said pressure excuses anything. That was not my point. My point is that most people posting memes on X have never carried anything close to what a person in that position carries. That demands a degree of humility before you roll your eyes and say next. And "there are other jobs" -- said about a real human being whose life and ministry are being publicly dismantled -- tells me everything I need to know about the spirit behind this conversation. That is not accountability. That is not justice. That is not even close to what love for the body looks like. God knows Perry Stone. Knows his whole story. Knows what comes next. I am comfortable leaving it there. You seem very comfortable not leaving it there. That difference is worth examining. PS: I love The Office.

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii He failed in his ministry. He has disqualified himself. There are other jobs. "... the pressures..." come on, man.

Hi Mr. YeshuaKat - Actually I think we agree on more than you might expect. If the real move of God doesn't depend on any person or institution, and I believe that, then it certainly doesn't need me to defend it. And if the fakery is what is suppressing God's power rather than the exposure of it then we are largely on the same page there too. But this was never really about the logic of whether you can hold two positions simultaneously. It was about Mike specifically. What Mike actually does. And what he has unleashed. He has said he only wants to expose the bad guys so the genuine can flourish. Fair enough on paper. But look at what he actually produces. The crowd he feeds. The mob he cultivates. The calls to "burn it down." And the cheap shot at Perry Stone -- a four year old audio clip of a man in a private moment of distress denying an accusation. Not evidence of the accusation itself -- just a tool to make sure nobody takes him seriously. That is not establishing lack of credibility. That is character assassination. There is a difference. None of that looks like someone trying to help something survive and grow healthier. It looks like someone who wants it gone. At some point the gap between what he says he wants and what his actions consistently produce deserves an honest look. Jeremiah 17:9 applies here too. And you still didn't address the rest of what I wrote. The bigotry toward genuine believers -- not leaders, the flock. The collateral damage. The selective targeting of the charismatic church while other denominations get a pass. The silence on all of that is notable. You picked the one point you could argue and left everything else standing. Food for thought. Be well.

Quote: >>You say you only want to expose the bad guys. Not destroy the movement. I'll take that at face value. But you can't say you don't want to destroy the movement and then imply that removing the frauds might destroy it entirely. That suggests the movement is mostly frauds. You can't hold both of those positions. << Sure you can. I do, and have for a couple decades. There is nothing that kills a move of God faster than trying to force it.a very large part f the reason so many 'moves of God' fizzle out is that men can't seem to keep their hands—and egos—out of it. How many times has something spontaneous happened and started to grow, only to have the institutions/denominations step in to control it and it dies or turns into fakery? The real exists. As long as Jesus tarries, it will continue to do so, as Jesus promised. That does not depend on anyone. Real power, real manifestations are reliant on Holiness and Faithfulness, not parlor tricks and data mining. To even imply that Scripturally dealing with the fakery currently on display in any way impedes the true manifestation of the gifts is to limit God. It isn't Mike and his exposures that are hurting the 'movement, it's the lack of God's power and that lack is a DIRECT RESULT of this fraudulent fakery being done in God's name. — A call to return to humility, veracity, honesty holiness and authenticity is never wrong. Sorry, not sorry. It's not the messenger, it's ignoring the message.

@ShawnWGillogly @MikeWingerii Making it personal? I shared my own experience to make a point about selective targeting. That is called an argument. As for fruit -- I would gently suggest examining what this entire conversation has produced on your end before applying that standard to me.

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii I've watched the videos. But you making it personal shows everything about fruit and Spirit in this conversation. Your "leaders" don't need defending. If their gifts and fruit are genuine.

A few things. Perry Stone has walked a road most of us will never walk. The weight of public ministry at that level -- the spiritual warfare, the pressures, the exposure, the relentless demands -- is something most people posting on X have never been near. That is not an excuse for what he may or may not have done. It is context that demands some humility before you line yourself up next to him and declare yourself the winner. But if you really want to go there -- the question worth asking yourself is this. Given the full truth of your own life. Every opportunity you have had to sin. Every moment God alone has access to. Have you come out so substantially better than Perry Stone that you are now justified in publicly mocking and deriding him? That is between you and God. But I would sit with it honestly before answering. And here is what troubles me most about how Mike used that audio. He wasn't primarily concerned with what Perry Stone actually did. He used it as a weapon to discredit him. A cheap shot. A serious body blow to a man who is out there and exposed in a way most of us never will be. That is not accountability. That is something else. Nobody stands outside of Jeremiah 17:9. Nobody. Not Perry Stone. Not Mike. Not you. Not me. Be well.

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii WUT!? Don't know about Mike, but I can tell you, although I'm not proud of everything I've said, nothing I've ever said is nearly as bad as threatening to off myself and take down a ministry because of women objecting to my sexual harassment. Do you hang with people like that?

@ShawnWGillogly @MikeWingerii He said that early on in one of his original videos. Sweet of you to defend him though. He is a big boy. He can handle. it

@Pmac92Pmac @MikeWingerii He didn't say HE said that would destroy the movement. He said the people attacking HIM claim it will destroy the movement. Don't DARVO the question.

I have no idea which one of you I would agree with but either way you CLEARLY flinched here. You say you want a debate, he says "ok you go 10 minutes" and they you act as if it's beneath you to restate your case? I mean...dude...you completely folded. You had your shot and ran away. Bad look. That is what trolls do.

@paleochristcon @usmcgruntx I just tagged you. Its not hard to work the app. I have mentioned you on multiple threads, it sound like you're just ducking now. "I can't be bothered to look up anything" lol

Just a simple question. I understand the aipac funding against massie is overwhelming. But how is the Yass funding for Massie better? Isn't he also tied to many pro israel groups?

Here's Bernie Sanders six years ago claiming that humanity only had about six years left to stop the existential threat of climate change. We would all still be alive today if we had just passed his $30 trillion Green New Deal. 😂

A few thoughts. The hostility in these exchanges is consistently and continuously one way — toward those perceived as more charismatic. Whether that means prosperity theology, healing, the prophetic or anything else. It is not mutual. It is not reciprocal. And it is ugly. Labeling people guilty of "selfism" puts you somewhere above your pay grade. Every person in those pews has a story. A journey. A combination of experience, need, and faith that you know nothing about. Sound familiar? That is exactly the assumption I was pushing back on. And the framing that the hostility is coming from those being targeted -- the very people on the receiving end of "burn it down and shut the doors" -- (just one common example of many) is disingenuous at best. That is not a defense. That is a deflection. And it is not honest. These are real people. Made in the image of God. Loved by Him. Known by Him. Some of your theological objections to what they believe may be legitimate. An honest examination of your own heart and life would surface its own list. Nobody stands outside that. Speck and plank. The gate is indeed narrow. Let's not make it narrower. Blessings in your walk....

@Pmac92Pmac @Protestia If it provokes hostility among those who believe in prosperity theology, the good. They are the ones we’d like to save from their selfism.

Breaking: Joni Lamb, president and co-founder of Daystar Television Network, has died at 65. Notably, for decades Daystar network platformed the who’s who of prosperity heretics and false teachers, including Jesse DuPlantis, Sid Roth, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Jim Bakker, Marcus Lamb, Bill Winston, Perry Stone, Joel Osteen, Joseph Prince, TD Jakes, Andrew Womack, and Paula White.