Three separate incidents in recent months have sensitized me to what I believe is a problem within the Christian community regarding how we deal with Christians who take unconventional positions:

Recently I listened to a well-known Christian talk show in which the host was discussing the work of evangelist Benny Hinn. I am aware of Hinns work because a year ago a friend asked me to read Hinns book, Good Morning, Holy Spirit! My friend had heard some people considered it heretical. I did not find it to be so. I did think Hinn was imprecise in some of his terminology, but his spirit and attitude were good and he made no statement which I could consider clear heresy. The talk show hosts pessimistic spirit troubled me. He seemed to have relegated Hinn almost to the position of Antichrist.

In another case, I followed with a sense of uneasiness a Christian magazines continued personal attack on Bob Larson, who is host of the nationally syndicated radio show Talk Back. Again the attack wasin my opinioncruel and unreasonable. One article was so sophomoric it embarrassed me.&"How easily," I thought, "they lay hands on this brother."

A third, less clear, example occurred during a conference I spoke at recently. I was on a panel with several other apologists in which we took questions from the floor. One of the panel members, whom I had gotten to know and grown to love, fielded a question which should have been easy to answer. His hedging amazed me! Here was a man who for two days had glibly named other popular Christian ministers as examples of heretics. I couldnt figure out why he was suddenly being so careful. Then it dawned on methe simple, correct answer to the question from the floor would have offended a group of people with whom the apologist worked closely. His inability to judge equitably disappointed me.

When God says He gave the man dominion, He didnt make him sort of a first class gardener to set out rose bushes and prune the plum trees. Thats not what Adam did. Adam had dominion. And dominion has to do with rulership. All Creation was under him. I think that when he wanted it to rain, he called in the rain. I think that when he wanted the heat turned on, why, he turned it on. I think he controlled this earth.

Speaking of this matter, the great Bible scholar, Dr. Harold O. J. Brown has said "[True] Heresy not only undermines ones intellectual understanding of Christian doctrine, but threatens to sink the ark (the Church), and thus to make salvation impossible&"

In my opinion, one of the foremost problems facing the body of Christ today is a rise in heresy hunting. It is almost a new Inquisition. Nit-pickers and bean-counters masquerade as scholars. Their vision is so narrowed to their own brand of Christian experience that they cannot find the dividing line between heretics and fellow ministers. Genuine apologists (ministers who provide reasonable answers to those who challenge orthodox Christian doctrine) are motivated by a sincere desire to protect the Church from error; heresy hunters divide the Church by defaming legitimate brothers and sisters in Christ.

Those who "accuse the brethren" engage in serious business. They strike at the central unity of the Body of Christ. God has said such activity is laden with grave implications:

Would you mind reading my two "Heresy Hunter" newsletters with an eye to giving me a paragraph of criticism? I am reluctantly addressing what I think is a less than charitable attack on my (mostly) Charismatic colleagues. Of course, I know that will open me up [to false charges], however I feel compelled to defend what I perceive to be a genuine anointing of God which seems to rest on brothers who are not as discreet and disciplined as we would like them to be. Do you think it is appropriate to call for patience in the manner I have in these two articles?

I appreciated very much your counsel in the first two parts of your series entitled "Heresy Hunters!" You are wise to distinguish apologists from faultfinders and nit-pickers. The emphases on different degrees of importance in doctrine is accurate. You must ask if the issue is clearly wrong, and be especially careful when addressing brothers in the faith. The goal of church discipline is restoration initially, and it ought to be the goal of apologetics&

I think what you have done is very helpful and would urge you to continue.

I hope also you might be in conversation with Hank Hanegraaff at CRI and that copies of your articles would be sent to him. They would be helpful there also. Keep up the good work.

Thank you for your encouragement with the Heresy Hunters venture. I want to walk circumspectly here. I certainly dont want to wind up doing what I am telling others not to do. I will send you Part III as soon as it is done. As a matter of fact, I have been contacted by a publisher who would like to see a book on this subject. &

In addition, I will send them to Hank Hanegraaff at CRI.

Dear Hank,

I dont know if you remember me, but you sat next to me at the Saints Alive! meeting in Salt Lake City (the one in which you had to compete with the entire world population of Amway distributors and their Rock Bands).

Marianne Bodine called me a month or two ago and asked about my first installment of the Heresy Hunters series in my newsletter, Through the Maze. We talked for a few minutes and I asked her to send me whatever documentation or information CRI might have which might bear on this subject. I think she said she might not be able to do that.

At any rate, I am sending the first two articles to you. They are enclosed. I think they speak for themselves. I wont try to re-state my opinions here. I want you to know that I appreciate you and your work. I am most interested in any research you have that would bring balance to my work.

If you would desire to be in conversation or correspondence, I would be honored to enter into brotherly dialogue.

The controversial church meeting did not take place in Tulsa or the Ozarks. It was not a Pentecostal tent meeting, nor was it orchestrated by a flashy televangelist. On the contrary, the extraordinary meeting took place within a stately, stained-glass windowed church in New England. It was one of numerous other meetings exactly like it which occurred throughout New England during the 1730s and 1740sthe period historians call The Great Awakening.

I have, of necessity used real examples, such a book as this could not be written theoretically. In using real examples to illustrate my actual targetthe error of heresy huntingI could not avoid "naming names." As I say within the pages of this book, I do not think naming names is the issue, rather it is how and why we name names.

In the first line of his introduction, Spencer writes, "A heresy hunter, by the definition I use in this book, does not really hunt heresy; he hunts people."

Spencers purpose in writing this book is to attempt to put a stop to Christians discrediting one another to the extent that the body of Christ is divided and ministries are shut down. Hes especially concerned about attacks on charismatics such as Kenneth Copeland, Robert Tilton, and Benny Hinn and on "Satan fighters" such as Mike Warnke and Bob Larson.

Spencer himself is a charismatic converted from Mormonism, who continues to witness to Mormons. Hes also been a journalist. He writes with great clarity and persuasion, crafting his sentences, paragraphs, and even entire chapters with unusual skill and sensitivity. He also writes with a sense of restraint, so that he might not be accused of that which he writes against. Yet he speaks clearly, naming names and quoting articles and books that show how character assassination is going on within the church.

Perhaps the pivotal chapter of the book is the third, in which Spencer attempts to define the term "heresy" and differentiate between heresy and heretics. Under a section titled "Can a man Teach Heresy and Not Be a Heretic?" the author says, "A person who ignorantly reports heretical ideas is wrong, but he may not properly be called a heretic." Building on this idea throughout the book, Spencer shows how the men under investigation have made erroneous statements or even "stupid" ones, but they arent heretics in the true sense of the word. He also points out that men like Hinn have been quick to admit when theyve been wrong and have tried to correct certain statements.

The point that Spencer makes is one thats sorely neededi.e., attacking each other personally, rather than questioning certain doctrines, is very destructive in the body of Christ. However, he also raises several important questions regarding the need for media celebrities to make themselves accountable for their words and to be more hesitant to speak if they havent thought through a certain teaching. He also seems to be hesitant to call any teaching of other charismatics heresy.

Spencer believes that "our century has produced two periods of great revival which were as historically significant as the Great Awakening. The first was the Pentecostal Revival that began with the turn of this century. The second was the Charismatic Renewal that began in the 1950s and lasted until the early 1980s."

Further, he is concerned that "it is possible that history could mark the decline and eventual end of the charismatic movement with the end of the ministry of the Faith Teachers&I hope they [the heresy hunters] are not guilty of resisting something God is promoting." This sounds very much like Gamaliels speech to the Jewish council in Acts 5, but Spencer stops short and doesnt repeat the heart of the speech"but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them" (Acts 5:39 NASB).

Spencers tone throughout is one of humility and conciliation. It appears he does desire that heresy be removed from the church without the destruction of people in the process. This book will be an excellent tool to be used for that end.

Heresy Hunters documents the disastrous tendency among many evangelical anti-cult writers to turn on Christian brethren with excessive zeal and character assassination.

This book is especially noteworthy because its author, James Spencer, has written several anti-cult works that are widely respected among evangelicals. From his personal experience as a former Mormon, Spencer learned the essential distinction between heresy and the person believing in heresy. Those in the cults should be seen as victims of heresy, not merely heretics to be humiliated and destroyed. He would like to see anti-cult ministers mindful of this distinction.

Spencer shows that heresy hunters often err by labeling what are biblically acceptable positions as heretical because the targeted ministers do not conform to present evangelical thought. Furthermore, heresy hunters have surrendered to the "spirit of the age" by abandoning the biblical attempt at reconciliation and dialogue with those they believe are in error.

Spencer believes there is much need for biblical reproof and genuine discussion of issues. Unfortunately, heresy hunters go way beyond reproof and are more interested in destroying the ministry of the person in question than biblical discussion or attempted restoration.Spencer documents his serious charges against evangelical heresy hunters in four specific case studies of ministries injured or destroyed by them. These are the attacks on Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Bob Larson and Mike Warnke.

Spencer readily admits that all of these ministries were flawed and needed reproof. However, no Christian or non-Christian should be subject to the cruel way in which their faults and errors were exposed, and the exaggerated and distorted manner in which their beliefs have been presented. Of particular interest to pastors and lay leaders is Spencer's documentation of the distortion and malice with which Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland have been treated.

This book is theologically precise enough to satisfy pastors, yet easily understood by laymen. It is an ideal text for Sunday school classes.