Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Blog
-
Unveiling Truth: Dan Bohi’s Anointing Resource Guide
Before I dive into the meat of this topic, I encourage you to read my previous articles I’ve written about Dan Bohi. I feel it’s important that you have a solid understanding of Bohi’s theology when diving into this article. It will assist you in connecting some of the dots between his positions. Regardless, you don’t need a prerequisite understanding of Bohi’s theology for this article to strike a chord, but it would help.
This article will also serve as a resource for those confused by Dan Bohi’s theology on the topic of the anointing. This article is comprehensive, yet not exhaustive. I know that’s hard to believe given the length of the article. I’m convinced that a book could be written responding to this one sermon alone. I aim to empower and liberate those impacted by the teachings of Dan Bohi, his ministry, and his allies within the Nazarene denomination and elsewhere. There are a growing number of people who feel unrepresented within the Nazarene denomination because their concerns with Bohi fall on deaf ears. This article is written to validate their concerns and hopefully give them the resource they need to help spread awareness of Bohi’s theology.
Additionally, this article is designed to aid Christians who have either 1) become confused and/or concerned after hearing a message from Dan Bohi on this topic or 2) realized that there is something scripturally wrong with Bohi’s teaching but can’t pinpoint it. My goal is to help with both.
This article will begin by summarizing scripturally what the anointing means. This will merely be a description of how the word is used in various contexts while highlighting its theological significance.
Secondly, I’ll recap Bohi’s sermon and highlight relevant areas that shine a light on his definition of the anointing. There are several topics he touches on, and he often jumps from topic to topic, so I’ll do my best to organize his thoughts.
Lastly, I’ll finish with “The Critique” and move into topics of Bohi’s sermon that I felt deserved their own treatment.
Let’s get started…
Scriptural Definition of Anointing
In the Old Testament, we see the Hebrew word mashach, which means “to anoint or smear with oil.” This word was used in the Old Testament to describe the consicratation of new leaders (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 16:13), priestly anointings (Exodus 29:7), symbolized the presence and power of the Holy Spirit (1 Samuel 16:13), and was used to set the messianic expectation (Psalm 2:2.)
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ reveals himself as the Messiah. The word messiah is derived from the Hebrew word “mashiaḥ“, which means “anointed.” The Greek word for Christ is “Christos“, which also means “the anointed one.” Jesus Christ is the basis for our salvation and is aptly described as “the anointed one,” as he was set apart for the specific reason of being a perfect sacrifice for all of humanity’s sins. As we see in the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 61:1, which is explicitly repeated by Jesus in Luke 4:18:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,”This prophecy outlines that Jesus is anointed for the purpose of salvation. Jesus confirmed that this prophecy was fulfilled in Luke 4:21. Jesus’ anointing is not the same as our own as Christians. Christians share an anointing through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11). However, this is not the same anointing that Jesus Christ possessed. We do not possess the same power and authority as Christ, even though we have an anointing as Christians.
We read in 1 John 2:20, “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” This was written by John the Apostle to a church that faced internal divisions, false teachings, and questions about the nature of Jesus Christ and salvation. John the Apostle was describing that through our anointing in Christ, we are given the knowledge to use for understanding, clarity, and discernment. Through this anointing, we live out our faith and engage in ministry.
Healing is mentioned in the New Testament in James 5, where it says in verses 14–15, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” On its face, it may appear that this verse was promising miraculous physical healing. However, a full reading of James 5 does not convincingly demonstrate that verses 14–15 deal exclusively with physical illnesses. Almost every other verse in James 5 deals with spiritual illnesses and encourages patience in our suffering, “for the Lord is at hand.” (verse 8) While verses 14–15 aren’t excluding physical illnesses, they aren’t excluding spiritual illnesses either.
According to the scriptures, the anointing doesn’t imply that Christians universally and uniformly receive miraculous gifts. The Holy Spirit distributes to individual Christians a diversity of gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-11), which don’t necessarily require any miraculous element. Historically, the purpose of miracles has been to authenticate Christ’s power, word, and authority. We needn’t expect daily miracles in today’s modern society, especially in western nations where an abundance of evidence is readily available supporting God’s power, word, and authority.
Now that we’ve discussed Biblical anointing, I’ll summarize Dan Bohi’s description of the anointing.
Bohi’s Definition of Anointing
Dan Bohi prioritizes “the anointing” highest on the scale of biblical priorities. At the beginning of his sermon (timestamp: 41:00), Bohi states, “I think what we need the most is the anointing.” He admits that all who have salvation in Christ are anointed. However, he clarifies that he is not referring to the anointing explicitly mentioned in scripture. He says, “I’m talking about the anointing when the Holy Spirit comes on you for others… we need the power of God to rest on us to demonstrate God’s reality.” Bohi further clarifies his point, stating, “the reality is Christ is IN us, but we need the anointing ON us to release the glory that’s WITHIN us to touch those AROUND us.”
According to Bohi’s theology, the anointing is an additional layer of power that grants us the authority to release power and demonstrate God’s reality. For example, Bohi recounts miracle stories in each of his services. In this sermon, Bohi recounts an instance where he made oil ‘drip’ from a pastor’s hands (timestamp: 45:00), instantly healed several people within a single service (timestamp: 43:00- 44:00), and how he has miraculously healed at least 82,000 people as of 2018 (timestamp: 1:20:08).
Furthermore, Dan Bohi believes that Jesus didn’t possess the anointing until he received the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22). Bohi suggests that Jesus’ baptism signified more than just the start of his earthly ministry, implying that Jesus was not anointed before his baptism, as no miracles are recorded prior. However, as I will discuss later, this assertion has significant scriptural issues.
Bohi said Jesus didn’t have the anointing in his hometown and couldn’t do miracles. Bohi uses Mark 6 to support his claim. However, Mark 6:4-5 says, “And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” I will later discuss whether Jesus can lose any aspect of his divine nature due being in his hometown.
Staying on the topic of Jesus, Bohi said that Jesus didn’t come only to extend salvation through death on the cross; “He (Jesus) did not come just so you could be forgiven… He was already forgiving people for hundreds and hundreds of years. All you have to do is kill a goat and let some priest put blood on an altar, and you were forgiven for all your sins for a year. He didn’t come just to forgive you. He came to give power to you. That’s why he said in Luke 24: You guys have to go to Jerusalem and wait till you’re clothed with power.” (emphasis mine) Again, I will respond to this comment below.
Furthermore, Bohi frequently employs rhetoric suggesting that believers become ‘intoxicated’ with the Holy Spirit, which is a concept commonly associated with ‘new wineskin theology’ (Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38). While there are scriptures referring to a parable Jesus told about old wineskins and how they would burst if filled with new wine, Bohi uses this parable to set the foundation for the belief that those who are within new wineskins will receive the anointing. Bohi comments, “The anointing can’t come unless you get the new wine with it… when the anointing comes tonight, everybody won’t be able to recognize yourself because you’ll be intoxicated with something other than your flesh or problems or worries.” I will address Bohi’s new wineskin theology below.
Next, Bohi said that “God doesn’t want to reveal himself to you through your intellect; God wants to reveal himself to your spirit because if you can get revelation in your spirit, you can’t be talked out of it.” He tries to justify this belief by saying, “That’s why Paul said, I don’t want to come to you with a demonstration of man’s wisdom; I don’t want to persuade you with man’s wisdom; I want to come to you with a demonstration of the spirit’s power so that your faith doesn’t rest in man’s ability to articulate words but in the power of God that can change lives.”
This is a common thread within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) community. I’ll address in more detail below.
Lastly, Dani Bohi wants to transfer the anointing through the process that’s been titled “impartations” within the NAR community. Bohi says, “I want to do impartations. Listen, the anointing is transferable. If you want the anointing, you can have it, but you have to become a new wineskin, which means you have to let go of the fear of man.”
This summary of Dan Bohi’s sermon on how he defines “the anointing” is not exhaustive. In fact, there was plenty more that I could’ve added, but I feel my summary paints a clear picture of what Bohi’s theological perspective is on the anointing.
The Critique
As seen above, the anointing described in scripture and Dan Bohi’s preaching on the anointing aren’t compatible. Bohi himself admits that he’s not addressing the anointing broadly shared by Christians, which is specifically described in scripture. Bohi concedes, “I’m talking about the anointing when the Holy Spirit comes on you for others….we need the power of God to rest on us to demonstrate God’s reality…the reality is Christ is IN us, but we need the anointing ON us to release the glory that’s WITHIN us to touch those AROUND us.” This is not found anywhere in scripture.
Stylistically, Bohi’s preaching appears to be delivered off-the-cuff and feels uncharted and disorganized. Bohi’s theology hides in plain sight behind a sea of memorized scripture, almost always taken out of context to prop up his brand of theology. Bohi has memorized dozen’s of scriptures and strategically scattered them throughout his sermon to prop up his credibility on “the anointing.” I pulled up almost every scriptural citation Bohi presented in his sermon and read it within context, and a baffling majority of these scriptures were either 1) misrepresented or 2) taken out of context. Those who 1) deliver sermons regularly, 2) are involved in full-time ministry, and 3) have an average understanding of scripture wouldn’t misrepresent or take scripture out of context without realizing it. This suggests that Bohi may be aware that his teachings are misleading at best or false at worst.
The topics below stood out to me the most from his sermon. I’m responding to these individually because 1) they are the most theologically problematic and 2) they are likely to confuse and hinder Christians in their faith journey.
Let us begin…
Biblical Interpretation 101
Before jumping into the specific topics, it’s important to highlight a process that Christians use to develop a theological framework. This knowledge is vital for having discussions about scripture. After all, if you don’t have an established set of principles to guide your interpretation of scripture, then you’re likely to develop conclusions from the text that don’t match the intended meaning.
You may have noticed that Dan Bohi’s problem wasn’t with the amount of scripture he was using, but how he was using it. In theology, whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in the process of hermeneutics (i.e. the study of the principles and methods of interpreting the text of the Bible) and exegesis (i.e., the examination of a particular text of scripture in order to properly interpret it). In summary, hermeneutics provides the broader framework for interpretation, while exegesis is the practical application of these principles to specific biblical texts.
As we’ve seen and as we’ll continue to see, Dan Bohi does not have a healthy understanding of hermeneutics and exegesis. His application of these practices is virtually nonexistent. If Bohi focused more on understanding the true meaning of the text rather than simply citing it, he’d be able to communicate a message that aligns with the scriptures.
For those who want to learn to interpret the Bible responsibly, I’d encourage you to pick up How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. It’s a book designed for everyday churchgoers, and I believe you will greatly benefit from its teachings.
New Wineskins and Intoxication Explained
Dan Bohi and many within the NAR and hyper-charasmatic communities misrepresent the parable about wineskins (Matthew 9:16-17; Mark 2:21-22; Luke 5:36-38.) I’d encourage you to read each of the three hyperlinked verses if you’re unfamiliar with this parable because Bohi uses the “intoxication” rhetoric that is based off this parable. Bohi believes that those with new wineskins are anointed. They will receive the benefits he describes in his definition of the anointing.
This parable describes the new covenant, in which those who obey and follow Jesus are considered new wine suited for new wineskins. By contrast, the old wineskins were represented by the old and dogmatically religious Jewish leaders that reject Jesus. The point is that new wine cannot be placed in old wineskins because they’re incompatible. These scriptures do not prescribe a miraculous anointing beyond the reality that those with new wineskins will inherit the kingdom of God and possess the Holy Spirit.
Bohi elaborates, “The anointing can’t come unless you get the new wine with it. When the anointing comes tonight, everyone won’t be able to recognize themselves because they’ll be intoxicated with something other than their flesh, problems, or worries.” He’s connecting the new wine with the anointing and somehow using “intoxication” as the description for this process. This represents a theological leap that’s unsupported by reliable interpretations.
There is no clear link between Bohi’s definition of anointing and the scriptures cited in this parable.
The Anointing of Jesus Explained
Dan Bohi doesn’t believe that Jesus possessed his anointing until he received the Holy Spirit (he cites Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22). His argument is based on the assumption that Jesus didn’t have the capacity to perform miracles prior to this moment in his divine nature because he wasn’t anointed prior to his baptism. Bohi tries to reaffirm this conclusion by stating that Jesus couldn’t have been anointed because there were no recorded miracles in the Bible prior to his baptism.
Denying Jesus’ nature as ‘the anointed one’—the Messiah and Christ—implies a rejection of his divinity. To reject Jesus’ divinity up to the point of baptism is to adopt a form of pseudo-Arianism that enters into heresy. Jesus’ nature is unchanging and absolute. Jesus’ baptism didn’t alter the nature of his person in the trinity but merely signified the start of his earthly ministry. Dan Bohi’s position is universally rejected by orthodox Christian theologians. In fact, it’s a position that is largely held by false teachers that mainly occupy sects within the New Apostolic Reformation movement.
Bohi said Mark 6 claimed that Jesus lost his anointing in his hometown because he couldn’t perform miracles; however, verse 5 said, “And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” Bohi overlooks the verse where Jesus healed people in his hometown and misinterprets the text in a pseudo-Arian way by suggesting that Jesus lost his anointing and couldn’t perform divine acts. Jesus is one of the three persons of the trinitarian God and cannot change the qualities of his nature. The qualities of his nature that Bohi claims Jesus lost are divine, not human. Given they are divine attributes, they will remain unchanged.
As it is explained in Matthew 13:57-58, “And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” The explanation for not doing a “mighty work there” is explained by their lack of faith, not by Jesus’ lost anointment.
Lastly, Bohi said that Jesus “did not come just so you could be forgiven…He came to give power to you.” Bohi references Luke 24:49, “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” This is another out of context citation because it describes the conversation Jesus had with his disciples on the road to Emmaus. Bohi is trying to use this scripture in a prescriptive way as to make it appear that Jesus is speaking to modern Christians when Jesus was only speaking to a select group of Christians in a specific moment in time.
Spirit Versus Intellect
We recall Dan Bohi saying,
“God doesn’t want to reveal himself to you through your intellect; God wants to reveal himself to your spirit because if you can get revelation in your spirit, you can’t be talked out of it…That’s why Paul said, I don’t want to come to you with a demonstration of man’s wisdom; I don’t want to persuade you with man’s wisdom; I want to come to you with a demonstration of the spirit’s power so that your faith doesn’t rest in man’s ability to articulate words but in the power of God that can change lives.”
Bohi is likely trying to draw from 1 Corinthians 2:5 as support for his teaching; however, he is taking scripture out of context again to support his theological agenda. Bohi promotes a theology that is void of any intellectual rigor. Given his teachings, this discouragement shouldn’t be surprising, as intellectual inquiry into them often leads to their refutation.
Here are five of my favorite scriptures that support an intellectually rigorous faith:
1 Peter 3:15: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”
Acts 17:11: “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
Romans 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.“
Colossians 2:6-8: “6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Philippians 1:9-10: “9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,”
There are vastly more scriptures that highlight how our faith in Christ is complimented by our intellects. When a lawyer asked Jesus what the most important commandment was, Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37) When Bohi says, “God doesn’t want to reveal himself to you through your intellect,” you can trust that this is false due to the volumes of verses saying the exact opposite.
Impartations
I have previously written about Dan Bohi’s theology concerning impartations. I’d strongly encourage you to read this article because it addresses what impartations are in greater detail.
Bohi believes that this anointing can be transferred from one Christian to another. He says, “I want to do impartations. Listen, the anointing is transferable. If you want the anointing, you can have it, but you have to become a new wineskin, which means you have to let go of the fear of man.”
In Dan Bohi and Rob McCorkle’s book titled, Holiness and Healing, they elaborate on their theological understanding of ‘impartations.’ They write, “It simply means to impart or to give. Paul talked about his desire to impart or to give a supernatural gift to the Christians in Rome. (Romans 1:11)”
To understand what this verse is actually communicating, let’s view it in context (Romans 1:8-15):
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you 10 always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you—12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,[a] that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
Given the context of Bohi’s proof text, does it sound like he provided a sound Biblical interpretation of the scripture? No. The ESV Study Bible comments on verses 11 – 12, “mutually encouraged – Paul desires as an apostle to encourage the Christians in Rome, but it is also noteworthy that their faith serves to inspire and strengthen him as well.” (page 2158) This passage cannot be used to reinforce the practice of impartation as defined by Bohi.
There is no scriptural basis for believing that anyone can impart an anointing to another person.
Conclusion
It may be hard to believe, but I didn’t cover all the topics mentioned in his sermon. This lengthy article is actually abbreviated. My intention was to write an article based on Dan Bohi’s theological understanding of the anointing. As I began, I asked myself the following question, “Are Christians struggling with confusion arising from Dan Bohi’s ministry and his preaching on the anointing?” As someone who was personally involved with a church where the congregation struggled with Dan Bohi, I am confident that many people appreciate a scriptural response to Bohi’s claims about the anointing.
I respond to Dan Bohi’s positions in good faith. Despite what some may believe, I have no interest in causing unrest with him and his ministry. I celebrate any authentic conversion resulting from Bohi’s ministry! Praise Jesus! God can bring people to Him through any avenue. My criticism of Bohi’s theology is framed around scripture and reason. Like the Bereans described in Acts 17:10-15, we must receive “the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Examining teachings against scripture is modeled in the scriptures!
I pray that you see that Dan Bohi isn’t preaching a biblically faithful version of ‘the anointing.’ Bohi’s description of the anointing is scripturally unrecognizable, power-centered, supported by far-fetched miracle stories, out of context scriptures, and a gross misunderstanding of Jesus’ nature. Admittedly, this is a harsh reproach. Also, admittedly, I find my rebuke warranted, especially given Bohi’s vast influence on charismatic-leaning Nazarenes over the decades.
I encourage you to share this article with someone who has been confused by Dan Bohi’s theology. I pray they find reassurance in discovering that there are theologically valid reasons for their concerns, and God may use this article as a way to help resolve some of the confusion resulting from Bohi’s false teachings.
-
Unveiling Truth: Dan Bohi’s Anointing Resource Guide
Before I dive into the meat of this topic, I encourage you to read my previous articles I’ve written about Dan Bohi. I feel it’s important that you have a solid understanding of Bohi’s theology when diving into this article. It will assist you in connecting some of the dots between his positions. Regardless, you don’t need a prerequisite understanding of Bohi’s theology for this article to strike a chord, but it would help.
This article will also serve as a resource for those confused by Dan Bohi’s theology on the topic of the anointing. This article is comprehensive, yet not exhaustive. I know that’s hard to believe given the length of the article. I’m convinced that a book could be written responding to this one sermon alone. I aim to empower and liberate those impacted by the teachings of Dan Bohi, his ministry, and his allies within the Nazarene denomination and elsewhere. There are a growing number of people who feel unrepresented within the Nazarene denomination because their concerns with Bohi fall on deaf ears. This article is written to validate their concerns and hopefully give them the resource they need to help spread awareness of Bohi’s theology.
Additionally, this article is designed to aid Christians who have either 1) become confused and/or concerned after hearing a message from Dan Bohi on this topic or 2) realized that there is something scripturally wrong with Bohi’s teaching but can’t pinpoint it. My goal is to help with both.
This article will begin by summarizing scripturally what the anointing means. This will merely be a description of how the word is used in various contexts while highlighting its theological significance.
Secondly, I’ll recap Bohi’s sermon and highlight relevant areas that shine a light on his definition of the anointing. There are several topics he touches on, and he often jumps from topic to topic, so I’ll do my best to organize his thoughts.
Lastly, I’ll finish with “The Critique” and move into topics of Bohi’s sermon that I felt deserved their own treatment.
Let’s get started…
Scriptural Definition of Anointing
In the Old Testament, we see the Hebrew word mashach, which means “to anoint or smear with oil.” This word was used in the Old Testament to describe the consicratation of new leaders (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 16:13), priestly anointings (Exodus 29:7), symbolized the presence and power of the Holy Spirit (1 Samuel 16:13), and was used to set the messianic expectation (Psalm 2:2.)
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ reveals himself as the Messiah. The word messiah is derived from the Hebrew word “mashiaḥ“, which means “anointed.” The Greek word for Christ is “Christos“, which also means “the anointed one.” Jesus Christ is the basis for our salvation and is aptly described as “the anointed one,” as he was set apart for the specific reason of being a perfect sacrifice for all of humanity’s sins. As we see in the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 61:1, which is explicitly repeated by Jesus in Luke 4:18:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,”This prophecy outlines that Jesus is anointed for the purpose of salvation. Jesus confirmed that this prophecy was fulfilled in Luke 4:21. Jesus’ anointing is not the same as our own as Christians. Christians share an anointing through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11). However, this is not the same anointing that Jesus Christ possessed. We do not possess the same power and authority as Christ, even though we have an anointing as Christians.
We read in 1 John 2:20, “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” This was written by John the Apostle to a church that faced internal divisions, false teachings, and questions about the nature of Jesus Christ and salvation. John the Apostle was describing that through our anointing in Christ, we are given the knowledge to use for understanding, clarity, and discernment. Through this anointing, we live out our faith and engage in ministry.
Healing is mentioned in the New Testament in James 5, where it says in verses 14–15, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” On its face, it may appear that this verse was promising miraculous physical healing. However, a full reading of James 5 does not convincingly demonstrate that verses 14–15 deal exclusively with physical illnesses. Almost every other verse in James 5 deals with spiritual illnesses and encourages patience in our suffering, “for the Lord is at hand.” (verse 8) While verses 14–15 aren’t excluding physical illnesses, they aren’t excluding spiritual illnesses either.
According to the scriptures, the anointing doesn’t imply that Christians universally and uniformly receive miraculous gifts. The Holy Spirit distributes to individual Christians a diversity of gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-11), which don’t necessarily require any miraculous element. Historically, the purpose of miracles has been to authenticate Christ’s power, word, and authority. We needn’t expect daily miracles in today’s modern society, especially in western nations where an abundance of evidence is readily available supporting God’s power, word, and authority.
Now that we’ve discussed Biblical anointing, I’ll summarize Dan Bohi’s description of the anointing.
Bohi’s Definition of Anointing
Dan Bohi prioritizes “the anointing” highest on the scale of biblical priorities. At the beginning of his sermon (timestamp: 41:00), Bohi states, “I think what we need the most is the anointing.” He admits that all who have salvation in Christ are anointed. However, he clarifies that he is not referring to the anointing explicitly mentioned in scripture. He says, “I’m talking about the anointing when the Holy Spirit comes on you for others… we need the power of God to rest on us to demonstrate God’s reality.” Bohi further clarifies his point, stating, “the reality is Christ is IN us, but we need the anointing ON us to release the glory that’s WITHIN us to touch those AROUND us.”
According to Bohi’s theology, the anointing is an additional layer of power that grants us the authority to release power and demonstrate God’s reality. For example, Bohi recounts miracle stories in each of his services. In this sermon, Bohi recounts an instance where he made oil ‘drip’ from a pastor’s hands (timestamp: 45:00), instantly healed several people within a single service (timestamp: 43:00- 44:00), and how he has miraculously healed at least 82,000 people as of 2018 (timestamp: 1:20:08).
Furthermore, Dan Bohi believes that Jesus didn’t possess the anointing until he received the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22). Bohi suggests that Jesus’ baptism signified more than just the start of his earthly ministry, implying that Jesus was not anointed before his baptism, as no miracles are recorded prior. However, as I will discuss later, this assertion has significant scriptural issues.
Bohi said Jesus didn’t have the anointing in his hometown and couldn’t do miracles. Bohi uses Mark 6 to support his claim. However, Mark 6:4-5 says, “And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” I will later discuss whether Jesus can lose any aspect of his divine nature due being in his hometown.
Staying on the topic of Jesus, Bohi said that Jesus didn’t come only to extend salvation through death on the cross; “He (Jesus) did not come just so you could be forgiven… He was already forgiving people for hundreds and hundreds of years. All you have to do is kill a goat and let some priest put blood on an altar, and you were forgiven for all your sins for a year. He didn’t come just to forgive you. He came to give power to you. That’s why he said in Luke 24: You guys have to go to Jerusalem and wait till you’re clothed with power.” (emphasis mine) Again, I will respond to this comment below.
Furthermore, Bohi frequently employs rhetoric suggesting that believers become ‘intoxicated’ with the Holy Spirit, which is a concept commonly associated with ‘new wineskin theology’ (Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38). While there are scriptures referring to a parable Jesus told about old wineskins and how they would burst if filled with new wine, Bohi uses this parable to set the foundation for the belief that those who are within new wineskins will receive the anointing. Bohi comments, “The anointing can’t come unless you get the new wine with it… when the anointing comes tonight, everybody won’t be able to recognize yourself because you’ll be intoxicated with something other than your flesh or problems or worries.” I will address Bohi’s new wineskin theology below.
Next, Bohi said that “God doesn’t want to reveal himself to you through your intellect; God wants to reveal himself to your spirit because if you can get revelation in your spirit, you can’t be talked out of it.” He tries to justify this belief by saying, “That’s why Paul said, I don’t want to come to you with a demonstration of man’s wisdom; I don’t want to persuade you with man’s wisdom; I want to come to you with a demonstration of the spirit’s power so that your faith doesn’t rest in man’s ability to articulate words but in the power of God that can change lives.”
This is a common thread within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) community. I’ll address in more detail below.
Lastly, Dani Bohi wants to transfer the anointing through the process that’s been titled “impartations” within the NAR community. Bohi says, “I want to do impartations. Listen, the anointing is transferable. If you want the anointing, you can have it, but you have to become a new wineskin, which means you have to let go of the fear of man.”
This summary of Dan Bohi’s sermon on how he defines “the anointing” is not exhaustive. In fact, there was plenty more that I could’ve added, but I feel my summary paints a clear picture of what Bohi’s theological perspective is on the anointing.
The Critique
As seen above, the anointing described in scripture and Dan Bohi’s preaching on the anointing aren’t compatible. Bohi himself admits that he’s not addressing the anointing broadly shared by Christians, which is specifically described in scripture. Bohi concedes, “I’m talking about the anointing when the Holy Spirit comes on you for others….we need the power of God to rest on us to demonstrate God’s reality…the reality is Christ is IN us, but we need the anointing ON us to release the glory that’s WITHIN us to touch those AROUND us.” This is not found anywhere in scripture.
Stylistically, Bohi’s preaching appears to be delivered off-the-cuff and feels uncharted and disorganized. Bohi’s theology hides in plain sight behind a sea of memorized scripture, almost always taken out of context to prop up his brand of theology. Bohi has memorized dozen’s of scriptures and strategically scattered them throughout his sermon to prop up his credibility on “the anointing.” I pulled up almost every scriptural citation Bohi presented in his sermon and read it within context, and a baffling majority of these scriptures were either 1) misrepresented or 2) taken out of context. Those who 1) deliver sermons regularly, 2) are involved in full-time ministry, and 3) have an average understanding of scripture wouldn’t misrepresent or take scripture out of context without realizing it. This suggests that Bohi may be aware that his teachings are misleading at best or false at worst.
The topics below stood out to me the most from his sermon. I’m responding to these individually because 1) they are the most theologically problematic and 2) they are likely to confuse and hinder Christians in their faith journey.
Let us begin…
Biblical Interpretation 101
Before jumping into the specific topics, it’s important to highlight a process that Christians use to develop a theological framework. This knowledge is vital for having discussions about scripture. After all, if you don’t have an established set of principles to guide your interpretation of scripture, then you’re likely to develop conclusions from the text that don’t match the intended meaning.
You may have noticed that Dan Bohi’s problem wasn’t with the amount of scripture he was using, but how he was using it. In theology, whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in the process of hermeneutics (i.e. the study of the principles and methods of interpreting the text of the Bible) and exegesis (i.e., the examination of a particular text of scripture in order to properly interpret it). In summary, hermeneutics provides the broader framework for interpretation, while exegesis is the practical application of these principles to specific biblical texts.
As we’ve seen and as we’ll continue to see, Dan Bohi does not have a healthy understanding of hermeneutics and exegesis. His application of these practices is virtually nonexistent. If Bohi focused more on understanding the true meaning of the text rather than simply citing it, he’d be able to communicate a message that aligns with the scriptures.
For those who want to learn to interpret the Bible responsibly, I’d encourage you to pick up How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. It’s a book designed for everyday churchgoers, and I believe you will greatly benefit from its teachings.
New Wineskins and Intoxication Explained
Dan Bohi and many within the NAR and hyper-charasmatic communities misrepresent the parable about wineskins (Matthew 9:16-17; Mark 2:21-22; Luke 5:36-38.) I’d encourage you to read each of the three hyperlinked verses if you’re unfamiliar with this parable because Bohi uses the “intoxication” rhetoric that is based off this parable. Bohi believes that those with new wineskins are anointed. They will receive the benefits he describes in his definition of the anointing.
This parable describes the new covenant, in which those who obey and follow Jesus are considered new wine suited for new wineskins. By contrast, the old wineskins were represented by the old and dogmatically religious Jewish leaders that reject Jesus. The point is that new wine cannot be placed in old wineskins because they’re incompatible. These scriptures do not prescribe a miraculous anointing beyond the reality that those with new wineskins will inherit the kingdom of God and possess the Holy Spirit.
Bohi elaborates, “The anointing can’t come unless you get the new wine with it. When the anointing comes tonight, everyone won’t be able to recognize themselves because they’ll be intoxicated with something other than their flesh, problems, or worries.” He’s connecting the new wine with the anointing and somehow using “intoxication” as the description for this process. This represents a theological leap that’s unsupported by reliable interpretations.
There is no clear link between Bohi’s definition of anointing and the scriptures cited in this parable.
The Anointing of Jesus Explained
Dan Bohi doesn’t believe that Jesus possessed his anointing until he received the Holy Spirit (he cites Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22). His argument is based on the assumption that Jesus didn’t have the capacity to perform miracles prior to this moment in his divine nature because he wasn’t anointed prior to his baptism. Bohi tries to reaffirm this conclusion by stating that Jesus couldn’t have been anointed because there were no recorded miracles in the Bible prior to his baptism.
Denying Jesus’ nature as ‘the anointed one’—the Messiah and Christ—implies a rejection of his divinity. To reject Jesus’ divinity up to the point of baptism is to adopt a form of pseudo-Arianism that enters into heresy. Jesus’ nature is unchanging and absolute. Jesus’ baptism didn’t alter the nature of his person in the trinity but merely signified the start of his earthly ministry. Dan Bohi’s position is universally rejected by orthodox Christian theologians. In fact, it’s a position that is largely held by false teachers that mainly occupy sects within the New Apostolic Reformation movement.
Bohi said Mark 6 claimed that Jesus lost his anointing in his hometown because he couldn’t perform miracles; however, verse 5 said, “And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” Bohi overlooks the verse where Jesus healed people in his hometown and misinterprets the text in a pseudo-Arian way by suggesting that Jesus lost his anointing and couldn’t perform divine acts. Jesus is one of the three persons of the trinitarian God and cannot change the qualities of his nature. The qualities of his nature that Bohi claims Jesus lost are divine, not human. Given they are divine attributes, they will remain unchanged.
As it is explained in Matthew 13:57-58, “And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” The explanation for not doing a “mighty work there” is explained by their lack of faith, not by Jesus’ lost anointment.
Lastly, Bohi said that Jesus “did not come just so you could be forgiven…He came to give power to you.” Bohi references Luke 24:49, “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” This is another out of context citation because it describes the conversation Jesus had with his disciples on the road to Emmaus. Bohi is trying to use this scripture in a prescriptive way as to make it appear that Jesus is speaking to modern Christians when Jesus was only speaking to a select group of Christians in a specific moment in time.
Spirit Versus Intellect
We recall Dan Bohi saying,
“God doesn’t want to reveal himself to you through your intellect; God wants to reveal himself to your spirit because if you can get revelation in your spirit, you can’t be talked out of it…That’s why Paul said, I don’t want to come to you with a demonstration of man’s wisdom; I don’t want to persuade you with man’s wisdom; I want to come to you with a demonstration of the spirit’s power so that your faith doesn’t rest in man’s ability to articulate words but in the power of God that can change lives.”
Bohi is likely trying to draw from 1 Corinthians 2:5 as support for his teaching; however, he is taking scripture out of context again to support his theological agenda. Bohi promotes a theology that is void of any intellectual rigor. Given his teachings, this discouragement shouldn’t be surprising, as intellectual inquiry into them often leads to their refutation.
Here are five of my favorite scriptures that support an intellectually rigorous faith:
1 Peter 3:15: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”
Acts 17:11: “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
Romans 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.“
Colossians 2:6-8: “6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Philippians 1:9-10: “9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,”
There are vastly more scriptures that highlight how our faith in Christ is complimented by our intellects. When a lawyer asked Jesus what the most important commandment was, Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37) When Bohi says, “God doesn’t want to reveal himself to you through your intellect,” you can trust that this is false due to the volumes of verses saying the exact opposite.
Impartations
I have previously written about Dan Bohi’s theology concerning impartations. I’d strongly encourage you to read this article because it addresses what impartations are in greater detail.
Bohi believes that this anointing can be transferred from one Christian to another. He says, “I want to do impartations. Listen, the anointing is transferable. If you want the anointing, you can have it, but you have to become a new wineskin, which means you have to let go of the fear of man.”
In Dan Bohi and Rob McCorkle’s book titled, Holiness and Healing, they elaborate on their theological understanding of ‘impartations.’ They write, “It simply means to impart or to give. Paul talked about his desire to impart or to give a supernatural gift to the Christians in Rome. (Romans 1:11)”
To understand what this verse is actually communicating, let’s view it in context (Romans 1:8-15):
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you 10 always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you—12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,[a] that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
Given the context of Bohi’s proof text, does it sound like he provided a sound Biblical interpretation of the scripture? No. The ESV Study Bible comments on verses 11 – 12, “mutually encouraged – Paul desires as an apostle to encourage the Christians in Rome, but it is also noteworthy that their faith serves to inspire and strengthen him as well.” (page 2158) This passage cannot be used to reinforce the practice of impartation as defined by Bohi.
There is no scriptural basis for believing that anyone can impart an anointing to another person.
Conclusion
It may be hard to believe, but I didn’t cover all the topics mentioned in his sermon. This lengthy article is actually abbreviated. My intention was to write an article based on Dan Bohi’s theological understanding of the anointing. As I began, I asked myself the following question, “Are Christians struggling with confusion arising from Dan Bohi’s ministry and his preaching on the anointing?” As someone who was personally involved with a church where the congregation struggled with Dan Bohi, I am confident that many people appreciate a scriptural response to Bohi’s claims about the anointing.
I respond to Dan Bohi’s positions in good faith. Despite what some may believe, I have no interest in causing unrest with him and his ministry. I celebrate any authentic conversion resulting from Bohi’s ministry! Praise Jesus! God can bring people to Him through any avenue. My criticism of Bohi’s theology is framed around scripture and reason. Like the Bereans described in Acts 17:10-15, we must receive “the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Examining teachings against scripture is modeled in the scriptures!
I pray that you see that Dan Bohi isn’t preaching a biblically faithful version of ‘the anointing.’ Bohi’s description of the anointing is scripturally unrecognizable, power-centered, supported by far-fetched miracle stories, out of context scriptures, and a gross misunderstanding of Jesus’ nature. Admittedly, this is a harsh reproach. Also, admittedly, I find my rebuke warranted, especially given Bohi’s vast influence on charismatic-leaning Nazarenes over the decades.
I encourage you to share this article with someone who has been confused by Dan Bohi’s theology. I pray they find reassurance in discovering that there are theologically valid reasons for their concerns, and God may use this article as a way to help resolve some of the confusion resulting from Bohi’s false teachings.
-
Unveiling Truth: Dan Bohi’s Sermon on Healing
This is the first sermon I’ll be reviewing in the “Unveiling Truth: The Dan Bohi Series.” If you haven’t done so yet, please read my opening blog post concerning the reason for this series. It will help you understand the basis for the series and give you my background information as it relates to Dan Bohi’s ministry.
Before I dive into the content of Dan Bohi’s sermon on healing titled “Why I Believe in Healing,” I’d encourage you to read my full treatment of Dan Bohi’s theology on healing, where I examine his book and review videos he’s posted online specifically addressing his theology. While many misconstrue discernment ministries as a means to create disunity, faithful discernment ministries shed light on false teaching in a way that brings truth and clarity to the church and promotes unity.
The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus concerning the issue of false teachers and his instructions for rebuking them. Paul writes in Titus 1:9, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” Paul is describing the type of man who would be a qualified elder in the church and what they must do when unsound doctrine presents itself in the church.
I have included Dan Bohi’s sermon above for your review, and I encourage you to watch for yourself and to come to your own conclusions. I’ll outline his chief reasons for his healing theology and scripturally assess whether they have merit. I’ll include a description and a corresponding quote taken from the sermon as the basis for my response. Again, for a more thorough breakdown of Bohi’s healing theology, please click the hyperlink in the first sentence to be directed to that blog post. Let’s begin:
- Bohi believes in healing because he believes it is God’s will: “The first reason why I believe in healing is because I believe it’s God’s will… God’s original plan was healing, and God’s eternal plan is healing.”
Dan Bohi is saying two separate things here. One is scripturally sound (for the most part), and the other isn’t. Let me start with the scriptural part, and I’ll finish with where he veers off the biblical path.
Firstly, Bohi describes that “God’s eternal plan is healing.” If this reference is linked to the second coming of Christ, a new heaven and earth, and our resurrection bodies, he’s obviously correct when he says that God’s will is to bring about healing and restoration. However, eschatology (eschatology explained here) is disconnected from the theological basis for believing in modern day healing miracles, which Bohi often attributes to his anointing. I credit him for being correct in this way, but I’m confused about why he’s linking God’s eternal will for healing with God’s original plan for healing, presumably in the modern day.
Secondly, Bohi describes that “The first reason why I believe in healing is because I believe it’s God’s will… God’s original plan was healing.” This is where I argue he veers off into unbiblical territory. I make this claim because it’s such a broad claim about healing that a catalog of scriptural examples can be presented to falsify his claim. Let’s examine some of the scriptures that would undermine his claim:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10: 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
1 Timothy 5:23: 23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)
Philippians 2:25-27: 25 I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, 26 for he has been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill. 27 Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.
Galatians 4:13-14: 13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
In his book, “Holiness and Healing,” Bohi’s position is that it’s always God’s will to heal because “originally and eternally God’s will was, and will be, for wholeness and healing” (page 235) and cites Matthew 6:10 because he’s convinced that “God’s will” was to physically heal. Bohi theorizes that since Jesus manifested the kingdom of God in the present age, we’re Biblically called to manifest the kingdom of God in an identical way. There is no scriptural prooftext to support his assertion that we’re all to “manifest” the kingdom of God in this way.
- He believes in healing because of Jesus: “I believe in healing because of Jesus… His whole life was to make known Father God’s heart… Every time he was moved with compassion, he was so in tune with the Father.”
Bohi is likely drawing from John 5:19-20 which says, “19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” I agree with Bohi that Jesus “was so in tune with the Father.” Now, let’s try to understand what Bohi is trying to communicate.
I’m going to supplement my response by referencing his book, which has more insights into his reasoning. Bohi writes in his book, “Holiness and Healing,” “If 40 percent of the gospels are about the miracles of Jesus then I think that they are important, and we should be wondering how, why, and what happened to us if we’re not duplicating what Jesus did. The question is: are we really Christlike disciples?” (page 244; emphasis mine)
Bohi continues by saying, “In John 14:12, Jesus said that if anyone believed in Him, and that is present tense faith (meaning that if we are believing Him), then they would do what he did. So if we are intimate enough with Jesus and lean into Him with faith, then we will do what he did and even greater. That means “anyone” who believes in Him.” (page 244)
Given the fuller insights supplemented by his book on healing, is his reasoning scripturally sound? I find no biblical reason to be persuaded. We know that Jesus had authority over nature that we do not. To assert that we’re not “Christlike disciples” if we can’t “duplicate what Jesus did” has no Biblical basis. I’ve provided several prooftexts above with examples of when the apostles were ill and were not miraculously healed. Would Bohi suggest that they were not Christlike in their early church ministries? This would be a good question for Bohi to answer publicly for the sake of clarification.
- He believes in healing because of his faith in the Kingdom of God: “I believe in healing because I believe in the Kingdom… the Kingdom is actually in you because the Holy Spirit’s in you.”
Drawing from Dan Bohi’s book again, Bohi cites Matthew 6:10 to demonstrate that Jesus corroborates his view when Jesus says, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” According to Bohi, if it’s always God’s will to heal, and since the kingdom of God is free of illness, healing is possible if we are capable of manifesting “the kingdom of God in this present age” (page 240). Bohi judges “on earth as it is in heaven” to mean that since followers of Christ possess the Holy Spirit, the same functional health outcomes can be possible if we “manifest” them on earth.
Again, there is no scripturally supported evidence for this claim. While it is true that God can work through His creations and permit healing miracles, God’s ultimate will is to save our soul rather than our body. None of the apostles escaped death, but their souls communed with Jesus upon departing their bodies because our nature isn’t merely physical. When Jesus healed, it wasn’t merely because His will was set on healing people. His healings also validated His claims of divinity to his disciples and to others He encountered in ministry. To stretch the meaning beyond the text is irresponsible and gives the impression that God ALWAYS wills healing on earth and Heaven by those that possess the Holy Spirit. For a young, impressionable Christian, this is a message that could create serious confusion and frustration. They’re likely to second-guess their salvation due to repeated failures at performing miracles, which is tragic, especially among young, hopeful Christians.
- He believes in healing because of the “authority given to believers.”
Dan Bohi believes in healing “because of authority.” Drawing from Bohi’s book for further insights again, Bohi believes that we have the same authority as Jesus, so we should always expect Jesus-like healings. Bohi states, “There are three times in the gospels where we are told that a student is never above His teacher, but when we are fully trained, we will be exactly like Him. Jesus said that!” (page 257; emphasis mine) He makes this comment without reference to any scriptures to substantiate his Biblical assertion that “fully trained” students can become “exactly like Jesus.” Bohi opines about why people don’t “operate with this divine authority that Jesus has given to us.” His conclusion is that “people in the church don’t use the authority that they have because they are biblically illiterate.” (page 257; emphasis mine)
I’ll let you be the judge concerning who is biblically literate, but the more important question about authority remains: do we possess the same authority as Jesus? No, the scriptures do not communicate that we have an authority that would match the authority of Christ. The magnitude of this claim not only lacks scriptural support but is blasphemous. While scripture (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11) discusses the gifts that God has graciously blessed us with, not everyone is universally blessed with identical gifts. Notice that scripture doesn’t say that all gifts entail the miraculous but are given by the same Spirit. Yet, Bohi argues that Jesus gives everyone “power and authority over all demons, all sickness, and all disease.” Bohi has never attempted to reconcile the content of his sermons and books on the topic of healing with the scriptures that undermine his theology.
Bohi also draws from Isaiah 53:4-5, “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed,” to communicate that it’s through Jesus and his authority that we now possess the power to heal. There is nothing in this text that supports 1) physical healing and 2) a prescription of authority to Christ-followers.
Bohi continues to eisegete this passage by providing a “disclaimer,” saying that “all of Jesus’ miracles were performed before he shed one drop of blood.” Yes, that’s true. However, Bohi says, “How did he (Jesus) do it if it didn’t take the atonement, right? How did he do it if he didn’t take his sacrifice? He did it because he stayed in faith, and he did it because he stayed in the kingdom. He did it because he stayed in his authority. He did it because he stayed in his identity. That‘s how he did it. God must like to heal.” So, does Bohi correctly describe Jesus?
It’s true that God does like to heal. It didn’t require the atonement of Christ for God’s healing to be possible. To provide some Old Testament examples, consider the healings of Naaman, Hezekiah, healing of the Isrealites from snakebites, Job, Abraham and Sarah, healing of the widow’s son by Elijah, and the healing of Jeroboam’s hand. These miraculous healings occurred before Christ’s death and resurrection. So, my question to Bohi would be, since we agree that atonement isn’t a required component for the application of the miraculous, why are you straining this text to make it say something that it clearly doesn’t mean? The threads of thought that Bohi is using to describe Isaiah 53 aren’t logically connected to a theological framework that would scripturally support his conclusion.
Conclusion
Bohi’s reasoning for believing in healing is scripturally lacking and disordered. It’s not simply a matter of a difference in theology on a secondary issue, either. His claims about healing have an adverse impact on the body of Christ. Again, I’ll encourage you to read my full article on Bohi’s healing theology for a more comprehensive understanding of why this matter is so important to the churches he has influence over.
Bohi’s claims can impact Christians on an individual level, leaving them disheartened, frustrated, hopeless, and insecure about why they can’t heal or perform the miraculous.
I’ll reiterate, as I did in my introductory blog, that my goal isn’t to malign and smear Dan Bohi and his ministry. My prayer is to provide clarity to those who sense that his message is scripturally amiss. In John 14:6 Jesus stated, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Out of love for all, we must call attention to doctrines that push us away from the truth as outlined in scripture. If we decide to go-with-the-flow and permit false teachers to continue unopposed, then we can’t honestly say we’ve made every effort to pursue and share the truth.
-
Unveiling Truth: Dan Bohi’s Sermon on Healing
This is the first sermon I’ll be reviewing in the “Unveiling Truth: The Dan Bohi Series.” If you haven’t done so yet, please read my opening blog post concerning the reason for this series. It will help you understand the basis for the series and give you my background information as it relates to Dan Bohi’s ministry.
Before I dive into the content of Dan Bohi’s sermon on healing titled “Why I Believe in Healing,” I’d encourage you to read my full treatment of Dan Bohi’s theology on healing, where I examine his book and review videos he’s posted online specifically addressing his theology. While many misconstrue discernment ministries as a means to create disunity, faithful discernment ministries shed light on false teaching in a way that brings truth and clarity to the church and promotes unity.
The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus concerning the issue of false teachers and his instructions for rebuking them. Paul writes in Titus 1:9, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” Paul is describing the type of man who would be a qualified elder in the church and what they must do when unsound doctrine presents itself in the church.
I have included Dan Bohi’s sermon above for your review, and I encourage you to watch for yourself and to come to your own conclusions. I’ll outline his chief reasons for his healing theology and scripturally assess whether they have merit. I’ll include a description and a corresponding quote taken from the sermon as the basis for my response. Again, for a more thorough breakdown of Bohi’s healing theology, please click the hyperlink in the first sentence to be directed to that blog post. Let’s begin:
- Bohi believes in healing because he believes it is God’s will: “The first reason why I believe in healing is because I believe it’s God’s will… God’s original plan was healing, and God’s eternal plan is healing.”
Dan Bohi is saying two separate things here. One is scripturally sound (for the most part), and the other isn’t. Let me start with the scriptural part, and I’ll finish with where he veers off the biblical path.
Firstly, Bohi describes that “God’s eternal plan is healing.” If this reference is linked to the second coming of Christ, a new heaven and earth, and our resurrection bodies, he’s obviously correct when he says that God’s will is to bring about healing and restoration. However, eschatology (eschatology explained here) is disconnected from the theological basis for believing in modern day healing miracles, which Bohi often attributes to his anointing. I credit him for being correct in this way, but I’m confused about why he’s linking God’s eternal will for healing with God’s original plan for healing, presumably in the modern day.
Secondly, Bohi describes that “The first reason why I believe in healing is because I believe it’s God’s will… God’s original plan was healing.” This is where I argue he veers off into unbiblical territory. I make this claim because it’s such a broad claim about healing that a catalog of scriptural examples can be presented to falsify his claim. Let’s examine some of the scriptures that would undermine his claim:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10: 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
1 Timothy 5:23: 23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)
Philippians 2:25-27: 25 I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, 26 for he has been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill. 27 Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.
Galatians 4:13-14: 13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
In his book, “Holiness and Healing,” Bohi’s position is that it’s always God’s will to heal because “originally and eternally God’s will was, and will be, for wholeness and healing” (page 235) and cites Matthew 6:10 because he’s convinced that “God’s will” was to physically heal. Bohi theorizes that since Jesus manifested the kingdom of God in the present age, we’re Biblically called to manifest the kingdom of God in an identical way. There is no scriptural prooftext to support his assertion that we’re all to “manifest” the kingdom of God in this way.
- He believes in healing because of Jesus: “I believe in healing because of Jesus… His whole life was to make known Father God’s heart… Every time he was moved with compassion, he was so in tune with the Father.”
Bohi is likely drawing from John 5:19-20 which says, “19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.” I agree with Bohi that Jesus “was so in tune with the Father.” Now, let’s try to understand what Bohi is trying to communicate.
I’m going to supplement my response by referencing his book, which has more insights into his reasoning. Bohi writes in his book, “Holiness and Healing,” “If 40 percent of the gospels are about the miracles of Jesus then I think that they are important, and we should be wondering how, why, and what happened to us if we’re not duplicating what Jesus did. The question is: are we really Christlike disciples?” (page 244; emphasis mine)
Bohi continues by saying, “In John 14:12, Jesus said that if anyone believed in Him, and that is present tense faith (meaning that if we are believing Him), then they would do what he did. So if we are intimate enough with Jesus and lean into Him with faith, then we will do what he did and even greater. That means “anyone” who believes in Him.” (page 244)
Given the fuller insights supplemented by his book on healing, is his reasoning scripturally sound? I find no biblical reason to be persuaded. We know that Jesus had authority over nature that we do not. To assert that we’re not “Christlike disciples” if we can’t “duplicate what Jesus did” has no Biblical basis. I’ve provided several prooftexts above with examples of when the apostles were ill and were not miraculously healed. Would Bohi suggest that they were not Christlike in their early church ministries? This would be a good question for Bohi to answer publicly for the sake of clarification.
- He believes in healing because of his faith in the Kingdom of God: “I believe in healing because I believe in the Kingdom… the Kingdom is actually in you because the Holy Spirit’s in you.”
Drawing from Dan Bohi’s book again, Bohi cites Matthew 6:10 to demonstrate that Jesus corroborates his view when Jesus says, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” According to Bohi, if it’s always God’s will to heal, and since the kingdom of God is free of illness, healing is possible if we are capable of manifesting “the kingdom of God in this present age” (page 240). Bohi judges “on earth as it is in heaven” to mean that since followers of Christ possess the Holy Spirit, the same functional health outcomes can be possible if we “manifest” them on earth.
Again, there is no scripturally supported evidence for this claim. While it is true that God can work through His creations and permit healing miracles, God’s ultimate will is to save our soul rather than our body. None of the apostles escaped death, but their souls communed with Jesus upon departing their bodies because our nature isn’t merely physical. When Jesus healed, it wasn’t merely because His will was set on healing people. His healings also validated His claims of divinity to his disciples and to others He encountered in ministry. To stretch the meaning beyond the text is irresponsible and gives the impression that God ALWAYS wills healing on earth and Heaven by those that possess the Holy Spirit. For a young, impressionable Christian, this is a message that could create serious confusion and frustration. They’re likely to second-guess their salvation due to repeated failures at performing miracles, which is tragic, especially among young, hopeful Christians.
- He believes in healing because of the “authority given to believers.”
Dan Bohi believes in healing “because of authority.” Drawing from Bohi’s book for further insights again, Bohi believes that we have the same authority as Jesus, so we should always expect Jesus-like healings. Bohi states, “There are three times in the gospels where we are told that a student is never above His teacher, but when we are fully trained, we will be exactly like Him. Jesus said that!” (page 257; emphasis mine) He makes this comment without reference to any scriptures to substantiate his Biblical assertion that “fully trained” students can become “exactly like Jesus.” Bohi opines about why people don’t “operate with this divine authority that Jesus has given to us.” His conclusion is that “people in the church don’t use the authority that they have because they are biblically illiterate.” (page 257; emphasis mine)
I’ll let you be the judge concerning who is biblically literate, but the more important question about authority remains: do we possess the same authority as Jesus? No, the scriptures do not communicate that we have an authority that would match the authority of Christ. The magnitude of this claim not only lacks scriptural support but is blasphemous. While scripture (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11) discusses the gifts that God has graciously blessed us with, not everyone is universally blessed with identical gifts. Notice that scripture doesn’t say that all gifts entail the miraculous but are given by the same Spirit. Yet, Bohi argues that Jesus gives everyone “power and authority over all demons, all sickness, and all disease.” Bohi has never attempted to reconcile the content of his sermons and books on the topic of healing with the scriptures that undermine his theology.
Bohi also draws from Isaiah 53:4-5, “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed,” to communicate that it’s through Jesus and his authority that we now possess the power to heal. There is nothing in this text that supports 1) physical healing and 2) a prescription of authority to Christ-followers.
Bohi continues to eisegete this passage by providing a “disclaimer,” saying that “all of Jesus’ miracles were performed before he shed one drop of blood.” Yes, that’s true. However, Bohi says, “How did he (Jesus) do it if it didn’t take the atonement, right? How did he do it if he didn’t take his sacrifice? He did it because he stayed in faith, and he did it because he stayed in the kingdom. He did it because he stayed in his authority. He did it because he stayed in his identity. That‘s how he did it. God must like to heal.” So, does Bohi correctly describe Jesus?
It’s true that God does like to heal. It didn’t require the atonement of Christ for God’s healing to be possible. To provide some Old Testament examples, consider the healings of Naaman, Hezekiah, healing of the Isrealites from snakebites, Job, Abraham and Sarah, healing of the widow’s son by Elijah, and the healing of Jeroboam’s hand. These miraculous healings occurred before Christ’s death and resurrection. So, my question to Bohi would be, since we agree that atonement isn’t a required component for the application of the miraculous, why are you straining this text to make it say something that it clearly doesn’t mean? The threads of thought that Bohi is using to describe Isaiah 53 aren’t logically connected to a theological framework that would scripturally support his conclusion.
Conclusion
Bohi’s reasoning for believing in healing is scripturally lacking and disordered. It’s not simply a matter of a difference in theology on a secondary issue, either. His claims about healing have an adverse impact on the body of Christ. Again, I’ll encourage you to read my full article on Bohi’s healing theology for a more comprehensive understanding of why this matter is so important to the churches he has influence over.
Bohi’s claims can impact Christians on an individual level, leaving them disheartened, frustrated, hopeless, and insecure about why they can’t heal or perform the miraculous.
I’ll reiterate, as I did in my introductory blog, that my goal isn’t to malign and smear Dan Bohi and his ministry. My prayer is to provide clarity to those who sense that his message is scripturally amiss. In John 14:6 Jesus stated, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Out of love for all, we must call attention to doctrines that push us away from the truth as outlined in scripture. If we decide to go-with-the-flow and permit false teachers to continue unopposed, then we can’t honestly say we’ve made every effort to pursue and share the truth.
-
Unveiling Truth: The Dan Bohi Series
I’ve written previously about Dan Bohi and my theological concerns related to his theology and ministry. For further information concerning my specific theological objections, I’d encourage you to click on the hyperlink above and read my articles on various areas of his ministry and theology that I found extremely problematic.
I want to be absolutely clear about my motives. Many have claimed that I’m a pharisee, a heresy hunter, and even an agent for the Enemy for making observations about false teachings. I have taken heat for using my humble platform to shine a light on ministries that have corporately taught false teachings. I’ve lost friends; I’ve been told that nobody would ever want to do ministry with me; and I’ve been the subject of accusations that don’t adhere to reality, some even made from a Nazarene pulpit. A pastor even chastised me for prioritizing truth over unity. I soon realized that many Christians are sadly living through 2 Timothy 4:3–4. “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” My goal isn’t to undermine the truth, but to highlight it. Unfortunately, Dan Bohi has been allowed to enter back into ministry after an extended personal absence. My upcoming articles will focus on Bohi’s theology using his own sermons and demonstrate why there are reasons the Nazarene community should call for his immediate withdrawal from future bookings.
I personally met Dan Bohi and witnessed him deliver three sermons at Hope Community Church of the Nazarene (HC), where Kevin Seymour serves as the pastor. I was a board member at the church and resigned the month before because of Pastor Seymour’s embrace of New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) theology and his invitation to Dan Bohi to perform a revival service, knowing that I, along with many other congregants, staff, and board members, strongly oppose Dan Bohi’s NAR theology. Regardless of my resignation, I attended the revival services as a guest to witness the service firsthand. HC decided not to broadcast the Friday and Saturday night services because they focused on the controversial topics of healing and deliverance. I have written about Dan Bohi’s theological positions concerning these topics, and you can access them by clicking on the hyperlink found in the first sentence. However, there were two experiences that I found to be the most telling. It was almost scary, if I’m being totally honest.
The first experience was on the first night when Bohi spoke. Given that there are no broadcasts to draw from, I’m relying on my memory, so I’m summarizing what he said to the best of my recollection. Dan Bohi entered into an introduction of himself as being “anointed” and asked people to draw physically near to him to get closer to his anointing. At first, I thought it was a joke because it was such a preposterous request. However, I realized that everyone got up and moved near him as he requested. I sat in the back row, and I remained in my seat. I received confused glances from those who were moving to get closer to the anointed Bohi. I looked in awe at the people who I had grown close with over the previous year who had so willingly obeyed such an unbiblical command. This moment haunted me throughout the night as I realized that those who attended this church placed stock in the imagined “anointing” and the benefits it can bestow merely by being physically nearer to him.
The second experience was on both nights, but especially on the second night, where it was advertised that Bohi would perform miraculous acts of healing. As the night progressed, Bohi expressed that he was unimpressed by our enthusiasm and faith. He commented multiple times about how dull the audience was and even used the word “damn.” One time he stopped the service and said that he sensed a “darkness” in the room. He was disappointed with his reception because he is used to people groveling over him and considering him an anointed miracle worker. When it was time for him to perform miracles, Bohi said that we weren’t in a posture of faith, so he wasn’t in a position to perform miracles. As to how he knew the status of our faith, his anointing must’ve told him that. Or maybe he realized that his performance wasn’t registering with the majority of the audience. I made it a point to introduce myself prior to each meeting, knowing that Pastor Seymour likely explained the nature of my resignation to him. While I can’t say for certain, I imagine that his frustration with the lack of enthusiasm and his sense of “darkness” might’ve resulted from the insecurity of being exposed by a member of the audience (i.e., me) for promoting false doctrines.
I didn’t start out writing about discernment or false teaching. I started out as an eager young apologist in his early twenties, tackling the fundamental objections to Christianity. I was a $1 apologist in a sea of $1 apologists, and I loved it. It was far less emotionally taxing to tackle the philsophical argumentation of atheism than it was to tackle the false doctrines pervading the church. I’ve received more pushback from my fellow Christians than I ever have from non-Christians. The insults have been more cutting, and the social impacts have been more vast. All that is to say, I prefer being an apologist who discusses other topics. However, God has situated my life to speak against false teaching and cast light on those that may present a hindrance to others in their healthy growth in Christ.
I’ll conclude by reassuring the reader that my writing isn’t designed to judge Bohi’s heart. Thankfully, Jesus alone is responsible for that (John 5:22). I’m here to make responsible and prudential judgments based on theology advanced by Dan Bohi, using his own words. I pray that I spread awareness of these topics and encourage sound Biblical thinking. I pray for Dan Bohi as a member of the body of Christ because he is deeply mistaken on many of his doctrines of theology that he’s made a centerpiece of his ministry.
I will refer back to this post in future articles as a foundation for why I’m spotlighting Dan Bohi. It’s not because I get kicks out of addressing Dan Bohi. It’s because I care enough about the truth to shed light on a problem that many Nazarene leaders aren’t bold enough to address. Hopefully, I can be a voice for those who know Bohi is a problem but don’t feel called to speak up. I pray that my words fall on open hearts and minds.
-
Did Jesus Know Everything?
As Christians, we read the scriptures and do our best to understand what is going on within the text. However, sometimes we must analyze the texts with more theological depth to understand what is being said. This is a good practice, by the way. This practice of thoroughly reviewing the text will bring us to a better understanding of the Word.
Did Jesus know EVERYTHING? When reading the New Testament, we find some examples where Jesus had limited knowledge (Mark 13:32, Luke 2:52, Mark 5:31). Do these few examples demonstrate Jesus’ lack of omniscience? Or is there an explanation that includes Jesus, the Son of God, a person of the Trinity, being omniscient?
At first glance, these scriptures appear challenging to reconcile with the attribute of omniscience. How can Jesus be omniscient if he doesn’t know who touched the fringe of his garment (Mark 5:31), was growing in wisdom (Luke 2:52), or doesn’t know the time of his own return (Mark 13:32)? These appear to be descriptions of a man with limited knowledge. However, there is more to Jesus than meets the eye.
God is one being comprised of three persons. Christian theology refers to this as the Trinity. Jesus (the Son) is one person of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.) Jesus is not inferior in the Trinity to the Father or to the Holy Spirit, but are in equal and perfect union in one being as God. We see in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” When continuing on to John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” “Word” is translated from the Greek word “logos (λόγος)”. Within this scriptural context, logos (λόγος) is defined by Lexham Bible Dictionary as “a concept word in the Bible symbolic of the nature and function of Jesus Christ. It is also used to refer to the revelation of God in the world.”
So, if Jesus was God in human form, what explains the scriptural examples of ignorance in specific cases? Let’s draw back on the word ‘human‘ for a moment. Jesus occupied a human form and walked, talked, ate, went to the bathroom, etc… like every other human. Given this attribute of Jesus’ existence, Jesus has a human nature. On the opposite side of the coin, Jesus was also the Logos. He was God incarnate. Jesus has a divine nature with the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc…too. Upon a close reading of scripture, is there a theological framework that accurately explains Jesus’ human and divine natures in a scripturally compatible way?
Theologian Wayne Grudem promotes a wise and informed theological insight that makes the most sense of the scriptural data at our disposal. Grudem writes in Systematic Theology (Second Edition),
“This distinction of two wills and two centers of consciousness helps us understand how Jesus could learn things and yet know all things. On the one hand, with respect to his human nature, he had limited knowledge (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52). On the other hand, Jesus clearly knew all things (John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Now this is only understandable if Jesus learned things and had limited knowledge with respect to his human nature but was always omniscient with respect to his divine nature, and therefore he was able any time to ‘call to mind’ whatever information would be needed for his ministry. In this way we can understand Jesus’ statement concerning the time of his return: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). This ignorance of the time of his return was true of Jesus’ human nature and human consciousness only, for in his divine nature he was certainly omniscient and certainly knew the time when he would return to the earth.” (page 698)
The purpose of this article was to dive into a topic that is rarely discussed and often misunderstood. As Christians, we should recognize the true implications of Jesus having a human nature. He experienced all the same temptations we did. He dealt with annoyances like us. He probably ate some rotten fish and had a stomach ache. While Jesus could’ve drawn on his divine nature 100% of the time, there is no scriptural evidence to support that claim. It appears that Jesus drew on his divine nature only when it was within his will to do so in order to advance his ministry.
There is no way one person can fully comprehend the nature of the Trinity or Jesus’ two natures. I suspect that our minds aren’t fully capable of understanding such things. However, we can understand to a degree regardless of whether we fully comprehend. The answer to the question of whether Jesus knew everything is a definitive yes, but we should understand how we got to that answer rather than settling for a simple “yes.” In this case, the complicated answer is far more interesting.
-
Open Letter to Pastor Kevin Seymour
Pastor Kevin Seymour,
I pray that you and your family enjoyed Christmas. Please give my love to your family and those who I continue to love and pray for at Hope Community Church of the Nazarene (HC).
I feel it is necessary to address the allegations you made about me in your recent sermon, “Recognizing and Overcoming Personal Attacks.” Although I was not mentioned by name, it is clear to all those in attendance that I am the individual you were referring to. These accusations you made about my character and actions are serious in nature, and as a Christian, it is my duty to confront my accuser and clear up any misunderstandings you may have caused.
I will be focusing on the comments made between 1:05:15 – 1:08:40 in the sermon video (attached above) for the majority of this letter. For your convenience, I have transcribed this specific section of the sermon for reference:
“We’re going to have a little family talk here and family talks are good. I know that some of you have heard that I’m a part of what’s called the NAR, the National Apostolic Reformation (*the correct name is the New Apostolic Reformation – my addition*). And, um, I’ve never heard of that till just a couple months ago. Those three words “National Apostolic Reformation”, though the words are not threatening, there was one here at our church who just attended for a short while who accused me of being a part of the NAR, even though I had never heard of it. I told that individual I had never heard of it and he said that I was lying about that, which I wasn’t. I had never heard of the NAR until he told me what the NAR was. And a small handful of our family at Hope Community, just a small handful, we like to think it’s huge but a small handful of our people, they had been giving their ear to this one person that came for a while and it’s caused confusion and it’s caused division, which is always Satan’s weapon that he uses. He always uses confusion. He’s the author of confusion and he always causes division when he is doing his work, and it caused that division and separation for some people. It was disappointing. It does surprise me if I can just be honest with you, that some who knew this individual for only six or less months, they allowed him to negate the preaching, and counsel, and the teaching that has come from this pulpit for nearly eight years. They allowed six months of whatever he was saying to completely wipe out what had been taught from this pulpit. And because of that, some took the divisive false leaven that was being murmured about, and leaven, you just need a little bit to get into the dough before the whole batch will rise up from it. They took it and it’s caused them to make decisions based on this new revelation that they received from these false accusations. They took that revelation and said that I don’t want any longer to be a part of this movement. Allow me to say this one more time, I never sweep things under the rug or anything like that. I just believe we’re family and families ought to talk to each other, shouldn’t we? Families ought to be able to hear from their pastor when it comes to matters like that. Just allow me to say one final time, I am not a part of a group called the NAR. Period. Never heard of it before a few months ago and it’s not even a real thing if you do check it out. It’s not even a real thing. It’s a blanket. People got thrown under the blanket. ‘Oh, they’re a part of that!’ It’s like saying you’re all guilty because you’re Republicans for what took place on January 6th, you got thrown under the blanket. It’s the same thing. I’m a Christian by profession. I’m a Nazarene by conviction and I’m not a part of any other group. Never have been, never will be.”
It is clear to those familiar with the situation that the transcript bears little resemblance to reality. While you claimed to speak out against division, slander, and lies in your sermon, I see no evidence of you avoiding these actions yourself. The transcript alone completely distorts the events of the past year, portrays me as an agent of Satan, and portrays you as an orthodox Nazarene preacher with no prior knowledge, leanings, or associations with the NAR. This is a sermon where you’ve strategically manipulated reality in an attempt to explain why almost half the board and staff left within the last 90 days.
It is unfortunate that much of your sermon could be challenged theologically and historically. However, I will primarily focus on the above transcript, as it directly pertains to your public accusations about me and my influence on those who left, as well as your claims about your personal knowledge of the NAR. I hope that you are open-minded and honest enough to consider my perspective with an open heart.
Did you ever hear of the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) before our meeting?
As the transcript indicates, you claim that you had never heard of the NAR before our meeting on May 29, 2022, where I presented my concerns about your NAR leanings and affiliations. There is credible evidence to suggest that you lied to HC from the pulpit about this claim.
Let me explain these reasons in detail:
1) Your daughter, one of your sons, and your wife attended Bethel’s School of Supernatural Ministry (BSSM), which is known as a major hub for the NAR movement in America. This institution is known for targeting young, impressionable individuals and manipulating their emotions while exploiting their lack of theological knowledge and biblical literacy. The Passion Translation (TPT), a theologically sectarian translation (read more about TPT here), is used at BSSM and was translated by self-proclaimed “Apostle” Brian Simmons, with a foreword written by “Apostle” Bill Johnson. You also encouraged members of HC to give a “love offering” to support an HC member’s attendance at BSSM, where they would be exposed to NAR propaganda and potentially stunt their theological development and maturity.
Given the extensive exposure you have had to the literature of “Apostle” Bill Johnson and your family’s involvement with Bethel and BSSM, it is clear that you have been exposed to the teachings of the NAR through Johnson for many years prior to my arrival at HC in November 2021. However, there are multiple other reasons beyond Johnson’s influence that lead me to believe that you were already aware of the NAR before our conversation.
It is clear that your best friend Rob McCorkle and theological mentor Dan Bohi have had a significant influence on your theology. During our meeting on May 29, 2022, I mentioned my concerns about both of these individuals and their NAR beliefs, as expressed in their book “Holiness and Healing,” which you endorsed. For reference, please review your endorsement below:
“I have had the privilege of being Rob McCorkle’s best friend for over thirty years. During this time I have watched him hunger for holiness and long for a continual heart transformation. I’m convinced that God has honored his hunger by allowing him to experience and then write the words of this book. He truly demonstrates what the life of a Christian looks like when they long to live with Power and Purity.
My friendship with Dan Bohi has impacted my life in eternal ways. Having traveled with Dan for weeks at a time has shown me the heart and passion of one who feeds himself on God’s Word. I’ve personally witnessed the love and power of my heavenly Father through the ministry of Dan Bohi. The thoughts, revelation, and truth that they share in this book will mark me for the rest of my life. I encourage anyone that has a hunger for Christlikeness to invest the time to ingest the truths, challenges, and experiences that Dan and Rob share in these pages.” (emphasis mine)
Since you did not mention this in your sermon, I will include a brief excerpt from my resignation letter that describes your response when I asked why you would endorse a book that promotes NAR theology,
“Pastor Kevin denied endorsing the book but admitted to endorsing McCorkle and Bohi. This is not how book endorsements work, and that’s not how it worked here. Nobody would read this endorsement and reasonably conclude that Kevin didn’t read the book. Pastor Kevin was not forthcoming with me, but I’ll have everyone judge for themselves based on the verbiage of his endorsement whether he condones the NAR teachings contained therein.”
I urge you to conduct your due diligence as the lead pastor of HC by reading my thorough review (click here) of the book with an open and prayerful heart.
Given Bohi’s NAR theology and your apparent support for it, I could not continue in a leadership role if your judgment was so flawed and your commitment to sound biblical doctrine was non-existent. Scheduling Bohi for a full weekend “revival” sent the message that my concerns were ignored and you were willing to invite a wolf in sheep’s clothing into the church, regardless of Bohi’s false teachings. I attended the “revival” weekend to ensure that I was not acting rashly or unfairly evaluating Bohi’s theology. The events of that weekend only confirmed my suspicions that he was not just a false teacher/prophet/apostle, but an outright heretic.
Lastly, and arguably the most distressing, is your history with Covenant Fellowship Church of the Nazarene (CF) in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Your brief time at this church was cut short due to theological differences with many congregants. My investigation with those at CF discovered that you held and promoted NAR theology, which greatly troubled many members and resulted in your departure. While you assert that the separation was caused by a “couple of hyper-cessationist families” and an “unsupportive DS,” the events at HC and CF are too similar to be a coincidence.
Did I call you a “liar”?
To quote your sermon directly, “I told that individual I had never heard of it and he said that I was lying about that, which I wasn’t.” You and I both know that I did not accuse you of lying during our meeting on May 29, 2022, as you suggested in your sermon. That statement is a lie. When it comes to your knowledge of the NAR and whether you held NAR-aligned beliefs before our meeting, there is strong evidence to suggest that you were either not forthcoming or outright lying.
“One Person” and “Six Months or Less”
There is a recurring theme in this portion of your sermon where you repeatedly refer to me as “one person” and emphasize that I was at HC for only “six months or less.” By the time you were addressing this issue to HC, it was already common knowledge who the “one person” was, making the mention unnecessary. As you are attempting to mend a divided church, your lack of directness during your attempt to have a “family conversation” does not convey strong leadership.
It is true that I am the “one person” referred to in your sermon. However, I would like to clarify that I was a member of the board at HC, which means I had more responsibilities in the church than a typical churchgoer. This is not meant to elevate my status, but simply to provide context for my involvement at HC. Additionally, while I resigned from the board after six months, I had been attending HC for 11 months prior to my departure. These details were conveniently left out in your sermon, which would have provided a more complete understanding of the situation. If you are sincere about having difficult “family conversations” from the pulpit, you should be willing to discuss details openly and hold the appropriate people accountable. By being evasive, you create ambiguity and a convenient way to avoid accountability. As a pastor, your priority should always be to guide people towards the truth, even if that means accepting responsibility for your errors.
Did I “Murmur”?
In your sermon, you publicly claim that Satan used me as a tool to create division and conflict through slanderous allegations and that a “small handful…gave their ear” to me, leading to the departure of three board members and three staff members. I had already published my research findings on the NAR and Dan Bohi before I resigned. Every time I published an article, I shared it on Facebook and my theological views were publicly available for discussion. I was approached by long-time members of HC about my thoughts on Dan Bohi and, as a board member, I always provided an honest and Biblically-based response to the best of my ability. Given my extensive research on Bohi, I was able to provide a thorough and accurate theological summary. My responses were based on his teachings and contained no personal attacks, which do not qualify as “murmuring,” “slandering,” or “gossiping.” As a board member, it is my role to provide truthful and Biblical responses to members who seek the truth.
Secondly, you attempt to use scripture such as 1 Corinthians 10:7-10 (found at 1:13:40) to justify silencing those who may simply want to discuss theological issues among themselves or with a trusted confidant, board member, or staff pastor. This is not the same as “murmuring,” “slandering,” “gossiping,” or “fault-finding.” It is not Biblically required for individuals with questions or concerns about theology to immediately go to the lead pastor. This would overwhelm any pastor with an excessive number of questions after every Sunday service. This is an example of using a prooftext to support a personal agenda. I will also address why false teaching is not just a sin against an individual Christian, but a corporate sin against the church, and provide Biblical justification for publicly exposing and condemning such corporate sin.
Thirdly, you reference Matthew 18:15-17 in your sermon. While this verse may be applicable if you are addressing sin between Christian brothers and sisters, you use it in the context of accusing me of being a “murmurer” who caused division and strife through slander. It is essential for the members of HC to understand the true events and the appropriate use of scripture in this situation. I hope to provide clarity on the matter and show that my actions and reasons for resigning were in line with Biblical models for handling corporate sin
I left HC due to two main reasons, both related to false teaching:
1) Your theology has been significantly influenced by the NAR, as evidenced by your close relationships with NAR pastors like Bill Johnson, Kris Vallotton, Dan Bohi, Rob McCorkle, and Dan Mohler. You have even referenced the TPT from the pulpit, which was “translated” by NAR “Apostle” Brian Simmons. Given your extensive connections to these individuals and their teachings over the years, it is difficult to believe that you were unaware of NAR theology.
2) I made the difficult decision to resign from the board of HC due to concerns about the influence of the NAR on your theology. Your close relationships with NAR pastors such as Bill Johnson, Kris Vallotton, Dan Bohi, Rob McCorkle, and Dan Mohler, as well as your use of the TPT, which was “translated” by NAR “Apostle” Brian Simmons, made it clear to me that your rejection of knowledge about NAR theology was not credible. After our meeting on May 29, 2022, I expressed my concern that I may need to resign if these theological issues were not addressed. Despite giving you the benefit of the doubt for several months, I ultimately decided to resign when you invited Dan Bohi for a weekend “revival.” Upon further review of “Holiness and Healing,” a book which you enthusiastically endorsed, I knew that I could not stay on the board without compromising my commitment to upholding the Word and my responsibility to serve the members of HC. I, therefore, published a review condemning the false teachings in the book and strongly discouraged pastors from inviting Dan Bohi to speak at their churches. It was a difficult decision, but I knew it was necessary to prevent being complicit in the spread of false doctrine.
As Christians, we are called to defend the truth of the Gospel and protect the flock from false teachings that can lead people astray. The New Testament contains numerous examples of false teachers being publicly exposed and condemned by early church leaders and Jesus himself. This is because the spread of false doctrine can have serious consequences, leading people away from the truth of the Gospel and causing divisions within the church. Therefore, it is important for Christians to be vigilant in identifying and exposing false teachings, and to stand firm in the truth of the Word of God.
Please review some scriptural examples of how false teachers/apostles/prophets are addressed in the New Testament:
1) Jesus himself condemned false teachers and prophets in Matthew 7:15, warning his followers to “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
2) Paul publicly rebuked Peter for his inconsistency in Galatians 2:11-14, showing that even leaders are not above being held accountable for their teachings.
3) In Titus 1:10-16, Paul instructs Titus to “rebuke them sharply” in regards to false teachers.
4) In Revelation 2:2, Jesus commends the church in Ephesus for “putting to the test those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.”
5) Jude 1:3-4 – “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ, our only Sovereign and Lord.”
6) Matthew 24:11, 24 – “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray…For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”
7) Mark 13:22 – “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”
8) Acts 20:29-30 – “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
9) Romans 16:17-18 – “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.”
10) 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”
11) 2 Peter 2:1-3: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.”
12) Galatians 1:6-9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”
As a Christian leader, it is my responsibility to defend and promote sound doctrine, and to expose false teaching whenever I encounter it. The Bible is clear in its warnings against false teachers, and I take these warnings seriously. In my efforts to expose false teaching and protect the church, I have not engaged in “murmuring,” but have simply shared my theological views openly and transparently. If you have any concerns about my theology, I encourage you to take the time to read through my content and identify any areas where my beliefs may conflict with Christian orthodoxy or Nazarene doctrine.
“Small Handful of People”
In order to fully understand the context of this quote, I’ll include it here::
“And a small handful of our family at Hope Community, just a small handful,…they had been giving their ear to this one person that came for a while, and its caused confusion and its caused division, which is always Satan’s weapon that he uses. He always uses confusion. He’s the author of confusion and he always causes division when he is doing his work, and it caused that division and separation for some people.”
It was disheartening to see that during your sermon, you seemed to downplay the fact that six respected members of our church community – three board members and three staff members – all long-time members except for my wife and I, had resigned due to our own unique and shared concerns about your NAR theology and leadership. Instead of acknowledging and addressing these valid concerns, you chose to deflect blame onto me and my supposed “murmuring” and “slander,” while conveniently ignoring the full extent of our reasons for leaving. It was a disappointing choice to try and simplify our departures by placing the blame exclusively on me, rather than addressing the broader issues at play within HC.
You acknowledge that Satan’s weapon for causing division is confusion. Considering the confusion you’ve caused, it’s worth asking if you are being used by Satan in this situation, as your actions include omitting important facts, misrepresenting scripture, twisting timelines, maligning others, and refusing to take any responsibility for the departures. All of these actions align with Satan’s tactics, not those of a faithful pastor.
Next, you defensively and reactionarily complained,
“It does surprise me if I can just be honest with you, that some who knew this individual for only six or less months, they allowed him to negate the preaching, and counsel, and the teaching that has come from this pulpit for nearly eight years. They allowed six months of whatever he was saying to completely wipe out what had been taught from this pulpit…They took it and it’s caused them to make decisions based on this new revelation that they received from these false accusations.”
It seems that you’re implying that these HC members were not capable of making their own decisions and were entirely swayed by me. This must be easier for you to believe than to confront the fact that your leadership and theology were not aligned with scripture, which ultimately led these members to leave as well. While I take responsibility for my resignation and bringing attention to your theological misconduct, I strongly suggest that you take an honest look at yourself to see what you could have done differently to achieve a different result.
The NAR Does Not Exist?
Honestly, I couldn’t believe you would publicly make this claim. Please review the quote,
“Never heard of it before a few months ago and it’s not even a real thing if you do check it out. It’s not even a real thing. It’s a blanket. People got thrown under the blanket. ‘Oh they’re a part of that!’ It’s like saying you’re all guilty because you’re Republicans for what took place on January 6th, you got thrown under the blanket. It’s the same thing.”
If you’re truly committed to seeking the truth and understanding the dangers of the NAR movement, I recommend reading some of the most informative and influential books on the topic. R. Douglas Geivett and Holly Pivec have written extensively on the subject, with titles such as “God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement,” “A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement,” and “Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church.” With your close associations to Bethel Church, BSSM, “Apostle” Bill Johnson, Rob McCorkle, Dan Bohi, and Dan Mohler, it’s important to ensure that your theological understanding is well-rounded and balanced. I encourage you to take the time to read these books and consider their perspectives on the NAR movement.
By dismissing the NAR as “not even a real thing,” you are failing to educate the members of HC about a significant and growing movement within Christianity. The literature on the NAR has expanded significantly in recent years due to the NAR’s increasing influence and spread of false doctrine globally. The NAR is a real movement, and to deny its existence is to leave your congregation uninformed about its dangers. Given your background as a pastor, your connections to NAR pastors and evangelists, and your involvement with BSSM/Bethel Church, your denial of the NAR raises several important questions:
1) After this many years leading a church, how could you be ignorant of this movement, and the dangers that follow, especially being tied to so many pastors, evangelists, and institutions that have openly embraced NAR theology?
2) Following from 1, in the slimmest chance that you went through your entire pastoral career escaping the knowledge of the NAR’s existence, what conclusions can I derive from your theological ignorance? Have you sufficiently acquired the capacity to discern and make reliable Biblical judgments to the degree that you’re competent enough to lead any church? When someone does present a legitimate theological red flag to you, such as NAR theology, can you critically and objectively review the theological implications of that red flag in a Christ-centered and Biblically orthodox way?
3) Assuming that 2 is false (i.e. you didn’t know about the NAR) and you covertly embrace NAR theology, your character is called into question because you publicly denied knowing about the NAR and mischaracterized the NAR as not a “real thing” from the pulpit. How can the church trust you to lead them if you’re not honest about your theological convictions?
More Deception and Character Concerns
In a separate sermon, I discovered that you communicated another falsehood to the church from the pulpit. On December 18, 2022, in a sermon titled ‘Who is My Neighbor?’ (video here starting at 13:24 – 13:56), you blessed three members of HC for their acts of self-sacrifice. It’s appropriate to honor them, and I applaud you for doing so. In doing so, however, you wedded yourself to even more deception. Since the audio is of poor quality, I’ll transcribe the quote in question,
“But Heather has really been carrying the water for our teen ministry since, ah, really Andrew L has left.”
It’s disheartening to learn that you have distorted the truth about Heather’s role in the teen ministry. As the parents of teenagers who were part of the ministry can confirm, Heather was not the one “carrying the water” for the two months after Andrew L left. I exclusively led the teen ministry during that time. By mischaracterizing Heather’s involvement, you not only diminish her contributions, but you also undermine the genuine efforts she made to support the teens after I left. I urge you to consider the importance of offering an apology to Heather for using her involvement in the ministry as a way to erase my name from the church’s memory. Christians deserve recognition for their true efforts, and I have great respect for Heather’s character and actions.
Conclusion
As I mentioned at the start of this letter, I am mainly addressing the transcribed portion of your sermon because that is where the most concerning and public claims were made. It is scripturally appropriate to confront my accuser (2 Timothy 2:23-26), especially when they are making public accusations about my character and actions. My hope is that through this letter, God will provide clarity and understanding to all who read it, and encourage them to carefully consider both sides of this matter for themselves. I have been open and honest throughout this ordeal with everyone involved, and I pray that you will adopt this approach as well.
It may be difficult to hear, but I speak these words out of love for you and your family, as well as for HC. As much as it would be easier to simply tell you what you want to hear, it would also mean enabling your misguided doctrine and associations with those who promote false teachings. How could I not speak up if I see you leading your church down a dangerous path, straying from a sound understanding of the Bible and inviting a heretic to speak to your members? To remain silent would be an act of cowardice and a lack of love and respect for you. I do not want to see you continue down this path with the NAR, nor do I want to see you influencing others at HC to align with their teachings. I want the best for you and those at HC, and that means speaking the truth, even if it may be uncomfortable to hear.
I hope that you’ve taken the time to read this letter and are considering its content with an open and reflective mind. In it, I’ve provided a thorough and well-researched response to your claims, drawing on scriptural support and historical accuracy. While I trust that God will ultimately bring justice in His own time, I pray that this letter serves as a means for Him to communicate His truth to you, or that it may shed light on any false claims for HC to see and inspire positive change. My peace comes from knowing that I have faithfully shared the truth with everyone to the best of my ability.
I sincerely pray that HC will deepen its relationship with the Lord through consistent prayer and a strong foundation in sound doctrine and scripture. I realize that my actions, like writing a letter or article, do not determine God’s ultimate plan. My role is to listen and respond to the guidance of His Word and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Like everyone, I am imperfect and don’t always get things right. However, I hold a deep reverence for the truth and strive to share it without fear or hesitation, even if it may not be received well. The truth is eternal and unaffected by emotions. While I may speak with boldness and directness, it is out of love for HC, the Nazarene denomination, and all my fellow believers in Christ.
May God be with you,
Alan Anderson
-
Open Letter to Pastor Kevin Seymour
Pastor Kevin Seymour,
I pray that you and your family enjoyed Christmas. Please give my love to your family and those who I continue to love and pray for at Hope Community Church of the Nazarene (HC).
I feel it is necessary to address the allegations you made about me in your recent sermon, “Recognizing and Overcoming Personal Attacks.” Although I was not mentioned by name, it is clear to all those in attendance that I am the individual you were referring to. These accusations you made about my character and actions are serious in nature, and as a Christian, it is my duty to confront my accuser and clear up any misunderstandings you may have caused.
I will be focusing on the comments made between 1:05:15 – 1:08:40 in the sermon video (attached above) for the majority of this letter. For your convenience, I have transcribed this specific section of the sermon for reference:
“We’re going to have a little family talk here and family talks are good. I know that some of you have heard that I’m a part of what’s called the NAR, the National Apostolic Reformation (*the correct name is the New Apostolic Reformation – my addition*). And, um, I’ve never heard of that till just a couple months ago. Those three words “National Apostolic Reformation”, though the words are not threatening, there was one here at our church who just attended for a short while who accused me of being a part of the NAR, even though I had never heard of it. I told that individual I had never heard of it and he said that I was lying about that, which I wasn’t. I had never heard of the NAR until he told me what the NAR was. And a small handful of our family at Hope Community, just a small handful, we like to think it’s huge but a small handful of our people, they had been giving their ear to this one person that came for a while and it’s caused confusion and it’s caused division, which is always Satan’s weapon that he uses. He always uses confusion. He’s the author of confusion and he always causes division when he is doing his work, and it caused that division and separation for some people. It was disappointing. It does surprise me if I can just be honest with you, that some who knew this individual for only six or less months, they allowed him to negate the preaching, and counsel, and the teaching that has come from this pulpit for nearly eight years. They allowed six months of whatever he was saying to completely wipe out what had been taught from this pulpit. And because of that, some took the divisive false leaven that was being murmured about, and leaven, you just need a little bit to get into the dough before the whole batch will rise up from it. They took it and it’s caused them to make decisions based on this new revelation that they received from these false accusations. They took that revelation and said that I don’t want any longer to be a part of this movement. Allow me to say this one more time, I never sweep things under the rug or anything like that. I just believe we’re family and families ought to talk to each other, shouldn’t we? Families ought to be able to hear from their pastor when it comes to matters like that. Just allow me to say one final time, I am not a part of a group called the NAR. Period. Never heard of it before a few months ago and it’s not even a real thing if you do check it out. It’s not even a real thing. It’s a blanket. People got thrown under the blanket. ‘Oh, they’re a part of that!’ It’s like saying you’re all guilty because you’re Republicans for what took place on January 6th, you got thrown under the blanket. It’s the same thing. I’m a Christian by profession. I’m a Nazarene by conviction and I’m not a part of any other group. Never have been, never will be.”
It is clear to those familiar with the situation that the transcript bears little resemblance to reality. While you claimed to speak out against division, slander, and lies in your sermon, I see no evidence of you avoiding these actions yourself. The transcript alone completely distorts the events of the past year, portrays me as an agent of Satan, and portrays you as an orthodox Nazarene preacher with no prior knowledge, leanings, or associations with the NAR. This is a sermon where you’ve strategically manipulated reality in an attempt to explain why almost half the board and staff left within the last 90 days.
It is unfortunate that much of your sermon could be challenged theologically and historically. However, I will primarily focus on the above transcript, as it directly pertains to your public accusations about me and my influence on those who left, as well as your claims about your personal knowledge of the NAR. I hope that you are open-minded and honest enough to consider my perspective with an open heart.
Did you ever hear of the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) before our meeting?
As the transcript indicates, you claim that you had never heard of the NAR before our meeting on May 29, 2022, where I presented my concerns about your NAR leanings and affiliations. There is credible evidence to suggest that you lied to HC from the pulpit about this claim.
Let me explain these reasons in detail:
1) Your daughter, one of your sons, and your wife attended Bethel’s School of Supernatural Ministry (BSSM), which is known as a major hub for the NAR movement in America. This institution is known for targeting young, impressionable individuals and manipulating their emotions while exploiting their lack of theological knowledge and biblical literacy. The Passion Translation (TPT), a theologically sectarian translation (read more about TPT here), is used at BSSM and was translated by self-proclaimed “Apostle” Brian Simmons, with a foreword written by “Apostle” Bill Johnson. You also encouraged members of HC to give a “love offering” to support an HC member’s attendance at BSSM, where they would be exposed to NAR propaganda and potentially stunt their theological development and maturity.
Given the extensive exposure you have had to the literature of “Apostle” Bill Johnson and your family’s involvement with Bethel and BSSM, it is clear that you have been exposed to the teachings of the NAR through Johnson for many years prior to my arrival at HC in November 2021. However, there are multiple other reasons beyond Johnson’s influence that lead me to believe that you were already aware of the NAR before our conversation.
It is clear that your best friend Rob McCorkle and theological mentor Dan Bohi have had a significant influence on your theology. During our meeting on May 29, 2022, I mentioned my concerns about both of these individuals and their NAR beliefs, as expressed in their book “Holiness and Healing,” which you endorsed. For reference, please review your endorsement below:
“I have had the privilege of being Rob McCorkle’s best friend for over thirty years. During this time I have watched him hunger for holiness and long for a continual heart transformation. I’m convinced that God has honored his hunger by allowing him to experience and then write the words of this book. He truly demonstrates what the life of a Christian looks like when they long to live with Power and Purity.
My friendship with Dan Bohi has impacted my life in eternal ways. Having traveled with Dan for weeks at a time has shown me the heart and passion of one who feeds himself on God’s Word. I’ve personally witnessed the love and power of my heavenly Father through the ministry of Dan Bohi. The thoughts, revelation, and truth that they share in this book will mark me for the rest of my life. I encourage anyone that has a hunger for Christlikeness to invest the time to ingest the truths, challenges, and experiences that Dan and Rob share in these pages.” (emphasis mine)
Since you did not mention this in your sermon, I will include a brief excerpt from my resignation letter that describes your response when I asked why you would endorse a book that promotes NAR theology,
“Pastor Kevin denied endorsing the book but admitted to endorsing McCorkle and Bohi. This is not how book endorsements work, and that’s not how it worked here. Nobody would read this endorsement and reasonably conclude that Kevin didn’t read the book. Pastor Kevin was not forthcoming with me, but I’ll have everyone judge for themselves based on the verbiage of his endorsement whether he condones the NAR teachings contained therein.”
I urge you to conduct your due diligence as the lead pastor of HC by reading my thorough review (click here) of the book with an open and prayerful heart.
Given Bohi’s NAR theology and your apparent support for it, I could not continue in a leadership role if your judgment was so flawed and your commitment to sound biblical doctrine was non-existent. Scheduling Bohi for a full weekend “revival” sent the message that my concerns were ignored and you were willing to invite a wolf in sheep’s clothing into the church, regardless of Bohi’s false teachings. I attended the “revival” weekend to ensure that I was not acting rashly or unfairly evaluating Bohi’s theology. The events of that weekend only confirmed my suspicions that he was not just a false teacher/prophet/apostle, but an outright heretic.
Lastly, and arguably the most distressing, is your history with Covenant Fellowship Church of the Nazarene (CF) in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Your brief time at this church was cut short due to theological differences with many congregants. My investigation with those at CF discovered that you held and promoted NAR theology, which greatly troubled many members and resulted in your departure. While you assert that the separation was caused by a “couple of hyper-cessationist families” and an “unsupportive DS,” the events at HC and CF are too similar to be a coincidence.
Did I call you a “liar”?
To quote your sermon directly, “I told that individual I had never heard of it and he said that I was lying about that, which I wasn’t.” You and I both know that I did not accuse you of lying during our meeting on May 29, 2022, as you suggested in your sermon. That statement is a lie. When it comes to your knowledge of the NAR and whether you held NAR-aligned beliefs before our meeting, there is strong evidence to suggest that you were either not forthcoming or outright lying.
“One Person” and “Six Months or Less”
There is a recurring theme in this portion of your sermon where you repeatedly refer to me as “one person” and emphasize that I was at HC for only “six months or less.” By the time you were addressing this issue to HC, it was already common knowledge who the “one person” was, making the mention unnecessary. As you are attempting to mend a divided church, your lack of directness during your attempt to have a “family conversation” does not convey strong leadership.
It is true that I am the “one person” referred to in your sermon. However, I would like to clarify that I was a member of the board at HC, which means I had more responsibilities in the church than a typical churchgoer. This is not meant to elevate my status, but simply to provide context for my involvement at HC. Additionally, while I resigned from the board after six months, I had been attending HC for 11 months prior to my departure. These details were conveniently left out in your sermon, which would have provided a more complete understanding of the situation. If you are sincere about having difficult “family conversations” from the pulpit, you should be willing to discuss details openly and hold the appropriate people accountable. By being evasive, you create ambiguity and a convenient way to avoid accountability. As a pastor, your priority should always be to guide people towards the truth, even if that means accepting responsibility for your errors.
Did I “Murmur”?
In your sermon, you publicly claim that Satan used me as a tool to create division and conflict through slanderous allegations and that a “small handful…gave their ear” to me, leading to the departure of three board members and three staff members. I had already published my research findings on the NAR and Dan Bohi before I resigned. Every time I published an article, I shared it on Facebook and my theological views were publicly available for discussion. I was approached by long-time members of HC about my thoughts on Dan Bohi and, as a board member, I always provided an honest and Biblically-based response to the best of my ability. Given my extensive research on Bohi, I was able to provide a thorough and accurate theological summary. My responses were based on his teachings and contained no personal attacks, which do not qualify as “murmuring,” “slandering,” or “gossiping.” As a board member, it is my role to provide truthful and Biblical responses to members who seek the truth.
Secondly, you attempt to use scripture such as 1 Corinthians 10:7-10 (found at 1:13:40) to justify silencing those who may simply want to discuss theological issues among themselves or with a trusted confidant, board member, or staff pastor. This is not the same as “murmuring,” “slandering,” “gossiping,” or “fault-finding.” It is not Biblically required for individuals with questions or concerns about theology to immediately go to the lead pastor. This would overwhelm any pastor with an excessive number of questions after every Sunday service. This is an example of using a prooftext to support a personal agenda. I will also address why false teaching is not just a sin against an individual Christian, but a corporate sin against the church, and provide Biblical justification for publicly exposing and condemning such corporate sin.
Thirdly, you reference Matthew 18:15-17 in your sermon. While this verse may be applicable if you are addressing sin between Christian brothers and sisters, you use it in the context of accusing me of being a “murmurer” who caused division and strife through slander. It is essential for the members of HC to understand the true events and the appropriate use of scripture in this situation. I hope to provide clarity on the matter and show that my actions and reasons for resigning were in line with Biblical models for handling corporate sin
I left HC due to two main reasons, both related to false teaching:
1) Your theology has been significantly influenced by the NAR, as evidenced by your close relationships with NAR pastors like Bill Johnson, Kris Vallotton, Dan Bohi, Rob McCorkle, and Dan Mohler. You have even referenced the TPT from the pulpit, which was “translated” by NAR “Apostle” Brian Simmons. Given your extensive connections to these individuals and their teachings over the years, it is difficult to believe that you were unaware of NAR theology.
2) I made the difficult decision to resign from the board of HC due to concerns about the influence of the NAR on your theology. Your close relationships with NAR pastors such as Bill Johnson, Kris Vallotton, Dan Bohi, Rob McCorkle, and Dan Mohler, as well as your use of the TPT, which was “translated” by NAR “Apostle” Brian Simmons, made it clear to me that your rejection of knowledge about NAR theology was not credible. After our meeting on May 29, 2022, I expressed my concern that I may need to resign if these theological issues were not addressed. Despite giving you the benefit of the doubt for several months, I ultimately decided to resign when you invited Dan Bohi for a weekend “revival.” Upon further review of “Holiness and Healing,” a book which you enthusiastically endorsed, I knew that I could not stay on the board without compromising my commitment to upholding the Word and my responsibility to serve the members of HC. I, therefore, published a review condemning the false teachings in the book and strongly discouraged pastors from inviting Dan Bohi to speak at their churches. It was a difficult decision, but I knew it was necessary to prevent being complicit in the spread of false doctrine.
As Christians, we are called to defend the truth of the Gospel and protect the flock from false teachings that can lead people astray. The New Testament contains numerous examples of false teachers being publicly exposed and condemned by early church leaders and Jesus himself. This is because the spread of false doctrine can have serious consequences, leading people away from the truth of the Gospel and causing divisions within the church. Therefore, it is important for Christians to be vigilant in identifying and exposing false teachings, and to stand firm in the truth of the Word of God.
Please review some scriptural examples of how false teachers/apostles/prophets are addressed in the New Testament:
1) Jesus himself condemned false teachers and prophets in Matthew 7:15, warning his followers to “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
2) Paul publicly rebuked Peter for his inconsistency in Galatians 2:11-14, showing that even leaders are not above being held accountable for their teachings.
3) In Titus 1:10-16, Paul instructs Titus to “rebuke them sharply” in regards to false teachers.
4) In Revelation 2:2, Jesus commends the church in Ephesus for “putting to the test those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.”
5) Jude 1:3-4 – “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ, our only Sovereign and Lord.”
6) Matthew 24:11, 24 – “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray…For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”
7) Mark 13:22 – “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”
8) Acts 20:29-30 – “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
9) Romans 16:17-18 – “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.”
10) 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”
11) 2 Peter 2:1-3: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.”
12) Galatians 1:6-9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”
As a Christian leader, it is my responsibility to defend and promote sound doctrine, and to expose false teaching whenever I encounter it. The Bible is clear in its warnings against false teachers, and I take these warnings seriously. In my efforts to expose false teaching and protect the church, I have not engaged in “murmuring,” but have simply shared my theological views openly and transparently. If you have any concerns about my theology, I encourage you to take the time to read through my content and identify any areas where my beliefs may conflict with Christian orthodoxy or Nazarene doctrine.
“Small Handful of People”
In order to fully understand the context of this quote, I’ll include it here::
“And a small handful of our family at Hope Community, just a small handful,…they had been giving their ear to this one person that came for a while, and its caused confusion and its caused division, which is always Satan’s weapon that he uses. He always uses confusion. He’s the author of confusion and he always causes division when he is doing his work, and it caused that division and separation for some people.”
It was disheartening to see that during your sermon, you seemed to downplay the fact that six respected members of our church community – three board members and three staff members – all long-time members except for my wife and I, had resigned due to our own unique and shared concerns about your NAR theology and leadership. Instead of acknowledging and addressing these valid concerns, you chose to deflect blame onto me and my supposed “murmuring” and “slander,” while conveniently ignoring the full extent of our reasons for leaving. It was a disappointing choice to try and simplify our departures by placing the blame exclusively on me, rather than addressing the broader issues at play within HC.
You acknowledge that Satan’s weapon for causing division is confusion. Considering the confusion you’ve caused, it’s worth asking if you are being used by Satan in this situation, as your actions include omitting important facts, misrepresenting scripture, twisting timelines, maligning others, and refusing to take any responsibility for the departures. All of these actions align with Satan’s tactics, not those of a faithful pastor.
Next, you defensively and reactionarily complained,
“It does surprise me if I can just be honest with you, that some who knew this individual for only six or less months, they allowed him to negate the preaching, and counsel, and the teaching that has come from this pulpit for nearly eight years. They allowed six months of whatever he was saying to completely wipe out what had been taught from this pulpit…They took it and it’s caused them to make decisions based on this new revelation that they received from these false accusations.”
It seems that you’re implying that these HC members were not capable of making their own decisions and were entirely swayed by me. This must be easier for you to believe than to confront the fact that your leadership and theology were not aligned with scripture, which ultimately led these members to leave as well. While I take responsibility for my resignation and bringing attention to your theological misconduct, I strongly suggest that you take an honest look at yourself to see what you could have done differently to achieve a different result.
The NAR Does Not Exist?
Honestly, I couldn’t believe you would publicly make this claim. Please review the quote,
“Never heard of it before a few months ago and it’s not even a real thing if you do check it out. It’s not even a real thing. It’s a blanket. People got thrown under the blanket. ‘Oh they’re a part of that!’ It’s like saying you’re all guilty because you’re Republicans for what took place on January 6th, you got thrown under the blanket. It’s the same thing.”
If you’re truly committed to seeking the truth and understanding the dangers of the NAR movement, I recommend reading some of the most informative and influential books on the topic. R. Douglas Geivett and Holly Pivec have written extensively on the subject, with titles such as “God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement,” “A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement,” and “Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church.” With your close associations to Bethel Church, BSSM, “Apostle” Bill Johnson, Rob McCorkle, Dan Bohi, and Dan Mohler, it’s important to ensure that your theological understanding is well-rounded and balanced. I encourage you to take the time to read these books and consider their perspectives on the NAR movement.
By dismissing the NAR as “not even a real thing,” you are failing to educate the members of HC about a significant and growing movement within Christianity. The literature on the NAR has expanded significantly in recent years due to the NAR’s increasing influence and spread of false doctrine globally. The NAR is a real movement, and to deny its existence is to leave your congregation uninformed about its dangers. Given your background as a pastor, your connections to NAR pastors and evangelists, and your involvement with BSSM/Bethel Church, your denial of the NAR raises several important questions:
1) After this many years leading a church, how could you be ignorant of this movement, and the dangers that follow, especially being tied to so many pastors, evangelists, and institutions that have openly embraced NAR theology?
2) Following from 1, in the slimmest chance that you went through your entire pastoral career escaping the knowledge of the NAR’s existence, what conclusions can I derive from your theological ignorance? Have you sufficiently acquired the capacity to discern and make reliable Biblical judgments to the degree that you’re competent enough to lead any church? When someone does present a legitimate theological red flag to you, such as NAR theology, can you critically and objectively review the theological implications of that red flag in a Christ-centered and Biblically orthodox way?
3) Assuming that 2 is false (i.e. you didn’t know about the NAR) and you covertly embrace NAR theology, your character is called into question because you publicly denied knowing about the NAR and mischaracterized the NAR as not a “real thing” from the pulpit. How can the church trust you to lead them if you’re not honest about your theological convictions?
More Deception and Character Concerns
In a separate sermon, I discovered that you communicated another falsehood to the church from the pulpit. On December 18, 2022, in a sermon titled ‘Who is My Neighbor?’ (video here starting at 13:24 – 13:56), you blessed three members of HC for their acts of self-sacrifice. It’s appropriate to honor them, and I applaud you for doing so. In doing so, however, you wedded yourself to even more deception. Since the audio is of poor quality, I’ll transcribe the quote in question,
“But Heather has really been carrying the water for our teen ministry since, ah, really Andrew L has left.”
It’s disheartening to learn that you have distorted the truth about Heather’s role in the teen ministry. As the parents of teenagers who were part of the ministry can confirm, Heather was not the one “carrying the water” for the two months after Andrew L left. I exclusively led the teen ministry during that time. By mischaracterizing Heather’s involvement, you not only diminish her contributions, but you also undermine the genuine efforts she made to support the teens after I left. I urge you to consider the importance of offering an apology to Heather for using her involvement in the ministry as a way to erase my name from the church’s memory. Christians deserve recognition for their true efforts, and I have great respect for Heather’s character and actions.
Conclusion
As I mentioned at the start of this letter, I am mainly addressing the transcribed portion of your sermon because that is where the most concerning and public claims were made. It is scripturally appropriate to confront my accuser (2 Timothy 2:23-26), especially when they are making public accusations about my character and actions. My hope is that through this letter, God will provide clarity and understanding to all who read it, and encourage them to carefully consider both sides of this matter for themselves. I have been open and honest throughout this ordeal with everyone involved, and I pray that you will adopt this approach as well.
It may be difficult to hear, but I speak these words out of love for you and your family, as well as for HC. As much as it would be easier to simply tell you what you want to hear, it would also mean enabling your misguided doctrine and associations with those who promote false teachings. How could I not speak up if I see you leading your church down a dangerous path, straying from a sound understanding of the Bible and inviting a heretic to speak to your members? To remain silent would be an act of cowardice and a lack of love and respect for you. I do not want to see you continue down this path with the NAR, nor do I want to see you influencing others at HC to align with their teachings. I want the best for you and those at HC, and that means speaking the truth, even if it may be uncomfortable to hear.
I hope that you’ve taken the time to read this letter and are considering its content with an open and reflective mind. In it, I’ve provided a thorough and well-researched response to your claims, drawing on scriptural support and historical accuracy. While I trust that God will ultimately bring justice in His own time, I pray that this letter serves as a means for Him to communicate His truth to you, or that it may shed light on any false claims for HC to see and inspire positive change. My peace comes from knowing that I have faithfully shared the truth with everyone to the best of my ability.
I sincerely pray that HC will deepen its relationship with the Lord through consistent prayer and a strong foundation in sound doctrine and scripture. I realize that my actions, like writing a letter or article, do not determine God’s ultimate plan. My role is to listen and respond to the guidance of His Word and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Like everyone, I am imperfect and don’t always get things right. However, I hold a deep reverence for the truth and strive to share it without fear or hesitation, even if it may not be received well. The truth is eternal and unaffected by emotions. While I may speak with boldness and directness, it is out of love for HC, the Nazarene denomination, and all my fellow believers in Christ.
May God be with you,
Alan Anderson
-
False Doctrine is a Biblical Reason to Leave a Church
I recently resigned from the board of my church and renounced my membership mainly due to false doctrine. False doctrine, and those who promote it, should be rejected, rebuked, and exposed. This is demonstrated multiple times in the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:19-20, 2 Timothy 4:14-15, Jude 3 – 4, Matthew 23, Galatians 1:6-9, Galatians 5:12, Titus 1:9, Romans 16:17). However, I realize that this is a sensitive topic and every situation is different. My goal with this article is to share insights that may help others in their journey. I’ll outline what actions should be taken to prevent from departing irresponsibly and what a Biblical mindset looks like.
1) Do your research – Don’t be uncharitable to your pastor. It’s unwise to assume the worst and act hastily. Challenge your assumptions honestly against the scriptures. Most sermons are preserved in a digital forum somewhere. Watch them as many times as you need to achieve a proper understanding within its correct context.
Be in unceasing prayer for wisdom as you do this. Proverbs 2:6 says, “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” With a repentant heart, faithful and rigorous study, and a love for God’s truth, you’ll discover the answers to concerns organically. If these answers legitimate your concerns, it’s time to prayerfully move to the next step.
2) Talk to your pastor – Barring extreme cases where heresy is unrepentantly preached from the pulpit, you should present your theological concerns to your pastor. The pastor should respond to your concerns happily, transparently, straightforwardly, and Biblically. If the pastor is not answering your concerns in this way and restoration isn’t fully or sufficiently reached, the likelihood of ongoing doctrinal problems resolving is unlikely.
3) Pray and observe – If the pastor resolves the theological concerns, that is the ideal scenario. It could’ve been a misunderstanding, which happens sometimes. However, if the meeting with your pastor still left matters completely or partially unresolved, it’s reasonable to be hopeful of change but mindful that your doctrinal concerns may arise again. Continue with your studies prayerfully and studiously if the theological issues continue. Depending on the doctrinal issue and your level of engagement in the church, each person’s journey will look different. Again, that’s why prayer is important in your journey.
4) Ask yourself the hard questions – Now that you’ve prayerfully invested time in studying the false doctrine, you’ve confirmed it’s false doctrine, you’ve notified the pastor of the issue and no actionable steps were taken, it’s time to judge whether all of your efforts justify a departure from the church. Again, this will look different for every person. False doctrine is a tricky subject to navigate sometimes. For example, denying the triune nature of God is a clear example of heresy while the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement cleverly cloaks its false doctrines by mainstreaming the redefinition of orthodox Christian terms and practices. They should be treated differently when exiting a church because they’re not the same.
5) Make the decision – This decision will be harder for some and not others. For my spouse and I, it was tremendously difficult. I was on the board and my wife was a staff member. My wife and I collaboratively did steps one through four mentioned above. Now that we did all the hard work and asked ourselves the painfully challenging questions, it was time to make a decision. We found that our investigation of this matter provided a powerful scriptural case for leaving the church. Ultimately, if scripture isn’t being presented in a way that is true to the Word, the Gospel is not being preached. As Christians, we are not obligated to stay at a Gospel-less church.
Conclusion
False teachers, false prophets, and false apostles have been warned about at length throughout the Bible. It’s not uncontroversial how God, the Creator of all things, feels about those abusing His Word. We see in 1 Timothy 6:3-5,
“If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”
The truth is the only thing that will liberate the church. The church body must invoke a no-tolerance policy for those who promote heterodoxical or heretical doctrines. False doctrines must never be permitted in the Christian worldview. This is not a negotiable issue. You’re either for the entire Word or you’re not. All of God’s Word is inerrant, and we must treat it as such.
I’m not suggesting you make this decision lightly. I devoted six months of prayer and research, along with presenting my concerns to the pastor before I ultimately decided to leave the church. This was a process that weighed on my mind every day. If you’re in a similar position, I encourage you to use the Berean model of examining all teachings against scripture (Acts 17:10-15).
I’m also not suggesting you should communicate your findings in an unloving way. The second greatest commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:34-40) However, this doesn’t mean that I only tell people what they want to hear. Love includes telling people uncomfortable truths. I was in a position of church leadership, and I had responsibilities for the operations of the church, which included guarding the congregation against teachings that would compromise their understanding of scripture. I took this obligation seriously, which is why I published my concerns (i.e. NAR and Dan Bohi) on this blog for anyone to view. My prayer with each publication was that God would use it to communicate the truth to an audience who needs it. The apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,” and the same is true today. Not everyone will approve of your departure. That’s ok. As long as you’ve demonstrated that you’re following God’s Word, you can depart the church with a clean conscience.
Lastly, do not leave without going to another church. Leaving one church does not relieve you of your Biblical responsibilities of attending church (Hebrews 10:24-25, Colossians 3:16, Matthew 18:20, 1 Corinthians 12:12-22). You must be a member of a Biblically faithful church somewhere. Church attendance is also non-negotiable. All Christians must be working in their churches and using their God-given talents for His Glory.
In closing, I encourage everyone to be emboldened to speak the truth in love, gentleness, and respect. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves so that you’ll be prepared to navigate the wolves among the sheep. (Matthew 10:16)