“We’ll get back
to my area of expertise which is the Bible…” (Danny Lehmann MARS HILL Sat. PM Oct. 21, 2005).
Handling the word
of truth is a high calling and therefore we ought to endeavor to be as correct
and accurate as possible and be able to grasp hermeneutical principles like
context and the actual meaning of passages and avoid misapplying scriptures or
adding or subtracting from the written word. Paul told Timothy that those who
were unable or unwilling to “cut straight” (rightly handle) the Word of God
should be ashamed and were obviously disqualified for ministry of the Word (2
Tim. 2:15).
I think you can see
why I’m concerned with the way he uses or misuses scripture. Consider the
following examples:
It’s apparent to anyone reading this passage that this is a promise to the Messiah from the Father and should be viewed as such. Vs.7-8 shows that this is a statement made to the Son from His Father and that the nations would be His inheritance (the Messiah’s) and the ends of the earth would be His possession.
Third Wave teachers
and folks who believe in church dominionism often view this verse as a prayer
that we are to pray and a promise given to the church as though the passage
teaches us to ask God to give us nations as we do our missionary efforts.
Dominionism teaches that the church will rise up as a warrior bride and conquer
the world for Christ. Some even go so far as to teach that Christ is stuck in
heaven until we do the job of world evangelization; that the whole world will
be saved and then He will come back.
I do not believe
that Danny believes this but that does not stop him from repeatedly sharing
that Ps 2:8 was a prayer we as a church should be praying. He actually did this
one week on his radio show no less than four times. Here is one sample:
“These are some of the macro prayers that are prayed in the
Bible for the whole world. For instance, Ps. 2:8 says, “Ask of Me and I will
give You the nations for Your inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth
for Your possession.” Now that’s a pretty macro prayer” (Danny Lehmann, Word To
the World program, 2005).
Lehmann makes his position clear as he writes this in his new book, Beautiful Feet. In appendix V under “100 Reasons We Should Evangelize the World”, point 76 reads: “The nations are our inheritance.” (Psalm 2:8)” (p.202).
He continually used
this verse as an example of a prayer that the church should be praying. His use
of Scripture this way is the very reason that I felt I needed to write him. It
is obvious there is something seriously wrong about the way he used these
verses. While I don’t believe he is a full-blown dominionist, I do believe that
this is a case where we can clearly see how YWAM actually influenced him. Here’s
an example of a meeting he was at recently where we can see the official YWAM
stance of this verse in action through song:
“Danny Lehmann's prayer of dedication called for a new
spirit of apostolic authority to rise up here and reach out to the nations of
Asia and the Pacific.
And the evening
concluded with the crowd loudly singing an anthem based on Psalm 2, "You
said, Ask and I'll give the nations to you. That's the cry of my heart!"
(Campus celebrates opening of new Ohana Court facility By Scott Tompkins http://www.uofnkona.edu/new/ohanacourt2.html)
(emphasis mine)
Here we see this verse being sung by all present and in complete ignorance of the context.
When I wrote Danny about his use of Ps. 2:8, he admitted that he should have shared it in context and assured me he only used it in passing. Once again, this was not the case. He actually quoted that verse at least four times “in passing”, he included it out of the context in his book, and is present at gatherings where the entire group is singing it out of context! It would appear that he didn’t know the proper context to begin with or why the repeated error? As for clarifying this to everyone, we’re still waiting…It also must be noted that he taught this same thing the very weekend (Mars Hill) after his admission that he used it out of context.
What is one to believe when they get one answer and the
person does the opposite?
John 14:6 and 1 Cor. 13
In addition to his
“tree of life” teachings and his interpretations on judging, he also adds some
unique views on several other key passages.
Lehmann has an
online sermon called Spiritual Myopia in which he subdivides Jesus’
threefold description of himself into three types of Christian, a strained and
unwarranted interpretation to be sure. In it he mocks what he describes as
myopic tunnel vision Christians who seemingly only live one aspect of their
Christian life. They’re either wayers, truthers, or lifers, again far from the
intended meaning of John 14:6 that is about Jesus. I can see a limited
allowance for making a few points in this way but often the embellishments that
accompany this kind of interpretation permit into the sermon questionable
components. When a scripture passage is victimized by any strained analogy then
confusion can enter in. This phenomenon, when utilized by an undiscerning
teacher, can get really warped.
He seems to like
subdividing certain scripture portions like this in the attempt to come up with
a catchy sermon or analogy. One other such example is his problematic
interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:1-3:
“I would like to
call us back tonight to the bottom line of what the Christian life is all
about…There’s a whole chapter in 1 Corinthians we call the love chapter. And it
says, it starts out by saying, “If I speak with tongues of men and of angels, I could be a Pentecostal. If I don’t have
love, I'm a zero. I can understand all mysteries. I can be a real mystical
Christian. If I don’t have love, I’m a zero. I can prophesy, I can predict the
future, but if I don’t have love, I'm a zero. I can be a good verse-by-verse
Bible study guy who understands inductive Bible study and understands the
historical background and grammatical background. I can know the Greek and the
Hebrew but if I don’t have love, I'm a zero. I can understand how to nail all
the false prophets. I can stand up on my soapbox and condemn all the other
Christians because they’re not as good as me, but if I don’t have love I'm a
nothing. Then he says, speaking of feeding the homeless, I can go out and give
all my goods away to feed the poor, I can even give my body to be burned as a
martyr but if I don’t have love, I'm a
zero…”(Danny Lehmann 11/05/05 MARS HILL).
When the Apostle
Paul refers to “understand all mysteries” (1 Cor. 13:2), he isn’t talking of
being “mystical”. When he refers to
hypothetically understanding “all knowledge”, he most certainly never meant he
could know how to “nail” false prophets or “stand up on my soapbox and condemn
all the other Christians because they’re not as good as me”. These are personal
jabs towards those Lehmann interprets as Pharisees. To be sure, without love,
we are nothing but these concepts are not even remotely in this passage. In
fact one must wonder if his interpretation was said in love
He gave an expanded
version of this teaching in an earlier sermon:
“In 1 Cor.
13…there’s a very interesting passage that a lot of Christians overlook.
Because it seems to me that if we really got the impact of this passage I don’t
think we would put so many other things in priority over love. This is what
Paul said: “Though I speak with tongues of men and of angels’ so he lists seven
different types of Christians. He says though I speak with the tongues of men
and of angels if I have not love it profits me nothing’ Tongues? Lets nail the
Pentecostals on that one. They speak in tongues. We speak in tongues too some
of us but you know we’ll just categorize these people. Number 2, ‘though I
prophesy, if I have not love, I'm nothing’ so let’s call those the
Charismatics. You know, they’re prophetic type people. Now you hang on if
you’re getting judgmental here because we’re going to nail you in just a
minute. Then the third was the mystical Christians. It says ‘Though I understand
all mysteries’. I’m a mystical type like my friend Dr. Atef I was talking about
last week. He spends time for months eating bread and water and fasts for
months at a time and gets all mystical with God in the deserts of Egypt. He
lives by himself, kind of a mystical guy. But even if you’re really spiritual
like my friend Dr. Atef and you do that, if you do it and you don’t have love,
you’re zero. You could understand all mysteries. You could understand all the
Book of revelation and what every little symbol means just perfectly. You could understand the mystery of the
sovereignty of God and the freewill of man. Predestination and foreknowledge
and free will and all the different things that Christians fight about. What
kind of baptism is the right one to do and we could understand all the
mysteries that Christians have been hassling over for years. Number 4 would be
‘If I have all knowledge’. I suppose we would fall into that category because
we believe the Bible verse by verse and we study it chapter by chapter and book
by book and were very high value on the knowledge of the Word but if you have
all knowledge it says, if you don’t have love, you’re zero. How’s your self
image doing so far?…And though I have all faith. So these are our faith
churches. You know the churches that really push faith. Even if had all faith
so that you could move mountains, if you don’t have love you’re nothing…Number
6, social action Christians.. helping the poor and the needy…Last ones the most
amazing one. It says even if I’m a martyr…” (Danny Lehmann “The Tree of
Life” 9/18/05).
To be sure he is
taking artistic license to make a point but we need to be careful here. These
are his interpretations and ascriptions to passages that really don’t say what
he’s saying they are. This passage was not intended to be a list of types of
Christians and certain other problems exist in Lehmann’s examples. Some of his
little examples need clarified, like “faith churches”. Given some of Lehmann’s
friends and ministry contacts, as well as many of the churches YWAM works with,
it is easy to see that his reference to “faith churches” could include
heretical groups in the Word-Faith movement and this kind of stuff is
dangerous. So does he mean this? A personal sit-down would certainly clarify his
intended reference.
We need to clarify
these terms and concepts because mysticism has nothing to do with biblical
Christianity. We are not called to be mystics anywhere in the scriptures and
this is most certainly not what Paul was advocating in the above passage.
Clearly, Lehmann adds his own interpretative spin on the passage.
And what of his
reference to being a “mystical” Christian? I was in a meeting once when he
recommended reading the works of the “Christian Mystics” and his admiration of
the ascetic Coptic Dr. Atef who gets all “Mystical with God” in the desert
needs explanation. Our concerns are
valid with Dr. Atef and YWAM looking to
him along with others tied to the emergent movement for guidance. He has
endorsed Erwin McManus on his program, an emerging church pastor and author who
advocates having a mystical relationship with God.
On the YWAM website,
In the section “What YWAM Leaders are reading and
recommending” He recommends Velvit Elvis by Rob Bell, giving
it a 10, on a scale of 1-10.
Lately I have immersed myself in books by some of the more
postmodern Christian authors, including: The Emerging Church (by my friend Dan
Kimble), Brian McLaren’s titles (A New Kind of Christian, The Story We
Find Ourselves In, The last Word and the Word After That, A Generous Orthodoxy
, Adventures in
Missing the Point [see more on these four previous titles below]), and titles
by Leonard Sweet and Chuck Smith Jr.
“… Subtitled
“Repainting the Christian Faith,” he provides refreshing insights into reaching
this generation as well as some excellent dipping into Hebrew and rabbinical
traditions to help illustrate his point. Apart from a lame illustration about
the Virgin Birth, his book is awesome, and his insights will keep you on the
edge.”
One only needs to look on the web to see what these men are
teaching Dan Kimble, Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet.
If Lehmann is learning from this postmodern Christian view which has a clear connection to mysticism he can be accepting a Christianity that is open to other ways to worship and other religious practices, most who are read up on this movement have described it as syncretistic and in the category of interfaith.
The Bible
definitely teaches predestination but Lehmann doesn’t believe that it teaches
predestination to salvation. He attempts to answer this issue and settle some
case in about seven minutes in one of his broadcasts from Mars Hill meeting. I
include this instance but admit that it needs a better treatment than what is
given here. The things he’s saying here are very difficult to follow due to
their complex nature and his speed of delivery. Here are some statements, which
I believe, at this point are very concerning:
“What about the
verse, Danny, what about the verse that says you have not chosen me but I’ve
chosen you? That’s has nothing to do with salvation. There was a bunch of
disciples and Jesus chose from among them twelve whom He named apostles. And I
want to suggest that the whole issue of chosenness and predestination is a
corporate choosing and predestination where God has chosen the church in Christ
for what? He chose us in Him.” (Danny Lehmann “On Fire” 11/26/05).
This is confusing
here but he elaborates further:
“Now
if you study Ephesians chapter 1, now I wish I had time to teach the whole book
of Ephesians, the book of Ephesians is about the church. It’s about corporately
the church and it’s about the church “in Christ”. “In Christ” is mentioned 12
times in this paragraph…now hang in there with me. Just like there was a chosen
people and some of them were saved. and just as their were twelve apostles but
one of them ended up being a devil, there is a chosenness to the church and it
says “For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world. Why? To be holy
and blameless in His sight. In love He, what? Predestined us to be saved? No.
to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with His pleasure
and will to the praise of His glorious grace which He has freely given us in
the one he loves.”
“My suggestion
is that He didn’t predestine lost people to be saved, He predestined saved
people to be holy and blameless in His sight and to be adopted as His son.” (Ibid.).
This entire
discussion is problematic and warrants a much deeper polemic than what I have
included here. It is clear that Lehmann is quite against Calvinism but in his
attempts to grapple with predestination (admittedly in about seven minutes in
his message) he overlooks the fact that adoption is part and parcel with
salvation not separate. Indeed it is a component of our salvation. That’s why
the Bible tells us:
Rom 8:29-30 explains after we are predestined to be conformed to the
image of His Son… “Moreover whom He
predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and
whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Justification takes place at our salvation – furthermore…
Eph 1:11-12 “In Him
also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the
purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”
All things according to the counsel
of His will- that would include salvation, in fact this is made clear by the
next statement “we who first trusted in Christ” which is the moment of our
salvation.
If God did not predestine lost people to be saved the how do they get
saved? On their own? How can God predestine those to be holy without our being predestined for salvation
that would come first to make us holy? It is difficult to determine from this
if Lehmann is implying that some Christians are adopted and others are not? Is
he implying that the designation “in Christ” is applicable to a select group
within the Church? i.e. some were
chosen to be holy and blameless from out of the pool of the rest of the
Christians? His whole treatment of it is confusing matter therefore one cannot
really ascertain with complete accuracy what he is actually saying. To be
adopted, a child of God one MUST be saved.
“For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by who we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness that we are children of God.” (Rom. 8:15-16).
For one does not receive the
Spirit of adoption without believing Eph
1:13 “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy
Spirit of promise”
“Behold what
manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children
of God! Therefore the world does not know us because it did not know Him.
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we
shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we
shall see Him as He is.” (1
John 3:1,2).
To be sure, this subject needs further
scrutiny but what can be deciphered is problematic. I would just love to sit down
with him and ask him to explain this theory and define its parameters for his
listeners but, alas, herding cats is a simpler endeavor than getting any “face
time’ with questions for Danny Lehmann.
All You Need is
Love
In past teachings,
Lehmann has exclaimed that he wasn’t so concerned with someone’s doctrine as
whether they actually “love” him or not. He has apparently had a number of
people call him up to try and deal with some of his teachings in the past, but,
when he senses a “personal attack” or antagonism from someone he considers an
accuser or opposer, it all seems to boil down to a generic question hurled in
their direction: “Do you love me?” or “Where’s the love?” or something of that
nature.
He specifically shard in a message that he didn’t care what a particular
person’s doctrine was but whether or not that person, whoever it was, loved him
or not. I’ve said this many times before I have people
periodically calling me up that want to fight with me about doctrine and I just
want to know, “all I want to know is one thing bro’ do you love me.” Because if
you don’t love me where’s it at. You know I don’t care what kind of doctrine
you have or when you’re trying to straighten me out. I want to know do you
love me ” (Saturday Night
live Jan. 7, 2005).
In my past dealings
with him, it was assessed by himself and some of his supporters that my
questioning of YWAM and the apostles of the NAR, was “unloving” and of course a
“personal attack”. I was just doing what Lehmann and others, at one time in the
past, exhorted those of us in leadership to do: Test teachings and confront not
ignore error when we discerned through Scripture that it was being taught. The
pervasive problem in the church today, is leaders who teach that we must have a
thick skin for criticism and be open to receive correction but, in practice,
they take great offence when it is done.
Here Lehmann shares
this point based on some past encounter with an unknown person:
“The point of
the Christian life is not just to know the Bible because I know the Bible
pretty good. And I know a lot of other people who know the Bible pretty good,
but I don’t see a lot of love in them. I remember one time this guy, this was a
couple years ago, this guy was really getting on my case about something, he
didn’t like something I was preaching and I said “Ok bro, I get it. I get it. I
surrender I'm up against the wall but Call off the dogs. Where’s the love? And
he said I'm not interested in love. I'm interested in truth. And in his
opinion, in his little gray matter between his two ears he didn’t think I was
preaching the truth. Of course I think he was wrong because obviously I think
I'm preaching the truth but here you got a guy that was so into the truth. (Said mockingly:)“The Bible says…”
(Danny Lehmann 11/05/05 MARS HILL).
Because I wasn’t
there and don’t know the circumstances maybe this questioner responded in an
unloving way or maybe he was perceived that way. All I can say is that it
doesn’t warrant a dismissal of doctrine to be replaced by a form of “love” that
disregards error. It also certainly does not permit Lehmann to gossip and mock
this person’s sentiment in the way he does. Lehmann derisively utters, “The
Bible says” in a mocking and vitriolic tone that paints a picture of someone
“so into the truth” as being off the mark in an unthinkable way. It becomes obvious
that he is trying to convince his listeners to side with his point
So we need to ask,
if Lehmann was admittedly wrong in his teaching, which he doesn’t concede by
the way, then should he not be able to receive a correction in humility without
angrily caricaturizing this individual after the fact? He says in the above
story “Ok, Ok I get it” which indicates that the person had a point and then
says that what he had been teaching in that case was true and therefore the
questioner was out of line. Given some of Lehmann’s documented errors and even
in some cases heretical implications it’s not a far stretch to imagine at least
a few others approaching him about his statements. Given my personal encounters
with him and his mannerisms when confronted it is also not hard at all to see
him behaving this way and being dismissive of these peoples concerns also.
Teachers get so offended when challenged, even when the challenges
are legitimate. His derisive mention of doctrine and confronting error is
framed in such a way as though it is in opposition to love. In some cases,
people’s attitudes render this true but the Bible teaches us that we are to
speak the truth in love to confront error as well:
“And have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Eph. 5:11).
“Preach the
word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and teaching.”
(2 Tim. 4:2).
“Speak these
things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.” (Titus 2:15).
It is a very loving
thing to be concerned about doctrine someone is teaching, especially if they
are in leadership in the Body of Christ. One key component of true love is that
it “does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor.
13:6). One of the most loving things you can do is correct a brother who is
being deceived or led away by error:
“Brethren, if
anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him
know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from
death and cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20). This is what its about, not to bring harm but to
correct and see a change that would be beneficial. But this can’t take place if
someone makes themselves hard to reach.
One question I
would like to ask Mr. Lehmann and any who are involved with recruiting for,
promoting, participating in or with, or representing a Third Wave/ New
Apostolic organization like YWAM; How loving is it to Christ and the Body of
Christ to lead people into many of the errors rampant and running through YWAM?
How loving of a shepherd are you if you introduce error to the sheep? How
loving are you if you don’t confront and expose the error within your
organization and fail to separate from it if they refuse to heed? We’re still waiting for any answer by any
leader in YWAM for this one… Should not there answer be the same that Paul
taught for all the churches?
And This Passage
Goes Where?
I’m concerned about
teachings and methods of scriptural application like the following: Lehmann
seems to fall into an all too common error of many in Third Wave circles and
dominionist camps today which is ascribing extra meaning to passages whose
primary application and context are for Israel and not the church:
“I got two
streams of Bible studies in my head. One says Jesus Christ could come back at
any time. The last days are upon us, there’s nothing else that needs to happen.
The trumpet could sound and we could all be taken out of here before I say
“Amen”. But on the other hand there are scriptures in the Bible that indicate days of early and latter rain.
There’s a verse in the book of Acts that says “It shall come to pass in the
last days says God I will pour out my spirit on all mankind. It says this “Your
sons and your daughters, young people will prophesy. Your young men will see
visions. Your old men will dream dreams and upon my servants, young men, and
upon my handmaiden, young women, I will pour out my spirit and they shall
prophesy.” And don’t let the word prophesy scare you. It simply means they are
going to speak forth the anointed word of God…” (Danny Lehmann “Mars
Hill” Sat. Oct. 8, 2005).
Here he takes the
Joel 2:28 (as mentioned in Acts 2:17) and implies that this is a passage that
we might see fulfilled in the church. The context of course sets the
fulfillment of this passage during the tribulation period and the “all flesh”
reference is specific for Israel in those dark days.
Chuck Smith of
Calvary chapel confirms the biblical context of this verse:
“God’s spirit
will be poured out on all flesh during the Tribulation. That is when all of
Israel will be saved…”
(Chuck Smith, Pastor’s Perspective, Oct. 4, 2005)
The timing of this
prophecy’s last day fulfillment is clear, as is the “all flesh” being a
reference to Israel. Note the “your” usage in the Joel passage. He is writing
to Israel, thus we go beyond our safety zone by applying it to the Church (which
is already saved) or implying its fulfillment within the Church. When Peter
gave a partial fulfillment motif to the passage in Acts, it was also addressing
an entirely Jewish audience, “Jews, devout men, from every nation under
heaven”(Acts 2:5) and he made it clear it was only a partial fulfillment
that awaits ultimate consummation during the Tribulation.
Concerning
eschatology, it is interesting to note that Lehmann has defended an amillennial
viewpoint as acceptable in the past, which is of course what dominionists and
replacement theologians uphold vigorously. I don’t know if he still believes
this but in any case, Chuck Smith made an awesome statement on the above
program:
“Don’t let
anyone tell you God is through with Israel. That is heresy…” (Pastor Chuck Smith, Pastor’s Perspective,
Oct. 4, 2005).
Again I don’t say
that Lehmann ascribes to facets of replacement theology but his constant use of
scriptures without sharing the Israel context is troubling and one wonders
whether he actually does hold some of these viewpoints.
Lehmann also
follows in the footsteps of many Third Wavers in his dubious usage of 2 Chron.
7:14:
“So here it
says, if my people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray
and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then three things He says
He’ll do. I will hear from Heaven. I will forgive their sin and I will heal
their land. God promises to answer our prayer, to hear us. To forgive us for
our sins. But He’s not gonna forgive you of your sins unless you acknowledge
that you have some wickedness in your life. Unless you’re willing to humble
yourself and then He says, ill take it even further. Ill spread this blessing
out to the whole land. Now this is in a certain context and so forth and some
people Bible scholars argue on whether or not we can apply it, but can I help
it if I’m right? I think we can apply it and I think we can take a scripture
because what this does is it represents the character of God. God is up in
Heaven saying “Come on, you’re my people. Prophesy Son of Man. These bones can
live because I can make ‘em
live. I can breathe life into these bones. I can put skin and muscles and
sinews and blood vessels and so forth and I can breathe life into these dead
bodies and I can make them an exceeding vast army to fight and to conquer the
powers of darkness that are holding people all over these islands in bondage.
Are we preaching?…” (Danny Lehmann MARS HILL Sat. PM Oct. 21, 2005).
Above is a typical
“transformation” revivalist message that takes scriptures out of its intended
meaning and makes applications, some permissible, others unwarranted and of
course pumps up the hearers to revival expectancy. Danny Lehmann is promoted
Third Wave revivalist groups like Aloha Ke Akua Ministries and Transformation
Hawaii who base their ministries on the same scriptures (see below).
While Lehmann
admits there is a certain context to the passage, we don’t get the luxury of
what this passage actually means. In the end Lehmann definitely believes that
the “land” holds some application for today and teaches it such. He has
recently promoted Daniel Kikawa on his Word to the World program in this same
usage of the verse as applicable to Hawaii, so we can see his agreement with
those he promotes and endorses on his radio program.
He mentions this
passage in this way more than once:
“What I want to
do tonight is hit a couple of things real quickly that I believe we should keep
in mind as we’re preparing for revival, that I believe is gonna come because I
believe that God is not gonna leave us in this mess we’re in too much longer.
Not that I’m threatening Him. He can do anything He wants to do but I believe
God wants to bring revival. He told us last week, well He didn’t tell us last
week. I showed a verse of the Bible last week that’s says “If My people which
are called by My name will humble themselves and pray, then I will hear from
Heaven, then I will forgive their sin and heal their land.” So number one is
focus on the kingdom…” (Danny Lehmann “Mars Hill” Sat. PM 6 / Oct.
8, 2005).
While this verse and others are commonly wrenched from their context by many in the church today, we do well to avoid making this some kind of covenant or promise with any other nation or country besides Israel. Don’t get me wrong we can learn some principles about God and his requirements but “the land” that He promised to “heal” cannot be divorced from its context to the Jews alone. This land is not Hawaii no matter what the Transformation groups or Third Wavers prophesy or decree; yet Lehmann endorses several of these groups. For example Leon Siu of Aloha Ke Akua said at Lehmann’s Mar’s Hill meeting. “Y’know Transformation Hawaii is making a big dent here in Hawaii and many, many people are beginning to see this vision of another great awakening in Hawaii. I believe this is happening I believe we are already in the first stages of it … ” (Danny Lehmanns Mars Hill 4/01/06)
Other passages are
used in a dubious manner with assertions that just can’t be proved:
“It seemed like
Jesus really liked to point out the fact that those who thought they were in
were really out, and those who were considered out Jesus liked to bring in.
Talk about prostitutes, He seemed to kinda get off on welcoming people, we read
last week where the woman came into Jesus and she washed his feet with her
tears with her hair, She was apparently a woman of the night taking perfume
with her around to all the men in the area…”(Danny Lehmann 11/12/05 Sat. PM Mars Hill
Is it really
apparent that Jesus was merely one in a sequence of men in the area to get his
feet perfumed? Or was this truly a unique expression of her love and
hospitality to Christ, as it seems to appear in Scripture? These are unwise
speculations for a point. It says she broke open the container for Jesus.
Just one side note
but it needs mention: I’m sick and tired of hearing pastors use the term “get
off” in their sermons. Jesus Christ did not “get off” on anything! Now I know
Danny Lehmann or others, even some Calvary pastors I’ve heard, don’t mean to
use this term in a lewd way but, for the record the term “get off” is a
euphemism for getting “sexually aroused” or erotically stimulated. We just need
to be careful with the slang or vernacular we employ, even if our motives are
good or we are trying to connect with a certain audience. Let’s watch our
mouths, guys. Getting off is nothing that should be said in any proximity of
the pulpit.
Whenever we as believers compromise or misconstrue the Word of God, we see resultant malfunction in our lives. Yes, unorthodox doctrine leads to unorthoprax actions. Wherever we misunderstand scripture, we can see weakness in how the truth is lived out. This sad scenario often plays itself out in our beliefs and practices and I believe the following example is evident to what I am talking about.
YWAM has had a lot
of past experience with strange doctrines and some weird practices that flowed
from them. Indeed currently, the situation is not any better as evidenced by
their newest alliances and continuing perpetuation of old errors. One sadly
sees the effects of these travesties in the lives of their leaders as evidenced
by the extensive examples provided in this article for the purpose of warning
others about the lack of discernment.
Some of Danny
Lehmann’s teachings and personal anecdotes display a lack of discernment and it
really makes one wonder where he stands in terms of understanding concerning
the faith and even salvation in some cases. He tells this story:
“My son David
and I were witnessing on Hotel street the other night and we just fell in love
with this drug dealer down there. He’s sitting on one side and I’m on the
other, man were just loving this guy. Were saying you got such potential and he
was a guy from Christian background and he spouting out some biblical stuff and
we both said to him “You’ve got an anointing for preaching on your life man, what
are you doing down here dealing dope?” and it wasn’t like we were condemning
him. We weren’t going “Were gonna call the cops and your gonna get what you
deserve and end up in the slammer.” We were over here and were goin, we got
some life for you man and you what its like”. (Danny Lehmann “Mars Hill” Sermon sat. PM Sept. 24, 2005).
As amiable as it is
to be out witnessing and loving sinners, what doctrine you tell someone who may
not be a believer is very crucial. You would be hard pressed to find it ok to
tell a drug dealer, living in complete rebellion to God, that God had actually anointed him to preach.
On what basis can that be told to someone who is in that state? I guess if
someone can uphold the Pope as a good example or spiritual leader considering
his doctrinal views and blasphemous beliefs, then I guess it is not a far
stretch to tell a drug dealer he should be preaching. This seems to be an
unwise practice because it extremely confuses the issue of this man’s soul.
I know Danny Lehmann looks up to YWAM president John Dawson, and some of Dawson’s beliefs have completely infiltrated YWAM in DTS’s and leadership. This is why I can’t help but believe that this kind of practice somehow rubbed off on Lehmann from Dawson’s tactic recounted in Taking Our Cities For God. Dawson is witnessing to a porn shop owner named “Ron” and tells him:
“Ron, you're a tough guy on
the outside, but inside you're soft. You have what the Bible calls a gift of
mercy…”( John Dawson, Taking Our Cities for God, p.42.).
When I read this statement, I had to read it several more times to believe my eyes. Saying a statement like this really causes one to wonder if Dawson understands the meaning of regeneration or salvation. Think about what he's saying? Ask yourself, “Do unbelievers have spiritual gifts?” I thought they were from the Spirit to the believer (1 Cor.12). Just because someone is soft inside doesn't mean they have the gift of mercy, especially if they are not yet saved. It's dangerous to apply the Word of God like that. Incidentally, this man, allegedly, got saved, Dawson would have us believe partly due to this novel tactic, but I think the reason for concern here is obvious. For more on this book:
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/dawson/index.html
If Dawson can tell a porn shop owner he has a spiritual gift, then I guess it’s not so far a stretch to tell a drug dealer he is anointed to preach.
Other examples of
weird practices concerning YWAM and its leaders could be cited but I think the
point is clear. You will find these things wherever God’s Word is mishandled by
the undiscerning.