It’s been an interesting journey, this year, looking at what the so-called discernment bloggers consider discernment of their favoured targets.
Chookwatchwatch started off as a checklist of the kinds of things chookwatcher was saying about C3 ministries, which developed into similar testing of verbal attacks on the ministry of Hillsong.
Since then chookwatcher has branched out into many areas and largely lost focus, so our emphasis has changed.
Most of what chookwatcher has had to say has been opinion based on prejudice, bias and a whole heap of speculation. A few things have an element of truth but have been corrupted by accompanying misinformation or inane misrepresentation of facts.
What looked at one stage as a potential issue for targetted movements has turned out to be the rantings of an obsessive group of bloggers whose own agenda has proven to be flawed in many respects.
The chookwatcher philosphy of obsessive negativity has all but nullified any effect they may have had in producing scattershot interference to the work done by C3 or Hillsong.
Further, it would become tediously boring to continue to point out chookwatcher’s doctrinal shortcomings and reliance on the opinion of atheists, anti-christian current affairs media outlets, and, at the other extreme, opinionated Reformed theology polemists.
In fact, my attention in recent posts has been more on the sources and resources used by chookwatcher than on their own limited, repetitive debating skills.
Whilst digging into the doctrinal stance of the largely cessationist nature of the arguments put up by chookwatcher, quoting their favoured sources, such as John MacArthur, J D Hall, Cameron Beuttel, Phil Johnson, Justin Peters, Chris Rosebrough, Jeff Maples, Steve Kozar (the list goes on), it became apparent that the theology espoused by chookwatcher through these ministries was so flawed Biblically that it became the main issue at stake.
Interestingly, chookwatcher, in his/her comments, often makes the claim that there is a mix of theologies within the chookwatcher entity (at least eight moderators use the same chookwatcher pseudonym), yet a very high percentage of articles, arguments, statements, comments, posts, and resource material put up on the chookwatcher sites reference either Reformed cessationist teaching or Lutheran cessationist teaching. That is an undeniable fact with evidence plastered all over their sites.
So my attention has been drawn recently to the cessationist doctrinal stance of people like MacArthur, Hall, Rosebrough, Maples, and more recently, Beuttel.
It has been surprising how inept the doctrine of cessationists has been. The arguments could be dismantled by a first year student in a Pentecostal college.
Whilst knowing about its existence, I had not given much attention to the cessationist cause before reading some of the articles chookwatcher was promoting, and then researching the posts put up on the sites chookwatcher has been resourcing.
The fact is that so many of these self-termed discernment blogs are based on this leaky doctrine that has become the main source of attack on the charismatic and Pentecostal ministries that are currently doing so well in terms of effective evangelism and church development globally.
We have seen a shift in the last fifty years towards the theology of continuationism, which is not new, but a revision of what is already written in scripture. It was there all the time, and just required men and women of faith to enter into what it actually teaches.
You have to really do a number on scripture to attempt to prove cessationist doctrine, which is not so much a theology as a philospohy of doubt and unbelief.
It rejects the current day work of the Holy Spirit in and amongst the Church as being identical to the work He performed through the first century Church.
So now any decent discerning Christian has to turn their attention towards the cessationist crew and shine the light on the shortcomings of their doctrine because it is amongst the more damaging, divisive and limiting philosophies infiltrating the Church today, and its polemists are the most vocal in opposition to the truth of continuationism.
Until the chookwatchers come out with a statement of beliefs that rejects cessationist theology outright and removes all reference to their works, they will have to be included in the list of failed doctrine currently represented on their own sites from these ministries.
Saying there are a number of points of view doctrinally held by all who use the chookwatcher pseudonym, yet allowing a predominance of cessationist, Reformed theology references and resources is not enough.
The New Testament firmly rejects cessationist theology. So should chookwatcher. Or his/her doctrine is shown to be false.