Viewer Is Mad About My Chandler Video

All right.

Well this morning I woke up and I saw that my best performing video to date, which is the Matt Chandler

Jump the shark video Got a few comments Long comments in

them and I wanted to respond to one of them and I'm not intending this channel to become a anti charismatic

Channel, that's not what this is all about that was sort of a one -off topic, but I figured since there were some people that showed

confusion or Concern about that video that I'd kind of clarify what I meant.

And and you know, there's really two kinds of comments to that video the one kind that this is the more prevalent kind people

will say well you took Matt out of context and They don't give any more information besides that.

Well, that's not very helpful.

I mean, I appreciate you watching.

I appreciate you commenting I'm not saying to stop commenting if that's how you feel.

That's that's how you feel but What I would say is that when you say you took him out of

context and then don't provide the context that would change his message.

That's not really helpful for something like me.

So let's just say I was wrong about about Matt Chandler speech, which I don't think I was.

But let's just say I was and you could prove it.

Why don't you show me how I was wrong rather than saying that you're insane rather than saying that you just you took him out Of context.

Why don't you provide the context that you think changes the message?

It would make my response to it inappropriate a couple of you have and so I'm gonna respond to one person who did

But when you just say, oh you took him out of context.

You're in sin.

You're you're jealous of Matt Chandler like that I I love the comments.

I like seeing that kind of stuff.

However, it's it's not very helpful and it's it's just too easy to respond in a snarky way, which I do.

So if you say if you say hey, you're you're in sin for for disagreeing with Matt Chandler publicly.

Well, I'm just gonna respond to you.

You're in sin for disagreeing with me publicly.

See that's not how we do this.

That's not how we do this at all.

But anyway, let's switch the screen because I want to show you this particular comment.

It's long and I want to respond to it because this person actually took some time to tell me why I was wrong and I appreciate that so if you think I'm

wrong on any of my videos feel free to tell me why or we can have a Conversation on hangouts and we can

put it on YouTube and you can tell me all about how wrong I am All right.

So here is my Matt Chandler has jumped the shark video.

I Appreciate all of the thumbs up.

Let's give myself a thumbs up here.

I like that and No, I appreciate all the the play This is getting and I'm glad it's resonating with

people and you know We've got a lot of comments here.

A lot of them are very encouraging.

They agree.

Some of them are not.

Here's an example of the kind of comment I was talking about if you watch the sermon you'll see this commentary cook Chandler completely out of

context.

But you see doesn't she doesn't provide any information about why I took him out of context or how same thing with this guy Javier his

critiques of passages are out of context not well done.

I love this comment because I do appreciate the fact that that he's commenting but again, it doesn't

really help me.

So if I'm wrong, I'd like to know why I'm wrong.

But anyway, this person here I said the same thing I took him out of context and struck a

nerve and I'm angry and this and that so I but I Challenge this person to can you please explain to me?

Why?

What about the context makes this snippet more correct?

And she actually does and so I do appreciate that very much.

So let's here's the comment I want to read it and we'll respond to it.

She says first of all, I wish we could have this more discussion more privately like email or private chat.

I'm not gonna do that unless it's I might do chat, but I just I'm not really interested in in long

Written backs and back and forth right now.

Nothing against you just not something I'm interested in doing and she says I hate get into philosophical debates over a wide forum because it Comes less

conductive conducive overall.

I disagree with that.

That's okay.

She says however YouTube does not seem to lend that option if there is let me know.

I also wasn't about to put my email or Skype address for all to see.

I totally understand that all right, I Posted a good portion of this up cable and let's just get to it.

There's nothing taught in this sermon that I find contrary to Scripture.

Especially since he is teaching from 1st Corinthians Corinthians 14 where it is taught about prophecy and tongues in the New Testament.

He clarifies towards the beginning of the sermon that in that the days of quote thus saith the Lord are over the canon

is closed.

He is saying that there is a place for prophecy that is different than Old Testament prophecy.

So actually Christie that is actually the point because Matt Chandler in this video gives you a definition

of prophecy.

That is not in the Bible.

I know you're saying that he's preaching from 1st Corinthians 14, which he is attempting to.

But the definition of prophecy that he gives there is not what 1st Corinthians 14 says.

My my my claim is that when when when Paul talks about prophecy?

He's talking about the kinds of prophecy that we all agree on the kind of thus saith the Lord prophecy now

I realize Matt Chandler is not talking about that but there is no other prophecy in the Bible to really talk of

if If if a prophet is speaking or a word from the Lord that is thus saith the Lord.

That's the whole point.

So he's making up a definition of prophecy that is not in Scripture and he's saying it is in Scripture.

It isn't you cannot find a distinction between Thus saith the Lord prophecy and the

prophecy in the New Testament because when the New Testament writers spoke You know the

Word of God through their through their pen and it was all written along and they were carried along by the Holy Spirit that held

the authority of the saith the Lord and so when the old when the New Testament talks about prophets.

They're speaking the Word of the Lord the same way the Old Testament prophets were and so that's that's the whole

point.

I know he clarified that that's not what he's talking about.

But the problem is what he's talking about doesn't exist.

There isn't this new kind of prophecy that is not authoritative that is not directly from God and that's the

point she goes on.

She says he is saying there's a place for prophecy.

That is different than the Old Testament prophecy.

We just refuted that he approaches it with humility by saying to approach it as quote.

I think God is telling me XYZ to tell you does this mean anything to you?

I'll be it a little goofy and that I can agree probably could have been approached most differently.

But you have to understand that apart.

This is a part of his personality.

Maybe it does.

Maybe it doesn't if it doesn't if he's talking about doesn't make sense.

Maybe it does.

Maybe it doesn't make sense if it doesn't okay move on.

He is saying step out in faith and be open about what God is trying to work through you.

Right.

Well, that's the point though because again, this is this may be God speaking.

Maybe he isn't.

That's not in the Bible because of prophets when they prophesied.

You know in the New Testament and the Old Testament.

It was clear that God was speaking through them.

And that's the whole point of this so so in other words.

When when Paul penned first Corinthians or when when Peter wrote, you know, first Peter or something

like that.

They that was God's Word.

They were writing God's Word.

They knew they were writing God's Word.

It's not like this little maybe God maybe is maybe he is maybe he isn't.

And the whole the whole point of it being goofy is is just adds extra silliness to it.

But the reality is anything like this would be goofy because if you're saying well I think God's speaking to me and he wants me to

say this word to you, but you're not sure about it.

That's goofy in itself.

And so that's the whole point.

She says consider also that he starts a sermon with a personal experience with her pastor friends spoke a prophetic word to him quite some Time prior to when

he was diagnosed in battling cancer and during that time God reminded him of that word.

Well, I mean that might be true and all but the thing is like the prophecy that he talks about this guy.

Giving him was not hey Matt.

You're going to get cancer and this and that no.

It was just sort of you're gonna be circumcised.

And so that could mean anything.

So if if I said to you Commenter something's gonna happen in your life.

It's gonna change your life in the near future and then in a month or two something does happen.

Does that mean I prophesied to you?

No, it's just very it's a cold reading.

If you look up cold readings of what they are because pagans do this all the time and it supposedly works.

He said she says Did it he is not saying that every random thought that comes to your head is from God that is definitely fake

taking things way.

Out of context.

He never said that even in his experience with the word being shared to him by a previous pastor.

He shared that the pastor prayed about it and sought counsel about it before it was shared to him but you see that's the point though

because Yes, he didn't technically say every word that comes to you is from God.

But he did say that when you pray to God to give you a word for someone to encourage whatever pops

into your mind.

That's that word.

He specifically said do not.

Think don't do not try to figure out if it's real or not specifically do not discern it.

He said just do it.

Let's just go with it.

If it's a pirate ship and that doesn't make sense just go with it and that is a horrible advice.

Very horrible advice because imagine Some young man at your church said God.

I'll give me a word for someone.

Okay?

Okay.

Okay a word for for for for Jennifer.

What's what's the word and then God says you're gonna marry Jennifer.

Is that a word from the Lord, I mean that could be very dangerous.

He says as I said before sometimes he can give a goofy example.

And that's just his personality and always has been but it does not take away from the overall truth.

It actually does take away from the overall truth because when your example is so preposterous.

It's very difficult to take the truth seriously.

Because if he's saying that a word from the Lord can be pirate ship sharks and cannons.

Then what what couldn't the word of Lord of the Lord be, you know, what are the limits at that point?

There are no limits.

Once you say that the Word of God can be pirate ships cannons and sharks and you don't even try to discern it.

You just go with it.

There are no limits at that point.

If that's the if that's the case, then the Word of God can be anything.

And so that's the point.

She goes on she says you say that he shows partiality in his affirmative action position first.

That is not even discussed in this video at all.

And so I'm not sure where you pulled that from in the context of this sermon.

Well, I pulled it from something else.

He said so if you you probably don't watch my channel and that's totally fine.

But I've criticized Matt Chandler for his affirmative action of hiring practices when he's looking for a new pastor

for his church.

So that's where that comes from.

Second I have attended the village for almost nine years moved and still listened to his messages.

I have heard all his social justice sermons and all of them are about seeing all people in the image of God.

Not only that I have heard him preach since my youth.

Alright, sorry about that.

I just had to go help my kids.

She says not only that but I've heard him preach since my youth.

So I'm very familiar with his style and also with the heart behind his messages.

His point is that we have to tear down the dividing wall in our race and ethnicities and recognize areas.

We have caused harm and seek repentance forgiveness and reconciliation.

I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that until you start making the applications that he does and we'll talk about more about that in a minute.

In fact in a later comment, I posted reference Micah 6 is a s1.

What we do about those in terms of social justice.

What do we do about those in terms of social justice and racial reconciliation?

I'm not gonna go into that before you go assuming anything.

I am a white woman saying that I agree that we have a long way to go in.

Recognizing our privilege in and ways.

We may have hurt our brothers and sisters of other ethnicities.

Well before you go assuming anything I'm not white.

And so I'm not really sure what that means.

We do have privilege more privilege than many others have and maybe it's our time to use our privilege to build others.

Who have not had the luxuries that we have had?

I believe that his point in the part of the message you reference regarding a person of color.

Being a quality he is looking for in hiring staff, which has nothing to do with this particular message another example of taking things out of context again, I'm

not.

I wasn't referring to this sermon when I Referring to something else.

So it's not taking it out of context.

But the problem is that when you use skin color as a Qualification for pastor that

goes against scripture because the scriptures give us very clear qualifications for pastor.

There's like 10 qualifications and none of them are skin color or ethnicity.

And so I know he's his heart is he's trying to solve racial reconciliation.

But you can't solve sin with the more sin.

And so if you say well We've been partial in the past and so white people if you say white people have been partial in the past.

And so therefore we're gonna be partial to black people in the present that doesn't work and that's the whole point.

So I have no problem with him trying to solve some ethnic reconciliation issues that I have no problem with that.

My problem is with him doing it in an ungodly Sinful way again, you cannot solve sin with

more sin.

She says I don't see where you're accusing him of taking the Lord's name in vain anywhere in this message at all.

He is urging people to be open about what the Lord may want to say to them and through them.

But actually that is what taking the Lord's name in vain is.

Because if you say God said something to you and God didn't say something to you.

Then that is taking the Lord's name in vain.

You might not know that.

You might think that taking the Lord's name in vain is about cursing or saying bad words or saying GD or something like

that.

And it is about those things, but it's also about speaking presumptuously.

It's also about Doing things and saying things that are ungodly.

Unscriptural applying the scriptures incorrectly all of those things are taking the Lord's name in vain.

You should have heard that sitting under Matt Chandler for nine years.

I'm not sure why you haven't heard that sitting under Matt Chandler for nine years and so if you are

saying that you heard from the Lord and then you Actually had it because Matt Chandler actually says that you shouldn't even try to

figure out if it's real or not.

So in other words you pray you say, okay I'm gonna pray for Brian and then you get the pirate ships in the cannons and he

says don't even try to question it.

Just step out in humility and faith and say well, I think God said pirate ships cannons and sharks.

Well, if he didn't say that then that is taking the Lord's name in vain.

That's a third commandment violation again.

You should have heard this sitting under nine years of Matt Chandler.

I'm not sure why you didn't.

He's urging people to be open about the what the Lord may want to say to them and through them.

And that's the problem because you don't know if God said it or not.

He's saying it's for the point of building up and encouraging our brothers and sisters as the scripture says it is.

Not to tell someone they should make a crazy move or rebuke them or anything like that again well, that's the problem because Old Testament and

New Testament prophecy book has both encouragements and rebukes and and and

Prophecies of judgment and so when you limit it like Matt Chandler does to only encouragements you're talking about something else.

It's not prophecy anymore.

Look at the Old Testament prophecies.

There's tons of judgment and wrath in those look at the New Testament prophecies.

There's tons of judgment and wrath in those and so when Matt Chandler says well This is a new kind of prophecy that no one's ever heard of before

and it's only about encouragement.

He's lying.

That's actually a third commandment violation.

He's taking the Lord's name in vain right there.

Okay, I know Matt is for the things of God.

He has never taught against Jesus.

I agree.

He has upheld the major doctrinal tenets of Christianity as far as I can observe him continues to do so.

Well, he does sort of but then he also takes the Lord's name in vain by saying that God spoke speaks to him in pirate Ships

cannons and sharks that is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Until a major shift happens that you deny the Trinity denying Christ denying the sufficiency of Scripture, which I don't see here at all.

I see no need to be this divisive.

Well, I'm not sure how divisive you think I'm being.

I Affirmed his Christianity.

I agree.

He's not denying the Trinity.

He's not denying Christ.

I think he would think he's not divine denying the sufficiency of Scripture.

But he actually ends up doing it in this sermon.

By saying we need these extra words from the Lord in order to encourage we do not all we need in order to encourage Is

Scripture that's all we need.

It's sufficient to encourage God's Saints and when you say we need something else to encourage God's Saints that

denies the sufficiency Of Scripture, it doesn't deny the Scripture.

But it did not deny that Sufficiency because you need this other stuff to encourage your brothers and sisters in Christ.

He even said it in this paragraph and so that's the problem.

And so I didn't say that he wasn't a Christian.

I didn't say that he shouldn't be a pastor.

I just said I wouldn't recommend him.

Okay God does speak to us and lead us in ways that are not necessarily explicit in the Bible.

For example, what career we should have what our who our spouses might be, etc.

God told me I'm gonna marry you.

That's what I was thinking there.

I know you're not saying that but that just came to mind.

However, we can test everything that God does tell.

However, we can test everything that God does tell us according to Scripture because it'll always be confirmed by the Scripture in some way.

And we'll never be contrary to Scripture.

Well, that's the point though because I agree with that.

Anything that you feel prompted to by God has to be confirmed by the Scripture.

So for example, if you felt prompted to leave your husband or your wife For no reason

just because you thought God wanted you to that we could go to Scripture and we could say, okay.

Well, that is actually not scriptural.

So that's not from God.

But the problem is that Matt Chandler says that these prophetic words like pirates cannons and sharks which cannot be confirmed by

Scripture.

I mean we'd have to be honest about that pirate ships can't it's cannons and sharks cannot be confirmed by Scripture.

But he says don't even try to discern it.

He specifically said that in this sermon.

Don't try to figure out is it God is it bad chicken?

Is it just because I was thinking about this guy?

He says don't do that.

Just step out in faith and in humility and do that.

And so again, that is Absolutely against what you're saying right here.

I agree with you.

We got to confirm things against Scripture, but Chandler saying pirate ships cannons and sharks don't even try to confirm that with Scripture.

Just go ahead and say and say God's and say God might have a word for you.

That's taking the Lord's name in vain.

That's a third commandment violation.

Okay, I believe this so do I.

Perhaps we should consider that he is open to what the Holy Spirit wants to do instead of cramming him to a box and limiting Him like so many and brothers and

sisters want to do and that sentence that you've just said there Commenter that opens the

door for all kinds of insanity that opens the door for people to bark like dogs at the church service.

That opens the door for people to run around acting drunk.

And saying it's the Holy Spirit that opens the door for people to toke the ghost.

You've seen that kind of stuff.

I'm sure.

How could how could you how could you reject that?

Because you know what if you reject toking the ghost and acting like a drunken fool and saying it's the Holy Spirit.

Well, you're just putting God in a box.

You see that's the problem that once this doors open you can't stand against anything because I could just say well God put it on my heart

to do this video.

How could you deny it?

How could you deny what I said?

I did this video and God put it on my heart.

Tell me how you would refute me.

All right.

Did it the Holy Spirit is still a part of the Trinity the Holy Spirit Spirit still points us back to Jesus.

The Spirit is still moving in and through all of us.

We need to stop treating the Holy Spirit like the weird uncle at a family gathering as some describe him.

I agree Christy.

I agree.

That's why the Holy Spirit isn't telling you pirate ships cannons and sharks.

You know what I mean?

He's not the weird uncle the Holy Spirit makes sense.

The Holy Spirit is clear the Holy Spirit has spoken definitively and authoritatively through the scripture.

We don't have to discern pirate ships cannons and sharks.

That's the whole point though.

See this is this comment is a whole mishmash of contradiction and I don't blame you because you sat under Matt

Chandler's teaching for nine Years, and that's a shame.

This is this is you are part of the collateral damages.

You're a part of the reason why I stand against this so much because you're very confused here, and I'm sorry about that.

Okay, the spirit.

Oh, we need to stop treating the Holy Spirit like the crazy uncle as the family gathering as some describe him.

In fact first John 4 says do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit.

You must test them to see if the Spirit they have comes from God.

I agree.

So why is Matt Chandler Chandler telling you not to test it?

He said don't even worry about it.

It's not bad chicken.

It's not just because you were thinking about pirate ships and cannons recently.

No, no.

No, just step out in faith in humility and say well I think God might be speaking pirate ships and cannons to

you and you're telling me we need to test those spirits.

Okay, I will I just tested it by the scripture.

It's not in there.

It's not in there.

Therefore.

I reject it.

I think maybe you should start doing that.

I think you need to take your own advice here because Matt's Chandler telling you is to not discern the Spirit as long as it's

Meant to encourage doesn't matter what it says no matter how much sense it makes then just say it and it's from God.

That's testing that's that's that's breaking the third commandment, that's a third commandment violation.

That's taking the Lord's name in vain saying God spoke where he has not spoken.

Okay, I can guess how you might apply this.

Well, I just did and I'm sure that's what you guessed and tell me how that doesn't apply.

I Would apply it to a word of encouragement given by someone.

It doesn't necessarily mean the person is off their rocker and trying to lead you astray.

It could mean that in some ways, but I think it also applies to in a less severe way.

Also, there is an incredible defensiveness apparent in your response that comes across almost bully -like and self -righteous

through challenging anyone who responds to you.

That they are just who responds to you to call out the areas of context by saying no one has yet.

Well, that's the point.

Yeah, I mean that's there's no there's no bullying there.

If someone tells me I'm taking him out of context.

I'd like to know how I think that's pretty fair.

I mean you had the courage here to tell me tell try to tell me how I'm taking them out of context.

But you've actually shown that I'm taking him exactly in context.

And so I appreciate that because it's actually very helpful for everyone else.

Perhaps they are not wanting to stir up a fight.

Well, then why comment?

I mean, I'm not saying they're trying to serve a fight.

I'm just trying to find out how I'm wrong because if I'm wrong I'd really like to know about it because I don't want to be wrong anymore.

You know what?

I mean?

That's that's that's how you encourage someone like me.

You tell me look you're not being scriptural and here's how you're not being scriptural.

I will receive that and I'll take it seriously and I'll thank you.

In fact, I thank you for this comment because you're taking the time to try to explain to me how I'm wrong.

I think you failed and so I don't think I'm wrong but I appreciate you caring enough about me to tell me how

I'm taking him out of context or how I'm not being scriptural because That means you actually care about me and I appreciate that people who

just say well, you're wrong.

You're a jerk.

Like if people say that that's doesn't really do anything for me, but anyway.

Perhaps they're just wanting to let it be.

I don't think they are because they're commenting.

Anyway in all of this I wanted to respond even though it's contrary to my preferred method of discussing things.

I mean all things with do all due respect and Equally do not want to fight if there is a way to discuss this in a private chat

forum I'd much rather prefer that I'd be willing to chat Text or or or on

on Google Hangouts potentially.

We'll see.

I'm wondering what deep wounds might be triggered through all of this.

I don't know if you're talking about me or not.

But I do not have any any wounds from charismatic circles as I said in my video my whole family comes from

charismatic circles.

I love them very much.

They've never done anything evil to me.

In fact, I credit them for how I was brought up in the faith.

So I appreciate that very much.

Your reaction demonstrates something is going on.

No.

Nothing's going on.

What I'm not sure that would be up to you to figure out overall though.

This video does not uplift or encourage the body of Christ and can qualify as defamation and slander equally

ungodly behavior.

Well, it actually is encouraging the body of Christ because I've gotten so many Responses about this in

an encouraging positive way.

They're grateful for me to stand up to this kind of thing and I'm happy to do it.

And again, I'm not gonna make this a charismatic channel, but I'm happy to continue doing this as long as it's necessary

and so it defamation or slander, I think that's actually slander because Slander means

that it's not true.

I'm saying something about Chandler.

It's not true.

And actually everything they said about Chandler or even according to your words are true.

I say he's breaking the third commandment by claiming to speak where God hasn't and you're saying here that God may or may

not have spoken.

So that's the third commandment violation.

I said he's Every he doesn't even try to discern if it's from God or not.

He doesn't even try to discern if it's bad chicken or not.

And you confirmed that here that is a third commandment violation.

In fact, I see nothing here about the context that actually changes what he said.

He said pray and then whatever pops into your mind go to that person and say I think God is speaking this to you

cannons pirates and sharks.

And yeah, you've confirmed that as well.

So I appreciate your effort.

I appreciate you reaching out and taking the time to write this but I don't think you've proven anything and

Anyway, god bless.

I hope this was helpful.

Let me to rephrase that.

I hope this was helpful.

God bless.