False teachers’ emotional teaching
By Elizabeth Prata
I’ve recently written about the clique of folks who claim in public that the church ‘hurt them’, and I went into a discussion of the difference between emotions and emotionalism. That essay is here.
Many women who teach the Bible on the speaking circuit are false. Not all, of course, but many. Since they are false they have to manufacture a work-around for their lack of illumination of the scriptures. They don’t exegete well (exegete meaning draw the Author’s intended meaning out of the Bible). They either twist the word (2 Peter 3:16), or they eisegete (meaning they put their own ideas into the Bible rather than unearth the one meaning the Author intended). Perhaps they use a cover for their obvious lack of theology. One of these covers frequently used is emotionalism.
Joe Thorn at Ligonier discusses emotionalism. He wrote in his essay Don’t pursue feelings, pursue Christ,
One danger is emotionalism, in which we allow our feelings to interpret our circumstances and form our thoughts about God. This is putting feelings before faith. The other danger is a kind of stoicism, where faith is rooted in theology but void of affection. This tendency removes feelings from faith altogether. While it is true that our emotions should not lead our theology, it is vital to our faith that theology lead to a deep experience of our triune God.
[Confession: I am certainly not perfect. I myself need to work against Stoicism.]
WHEN we commune with God, WHEN we are in prayer with the Spirit, WHEN we are at Jesus throne of grace, THEN our emotions develop into great affection for the Triune God. We do feel emotions such as relief, joy, humility, amazement, awe, proper fear; all the emotions that our study of His attributes will cultivate. But it’s theology first, and then the outflow of that growing knowledge of God is subsequently a growing feeling of affection for who He is. Put succinctly, the more we study Him the more we love Him.
Jonah knew full well who God is, but he was led by his emotions. Anger, resentment, bitterness, xenophobia…when you feel temptation to be led by your emotions at the expense of submission to God’s authority, remember Jonah.
When these false teachers lead by emotion, it creates a dependency on emotions. But emotions are fleeting. Hence the surfing analogy. We want to feel that high again that we felt at the Study/simulcast/event/conference etc. False teacher Rick Warren unwittingly explained the high of emotional learning back in a Baptist Press interview in 1998.
We’re just a church that tries to look for waves, and we ride them. And then we try to do it with balance. Catching the wave means first determining what God is doing… ~Rick Warren.
His quote typifies the flitting of encounter to encounter, a surfing the waves of an adrenaline approach to Christian life rather than persevering obediently, sacrificially, and steadily. Remember, we first discover who God is by reading His word. The article is (tellingly) titled, “Rick Warren: Surfing skills critical to ‘catching waves’ of God’s activity“
A church should look at Jesus. Not flit from high wave to high wave, and not surfing up and down based on a humanly interpreted vision of what God is doing.
Emotions give us that adrenaline and then suddenly you’re surfing, trying to catch that high you felt but every time you catch it, it needs to be a little higher than the last time. Why? The Law of Diminishing Returns-
The law of diminishing returns is a principle that states that after a certain point, each additional unit of input results in a smaller increase in output. In other words, you get less and less bang for your buck the more you do something. This can be applied to many areas of life, including business and investing. (Source).
Emotionalism will give you diminishing returns. In God’s economy, you only ever receive more. His is an economy of eternal increase. A false teacher’s economy is only ever one of decrease.
Let’s look at some examples of how false teachers use emotional language to deceive you into that false high.
Aimee Byrd wrote recently about her decision to become ordained. She filled out a form, and voila! now she can legally marry people in her home state. Here is her gushing, over-the-top-emotional description about how performing the ceremony for her brother made her feel:
Last weekend I got to experience something that resonated so deeply with my soul. It felt like I got to meet a part of who I am. And in this, I wasn’t only seeing beauty, but participating in the beautiful. … ~Aimee Byrd
I’m hesitant to write about this, because it is so deeply meaningful to me. … ~Aimee Byrd
When I started this Substack, I wanted to write about what is real: what is the lump in my throat right now? ~Aimee Byrd
Aimee is a good writer, if a little fluffy for my taste. I’m not saying we should not write about what we are feeling when we commune with God. I am saying that some female teachers and false preacher women depend on flowery writing based on emotion rather than biblical facts.
In Aimee’s case, she wrote “It felt like…” She said that she mulled this over deeply and concluded, “But this is my brother asking me, and if I say no, I want it to be for good reason.” But her reasoning was based on a deep dive into history and culture, not the Bible. She decided to ordain herself because of how she felt about it [and because, she wrote, ‘the church hurt me’.].
All that combined, she wrote, “The state of Maryland doesn’t qualify what makes one ordained, or what kind of person is ordained, but recognizes ordination in the ministry as a status for the task of legally officiating a wedding. … I was comfortable to be appointed for this specific and beautiful ministry.” But God decides, and God trumps Maryland.
‘I was comfortable.’ Women are not to aspire to the ordained office in order to perform functions before the throne of God. But Aimee was ‘comfortable.’ Her soul resonated. There was a lump in her throat. It’s deeply meaningful. Sure, so that means her rebellion is OK?
Beth Moore has always written emotionally. She is emotionalism personified. She over-states things emotionally, constantly (that’s the key, emotional language is constant) using words like “with all my heart” and “deeply desire”, “in my bones”. Her teachings are saturated with overblown hyperbole and hyper adjectives such as vital, crucial etc. Even her first published study was filled with adjectives that work to evoke emotions and fervency rather than draw out from the Bible the attributes of God. She uses words like “vital” and “crucial” repeatedly. If everything is vital and crucial, then nothing is.
The basic test to determine if you’re being taught to be led by your emotions is, a few days after a study, think about what is at the top of your mind most. Did you learn more about God? Or more about the teacher? Do you remember the teacher’s anecdotes and how they made you feel, for about God and how seeing Him through scripture made you feel? Your thoughts and feelings about God stay. The thoughts and feelings about the teacher about the study about how you felt at the time, flee. See what remains. It should be a clearer picture of God.
[Many] falsely suppose that the feelings, which God has implanted in us as natural, proceed only from a defect. Accordingly the perfecting of believers does not depend on their casting off all feelings, but on their yielding to them and controlling them, only for proper reason. John Calvin, Commentary on Acts 20:37.
