Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? Psalm 12:4
PREFACE: The book of Acts 2:1-11 makes it clear that on the day of Pentecost, when those in one accord who were filled with the Holy Ghost “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance”, they were not speaking gibberish, but in known languages. If you are unfamiliar with the whole body of scriptures which deal with speaking in tongues; one discussion can be found at the berean research institute.com site linked here. It is interesting that the divisiveness of the tongues issue is commented on, in the first hour of the Hagmann Report which had aired on January 6, 2016 entitled Fear of the Lord is absent in the land. A transcription of this first hour can be found in my January 11, 2016 post, if you desire to examine the context in which I extract the following observations.
ON JANUARY 6th, STEVE QUAYLE voiced his opinion as to the underlying reason why the Nathan Leal/Dr. Ted Broer controversy had resulted in division within the Hear the Watchmen conference scheduled for Dallas in March of 2016. He says, “This whole thing went wrong because a, a, a, how do I say this, you can be sincere and sincerely wrong. But a well meaning couple wanted to have a conference similar to Whitestone. Now since I was involved in Whitestone and Pastor Lankford was there and many people are listening, I will share with you why Whitestone worked. Because the men who came there were in agreement. They were in agreement, number one, in the Holy Ghost, and everybody who was a speaker was baptized in the Holy Spirit. It wouldn’t have done good to put me and some ah Baptist minister, I’m not taking away from the Baptist minister, who speaks that that speaking in tongues is of the devil, together. But we have a united purpose.”
A paragraph later Quayle adds, “…but it was duplicated wrong. Of all the people that could have asked me, could have saved themselves, spared this whole thing and I’m not saying, I have all the answers. But I am saying, I didn’t have this answer. The need did not constitute the call. And by the way I have basically shared everything I’m sharing publicly with the individual ah ah in an email, and his attitude was one of humility and repentance, OK?”
Some of what Mr. Quayle says is not clear to the casual listeners of this Hagmann Report, because he does not precisely identify the persons he is referring to. But he described the Whitestone Remnant Conference as successful because the sponsors and speakers were united; whereas the upcoming conference of Hear the Watchmen appears to have had a hidden element of division, which unfortunately became apparent when one speaker publically reproved another speaker. Thus in hindsight, it would appear that the conference founders were lacking in discernment when they selected their original speakers’ line up, because unity in the Holy Spirit was not present.
Amos 3:3 asks the rhetorical question, Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Now what is interesting in this discussion of unity, is that Steve Quayle and Pastor David Lankford, who always present a united front, represent two different viewpoints in this matter of what constitutes walking in agreement with other professing Christians.
In this same radio broadcast, just minutes before Steve Quayle speaks, Pastor David Lankford says this: “Marvin Rosenthal is a good friend of mine. We were coming back from Israel and we were sitting on the tour bus going back to the airport. He looked at me and said, David, let me ask you a question. What is your affiliation as far as denomination? I said, well brother Rosenthal, I am a Pentecostal. He looked at me and smiled real big and he said, That’s why I’m very careful now how I pick my fights. Because I support the ___?( Note, I could not discern the word here, when I transcribed the audio) mission work in Israel. He’s a good Baptist brother. He doesn’t believe in talking in tongues but I do. But you see I can work with that man and because the man happens to have wisdom to say you know what? this man helping me do mission work in Israel, though we disagree with this little doctrinal thing we’re not going to fall out over it. And this is what happens.”
So while Pastor Lankford is able to walk in agreement with someone who does not speak in tongues, Steve Quayle illustrates one of his points on the subject of unity by emphasizing that he could not walk in agreement with a Baptist minister who thought tongues are of the devil. (Now there is an interesting difference of opinion, waiting for just the right opportunity to split the foundation of Unity wide open, if I ever saw one.)
As a Baptist who has witnessed two egregious church splits, I know how a little crack in the foundation stone can become a great divide. The Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, describes many examples of division and was written “that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel” (Dt. 31:19). One rock split is noted in verses 4 & 5, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: A God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.”
The original speakers list of the Hear the Watchman Conference, has been modified to remove the names of Nathan Leal, Dr. Ted Broer and Sharon Broer. Currently, Russ Dizdar, Michael Boldea, Jr., Josh Tolley, and Sheila Zilinsky have been added to the roster. Presumably, Unity has been restored, right? They are all walking in one accord, and speaking with the tongues of fire of the Holy Spirit, right? There is no possibility that strange fire has been used to burn the incense which now ascends from the golden altar of their prayers, right?
So why are we discovering another split in the foundation of this conference? In this continuation of the Nathan Leal/ Dr. Ted Broer controversy, we find an article was written January 15, 2016 by John Little of Omega Shock entitled Sin in the Church. He begins with a lament for the sin he has witnessed in American churches, and then proceeds to comment on what he observed when he first heard about the Leal/Broer controversy. Some of John Little’s comments which I have excerpted are as follows:
“Unfortunately that experience leads me to the belief that we are allowing Nathan Leal to be unfairly brutalized. And yes, I really do mean ‘brutalized’. To be fair to those that are doing the ‘brutalizing’, I doubt that they were given the whole picture. Their anger and wrath were inflamed by weak Christians, and a man who has engaged in heresy and deception. That man of heresy and deception is Ted Broer. I only name names when the evidence is incontrovertible. I’ve had misgivings about Ted from the first day that I heard him speak. But, my operational area was different from his, so I left it to others to deal with. Unfortunately, I was requiring Nathan to deal with this-and take the heat.…”
“Ted Broer has chosen to be in the limelight and has also chosen to preach heresy, and then lie about it. His sin is obvious and clear. Withholding his name would be a sin on my part. Here are the sins and heresies that I have observed: Ted Broer made claims about Nathan Leal that were not true. Nathan came to Ted in peace and concern, and Ted responded with anger and retribution. Nathan’s concerns were valid and correct. Ted lied. Furthermore, my suspicion is that Ted has engaged in a whispering campaign in an attempt to impugn Nathan’s reputation…..It is impossible for there to be so much smoke, without a fire.”
John Little describes why he considers Ted Broer’s statements on The Hagmann Report to be heresy. He then goes on to say, “People were upset with Nathan Leal because his exposure of those lies has put the conference in Dallas in question”. And then John Little makes some suggestions about how the people contributing to this situation might make amends.
On January 22, 2016, John Little wrote another article entitled Love of the Truth and Cognitive Dissonance. At the end of the main body of his commentary, he provides an update on the Nathan Leal controversy to those who had made further inquiries to him. Some of the interesting excerpts of his statements are as follows: “Nathan Leal is NOT GUILTY of ANY of the charges leveled against him. Up until this past week, I had been thinking that the largest part of the guilt fell upon the shoulders of Ted Broer. To my dismay, I have found that this in not the case. And yes, the proper word is DISMAY. I am incredibly grieved that there is another name that is at the heart of this. This person lies within the organization bringing about the HearTheWatchmen conference in Dallas, March 18-20, 2016.”
“I do not believe that the speakers at this conference understand the true nature of this person. If they did, I do not think that they would have signed up to be a part of it. Unfortunately for him, some of those speakers are beginning to find out and have been threatened by him. You will notice that three people have disappeared from the original roster of speakers. I believe that you can do the math. Let me be clear that I would not have known about this person, unless he had publicly attacked me, making false claims. When he did that, I began to see a deeper corruption at work. And then, some of you stepped forward – privately and publicly – with important information. I am very upset by what I have uncovered.”
“….Well, there’s worse than Ted Broer.….Allow me to also leave a message to the person at the heart of all this: Do not threaten me with a lawsuit. I will go public with any and all communication that you and your representatives make with me. If the person at the heart of this case, repents and resigns, I will do my best to soften the blow. I do not wish anyone to feel hurt, not even those who are guilty. But, I love the truth, and I will tell the truth.”
If you are interested in following this controversy, it is important that you read the above two links to John Little’s articles, so as to understand the entire context of his commentary on this issue. I have excerpted parts which I found interesting, but Little’s entire posts display his theological analysis of this particular situation. In general, I agree with most of his observations; however, Nathan Leal is a problem unto himself when it comes to his dreams and prophecies and his long-time association with the Hagmanns. Even if this current rift which has come to the surface were to be cemented over, there still remain the cracks in the foundations of the underlying Charismatic theology, which represent departures from the Scriptures as a whole.
What many people have discovered when they attempt to discuss such matters with some of these Christian Alternative Media stars, is that they are blocked, censored and threatened. This particular Leal/Broer controversy is just one such example. While I give Leal credit for bringing this matter to light, he quietly stepped back into the darkness after a very short time in the public view. His articles on who are the real Watchmen are not pointed enough, given that he had been in the Inner Circle of Trust of the Hagmanns, as a repeat guest over a long period of time, and had been a silent partaker in their sins as Watchmen who claim they were anointed of God. To my knowledge, I have never heard Leal speak out on behalf of those other Christians who were publicly reviled for speaking the truth about the actions of The Inner Circle of Trust.
UPDATE 1/29/2016 John Little at Omega Shock has written a new post called My Report on Nathan Leal