Michael and Debi Pearl's No Greater Joy Ministries: A Look at the Basics
09-Jan-06: Note added to first paragraph.
During the last week I've spent a considerable number of hours studying the doctrine of Michael and Debi Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries. (Note in response to a query Jan 06: When I originally posted this I had listened to all of Michael Pearls Romans series, and most of it more than once, in addition to spending a lot of time studying other material by the Pearls). I've read and listened to a lot of their teaching material, and realised that there are two main doctrines which are not only taught, but which also permeate through their books and advice on marriage and child raising. At the base, or root, of the Pearl's teachings are Pelagianism and a doctrine of sinless perfectionism through instant complete sanctification.
Pelagianism originated with Pelagius, who
What Pelagianism is proposing is that we do not have a sinful nature from the beginning. In looking at the Pearl's doctrine it becomes apparent that in some respects it is Semi-Pelagian, which does not mean in this case that they are balanced neatly in between Pelagianism and orthodoxy, but that their strongest emphasis is from the Pelagian position. In particular their denial of original sin is Pelagian. (Note: This is not Arminianism. Neither Arminius, or later Wesley, denied original sin). To quote theologian Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, "Semi-Pelagianism represented human nature as in itself unimpaired by the fall." The Pearl's own version of Pelagianism is evident in their Statement of Faith, which includes this:
In his teaching tape on Romans 1 Michael Pearl clearly teaches we are not born with a sin nature, and he re-emphasises this in his message on Romans 5, where he also states that "a sinful nature is a non-entity. That's something made up". He teaches that while we are under a curse we do not have sin imputed to us until a certain age, and that we are not born with a sinful nature but reach a stage of moral understanding and accountability. In their statement of faith they are saying that sin is not imputed to an unbeliever until a certain age - and thus they are saying that until a certain age an unbeliever would not need justification. That is not a scripturally supported position - all are guilty before God and no age is set before sin is imputed. Michael Pearl does not specify the age (which he cannot do as it is not scriptural). At this point I recommend comparing the Pearl's statement of faith to scripture (Romans 5:12-21 is a good place to start), and to your own statement of faith. While churches have different doctrines in some respects it is commonly held throughout evangelical/Protestant churches that we have a sinful human nature. The Pearl's doctrine removes this and in doing so it places human ability above the atoning work of the cross. Their position leads to the logical conclusion that from within himself man can be pure and holy before God without faith in Jesus and forgiveness of sin. In the Pearl's teaching there is an unspecified period of time in which a person does not need salvation or justification. (For more on this see part 2: Michael Pearl on Original Sin: An Analysis)
How God communicates with babies and infants is a mystery that I do not understand (and not one I want to debate) - but I believe he is sufficient to forgive sin, impute righteousness and bring salvation to the elect regardless of age. What is not a scriptural position to hold is that no-one has a sinful nature. As I go on and look at the Pearl's doctrine of sinless perfectionism we'll see that this is what the Pearl's teach - not just that we are born sinless, but that we never have a sin nature.
In order to understand how Michael Pearl arrives at the position that we never have a sin nature we need to look at where an important part of this teaching is derived from - gnosticism. Gnosticism is the false gnosis (knowledge) that Paul and John both addressed in their letters to the early churches. The relevant part of gnostic teaching in regard to the Pearl's doctrine is its dualism between spirit and matter, in which matter is seen as evil. As Philip Edgecumbe Hughes explains:
This dualism splits man into two - so that it is the physical body (matter) which is sinful, but the mind and spirit are not. In Michael Pearl's teaching tapes on the book of Romans, he repeatedly takes the position that sin works only in our bodies. In his tape on Romans 7 he says, "I don't know any other preachers other than myself that teach this correctly", and states, "The body of flesh is the seat of sin. Not my soul, not an old nature - the body of flesh." He clarifies what he means by asserting that in the New Testament the word "flesh" refers simply to our physical fleshly body, and not our sinful nature. When explaining spiritual circumcision he says, "the body was the dominant part which made me sin. I've been cut out from it. The body you are sitting there in is dead. You say - 'but that's just spiritually true' - No, it's literally true". I have to add here that it took me a while to see that he really believes this and is not being figurative. He stresses it as a major premise of his exposition. Further on he adds that carnal does not mean sinful but that it just refers to things to do with the body, and says "Jesus Christ was carnal in his body of flesh". What is missing here is a reference to the heart, which biblically does not mean the physical 4-chamber organ which pumps blood through the circulation, but the spiritual heart of a person. There are numerous references to our hearts in the bible, such as Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?" Clearly this is a reference to our nature and not to a literal physical organ. "Create in me a clean heart", David says to God in Psalm 51.
Note added 1 Oct 05: I've condensed the Pearl's main doctrine from hours of tapes and teaching material here. To be fair and to clarify, I want to add that Michael Pearl does briefly (a few sentences) mention the human heart in his message on Romans 3 as part of a personal story from his younger days, and says he "sees wickedness there", meaning how people act. What is missing in his teaching is a reference to the heart as having a sinful nature, or being where sin springs from. In the major part of his teaching he clearly says the flesh is only the physical body, and it is the body which is the "seat of sin". What is left out is a reference to the heart as carnal or fleshly in spiritual terms. He does not believe we have a sinful nature, and that is saying our heart is not sinful in nature. The Jeremiah verse points out that the human heart is sinful in nature. That's the point I was making above. (End of added note).
According to the Pearl's doctrine the outer man is the physical body and the inner man is the soulish self. It is the outer man which sins, in Michael Pearl's words, "It is not sinful 'I' doing this but 'I' controlled by sinful 'it'. By this doctrine the body is the source of sin - and therefore only the body needs to die in Christ rather than the whole person. Michael Pearl emphasises this when he says, "When God saves a soul he saves a body - he crucifies the body - takes the man out of the body and puts him in the spirit". He teaches that there is a "ruling principle of law" in a persons mind, whether Christian or not, which "says do the will of God". Michael Pearl teaches that our body is crucified with Christ and there is no further need to die. He does not believe that we die to self, but that our self is "cut out" of our dead body. This dualism fits in with the Pelagian belief that we are born without a sinful nature, and leads into the doctrine of sinless perfectionism.
How does Michael Pearl explain Romans 7? In this chapter Paul speaks plainly about his struggle with himself, and says, "For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me". According to Michael Pearl, Paul is referring to when he was a child. Pearl says of Paul, "In his experience historically, at one point he was alive, he was not dead in trespasses and sins. He was probably 3 years old, maybe 4". Pearl then holds that Romans 7 is referring to Paul reaching an age of moral accountability. The idea that Paul is referring to his pre-Christian life in Romans 7 is not new, and has been put forward before by those who held that after his conversion Paul was sinless for the rest of his life. Finney, who was influenced by Pelagianism, advocated it. However Paul's struggle in Romans 7 is not only written in the present tense, but makes obvious reference in verse 22 to his regenerate state: "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man". Pearl dismisses this reference to Paul's new heart by claiming that the unregenerate do delight after God from the inward man. That position contradicts scripture from the Old Testament to the New and is a manipulation of the text to fit a doctrine. There is also nothing in the passage which refers to Paul being a child, a fact he would mention in the way he does in his message on love in 1 Corinthians 13, where he says "When I was a child..."
Why would it be thought necessary to change the evident meaning of Romans 7? The answer lies in the Pearl's doctrine of instant sanctification. As I went through Michael Pearl's series on Romans I wondered how he would deal with Romans 12:2:
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God".
Michael Pearl states that this is only referring to having a better attitude towards the Jews, and to make it clear that he does not agree with the orthodox teaching of evangelical churches on Romans 12:2, he tells his listeners, "Your thinking is already fouled up with this passage". He states, "this is not the basis for sanctification", and says "it is a totally false doctrine to say the world wants to conform our thinking but the Holy Spirit transforms our mind". What Michael Pearl teaches is that we are sanctified when we are born again, and from then on we sin no more. The physical body is dead, and thus so is sin. In his article Living Parallel Lives in the Same Space (No Greater Joy, Jan-Feb 2005) he says:
At first this can appear scriptural - we are new creations in Christ and through confession and forgiveness we can say that we are sinless. But in Michael Pearl's 1 John 1:9 - The Protestant Confessional he teaches that we confess sins at salvation but it is wrong to confess sins after salvation (Source: Fundamental Baptist Information Service). The essence of his teaching is that we are completely sanctified at salvation and go on to sin no more. He is saying that as the physical body is literally dead, so is our sin. We now sin no more as Christians. In the Pearl's doctrine, sanctification, the process by which we become continually conformed to Christ, is turned into an instant aspect of inital salvation. Yet this does not fit with 1 John 1:8-9, which was written to Christians:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
There are other concerns with No Greater Joy Ministries, such as their KJV-onlyism, which is stated in their statement of faith and referred to often in Michael Pearl's messages. Along with this there are numerous statements by Michael Pearl in which he essentially says he is the only person giving the correct teaching and biblical exposition of basic doctrine. For example, here are just some of his statements during his Romans messages: "99.9% of churches don't teach this", "out of 25-30 commentaries on this they were all incorrect - their basic approach was in error", "probably anything you've been taught on Romans 7 is wrong", "I don't know any preachers other than myself that teach this correctly", "here's how R.C. Sproul manifests his unbelief (before reading from Sproul's commentary), "these guys (25-30 commentary authors) don't believe like we do". When some-one claims to have the truth that no-one else within orthodox Christianity has, I get a warning bell. Particularly so when the teaching is a combination of historical errors and false doctrine. While churches differ on some doctrine, there are basic truths upon which we agree. And there is a good reason why, across all our different denominations, we are not being taught certain things. It is my assessment that the Pearls are teaching error on essential basic doctrine.
In practical terms, believing that we no longer sin is setting ourselves up for pride, and we would deceive ourselves in regard to our own shortcomings. In the place of forgiveness and grace there will be a legalistic adherence to standards of "holiness". Thinking that our own heart is above sin is to think contrary to God's word. None of us are perfect - we press on for the upward call of Jesus Christ, being continually conformed to his image.
Continued in Part 2:
Michael Pearl on Original Sin: An Analysis
Also Recommended:
Review: To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl - Allthings2all
Review: Created To Be His HelpMeet, Part 1 - Spunky Homeschool
Part 2 - Spunky Homeschool
Part 3 - Spunky Homeschool
Part 4 - Spunky Homeschool
On the Pearls and Parenting - Tulip Girl
Pearls Po-Russki - Tulip Girl
Christian Families on the Edge - Rachel Ramer, Christian Research Institute
During the last week I've spent a considerable number of hours studying the doctrine of Michael and Debi Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries. (Note in response to a query Jan 06: When I originally posted this I had listened to all of Michael Pearls Romans series, and most of it more than once, in addition to spending a lot of time studying other material by the Pearls). I've read and listened to a lot of their teaching material, and realised that there are two main doctrines which are not only taught, but which also permeate through their books and advice on marriage and child raising. At the base, or root, of the Pearl's teachings are Pelagianism and a doctrine of sinless perfectionism through instant complete sanctification.
Pelagianism originated with Pelagius, who
"denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought."
What Pelagianism is proposing is that we do not have a sinful nature from the beginning. In looking at the Pearl's doctrine it becomes apparent that in some respects it is Semi-Pelagian, which does not mean in this case that they are balanced neatly in between Pelagianism and orthodoxy, but that their strongest emphasis is from the Pelagian position. In particular their denial of original sin is Pelagian. (Note: This is not Arminianism. Neither Arminius, or later Wesley, denied original sin). To quote theologian Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, "Semi-Pelagianism represented human nature as in itself unimpaired by the fall." The Pearl's own version of Pelagianism is evident in their Statement of Faith, which includes this:
"All men are born under the curse and totally estranged from God. When a descendent of Adam reaches a level of moral understanding (sometime in his youth) he becomes fully, personally accountable to God and has sin imputed to him, resulting in the peril of eternal damnation. No man is capable of rectifying this state of estrangement from God. Apart from the free gift of God through the substitutionary work of Christ there is no hope of salvation.
SALVATION
When man reaches his state of moral accountability, and, by virtue of his personal transgression, becomes blameworthy, his only hope is a work of grace by God alone."
In his teaching tape on Romans 1 Michael Pearl clearly teaches we are not born with a sin nature, and he re-emphasises this in his message on Romans 5, where he also states that "a sinful nature is a non-entity. That's something made up". He teaches that while we are under a curse we do not have sin imputed to us until a certain age, and that we are not born with a sinful nature but reach a stage of moral understanding and accountability. In their statement of faith they are saying that sin is not imputed to an unbeliever until a certain age - and thus they are saying that until a certain age an unbeliever would not need justification. That is not a scripturally supported position - all are guilty before God and no age is set before sin is imputed. Michael Pearl does not specify the age (which he cannot do as it is not scriptural). At this point I recommend comparing the Pearl's statement of faith to scripture (Romans 5:12-21 is a good place to start), and to your own statement of faith. While churches have different doctrines in some respects it is commonly held throughout evangelical/Protestant churches that we have a sinful human nature. The Pearl's doctrine removes this and in doing so it places human ability above the atoning work of the cross. Their position leads to the logical conclusion that from within himself man can be pure and holy before God without faith in Jesus and forgiveness of sin. In the Pearl's teaching there is an unspecified period of time in which a person does not need salvation or justification. (For more on this see part 2: Michael Pearl on Original Sin: An Analysis)
How God communicates with babies and infants is a mystery that I do not understand (and not one I want to debate) - but I believe he is sufficient to forgive sin, impute righteousness and bring salvation to the elect regardless of age. What is not a scriptural position to hold is that no-one has a sinful nature. As I go on and look at the Pearl's doctrine of sinless perfectionism we'll see that this is what the Pearl's teach - not just that we are born sinless, but that we never have a sin nature.
In order to understand how Michael Pearl arrives at the position that we never have a sin nature we need to look at where an important part of this teaching is derived from - gnosticism. Gnosticism is the false gnosis (knowledge) that Paul and John both addressed in their letters to the early churches. The relevant part of gnostic teaching in regard to the Pearl's doctrine is its dualism between spirit and matter, in which matter is seen as evil. As Philip Edgecumbe Hughes explains:
"From the earliest times the church had to do battle with the threat posed to Christian orthodoxy by certain modes and notions especially of Greek philosophical thought, and most of all with the Pythagorean and neo-Platonic spirit-matter dualism inherent in the docetic and then the gnostic heresies."
This dualism splits man into two - so that it is the physical body (matter) which is sinful, but the mind and spirit are not. In Michael Pearl's teaching tapes on the book of Romans, he repeatedly takes the position that sin works only in our bodies. In his tape on Romans 7 he says, "I don't know any other preachers other than myself that teach this correctly", and states, "The body of flesh is the seat of sin. Not my soul, not an old nature - the body of flesh." He clarifies what he means by asserting that in the New Testament the word "flesh" refers simply to our physical fleshly body, and not our sinful nature. When explaining spiritual circumcision he says, "the body was the dominant part which made me sin. I've been cut out from it. The body you are sitting there in is dead. You say - 'but that's just spiritually true' - No, it's literally true". I have to add here that it took me a while to see that he really believes this and is not being figurative. He stresses it as a major premise of his exposition. Further on he adds that carnal does not mean sinful but that it just refers to things to do with the body, and says "Jesus Christ was carnal in his body of flesh". What is missing here is a reference to the heart, which biblically does not mean the physical 4-chamber organ which pumps blood through the circulation, but the spiritual heart of a person. There are numerous references to our hearts in the bible, such as Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?" Clearly this is a reference to our nature and not to a literal physical organ. "Create in me a clean heart", David says to God in Psalm 51.
Note added 1 Oct 05: I've condensed the Pearl's main doctrine from hours of tapes and teaching material here. To be fair and to clarify, I want to add that Michael Pearl does briefly (a few sentences) mention the human heart in his message on Romans 3 as part of a personal story from his younger days, and says he "sees wickedness there", meaning how people act. What is missing in his teaching is a reference to the heart as having a sinful nature, or being where sin springs from. In the major part of his teaching he clearly says the flesh is only the physical body, and it is the body which is the "seat of sin". What is left out is a reference to the heart as carnal or fleshly in spiritual terms. He does not believe we have a sinful nature, and that is saying our heart is not sinful in nature. The Jeremiah verse points out that the human heart is sinful in nature. That's the point I was making above. (End of added note).
According to the Pearl's doctrine the outer man is the physical body and the inner man is the soulish self. It is the outer man which sins, in Michael Pearl's words, "It is not sinful 'I' doing this but 'I' controlled by sinful 'it'. By this doctrine the body is the source of sin - and therefore only the body needs to die in Christ rather than the whole person. Michael Pearl emphasises this when he says, "When God saves a soul he saves a body - he crucifies the body - takes the man out of the body and puts him in the spirit". He teaches that there is a "ruling principle of law" in a persons mind, whether Christian or not, which "says do the will of God". Michael Pearl teaches that our body is crucified with Christ and there is no further need to die. He does not believe that we die to self, but that our self is "cut out" of our dead body. This dualism fits in with the Pelagian belief that we are born without a sinful nature, and leads into the doctrine of sinless perfectionism.
How does Michael Pearl explain Romans 7? In this chapter Paul speaks plainly about his struggle with himself, and says, "For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me". According to Michael Pearl, Paul is referring to when he was a child. Pearl says of Paul, "In his experience historically, at one point he was alive, he was not dead in trespasses and sins. He was probably 3 years old, maybe 4". Pearl then holds that Romans 7 is referring to Paul reaching an age of moral accountability. The idea that Paul is referring to his pre-Christian life in Romans 7 is not new, and has been put forward before by those who held that after his conversion Paul was sinless for the rest of his life. Finney, who was influenced by Pelagianism, advocated it. However Paul's struggle in Romans 7 is not only written in the present tense, but makes obvious reference in verse 22 to his regenerate state: "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man". Pearl dismisses this reference to Paul's new heart by claiming that the unregenerate do delight after God from the inward man. That position contradicts scripture from the Old Testament to the New and is a manipulation of the text to fit a doctrine. There is also nothing in the passage which refers to Paul being a child, a fact he would mention in the way he does in his message on love in 1 Corinthians 13, where he says "When I was a child..."
Why would it be thought necessary to change the evident meaning of Romans 7? The answer lies in the Pearl's doctrine of instant sanctification. As I went through Michael Pearl's series on Romans I wondered how he would deal with Romans 12:2:
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God".
Michael Pearl states that this is only referring to having a better attitude towards the Jews, and to make it clear that he does not agree with the orthodox teaching of evangelical churches on Romans 12:2, he tells his listeners, "Your thinking is already fouled up with this passage". He states, "this is not the basis for sanctification", and says "it is a totally false doctrine to say the world wants to conform our thinking but the Holy Spirit transforms our mind". What Michael Pearl teaches is that we are sanctified when we are born again, and from then on we sin no more. The physical body is dead, and thus so is sin. In his article Living Parallel Lives in the Same Space (No Greater Joy, Jan-Feb 2005) he says:
"These messages are not motivational teachings or principles for you to apply. They are the wonderful good news that Christ has done everything to free you from all sin, all the time, from this day forward, to sin no more.
... We should and can sin no more!
... I have been preaching and living this gospel of sanctification for many years. It is not a theory."
At first this can appear scriptural - we are new creations in Christ and through confession and forgiveness we can say that we are sinless. But in Michael Pearl's 1 John 1:9 - The Protestant Confessional he teaches that we confess sins at salvation but it is wrong to confess sins after salvation (Source: Fundamental Baptist Information Service). The essence of his teaching is that we are completely sanctified at salvation and go on to sin no more. He is saying that as the physical body is literally dead, so is our sin. We now sin no more as Christians. In the Pearl's doctrine, sanctification, the process by which we become continually conformed to Christ, is turned into an instant aspect of inital salvation. Yet this does not fit with 1 John 1:8-9, which was written to Christians:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
There are other concerns with No Greater Joy Ministries, such as their KJV-onlyism, which is stated in their statement of faith and referred to often in Michael Pearl's messages. Along with this there are numerous statements by Michael Pearl in which he essentially says he is the only person giving the correct teaching and biblical exposition of basic doctrine. For example, here are just some of his statements during his Romans messages: "99.9% of churches don't teach this", "out of 25-30 commentaries on this they were all incorrect - their basic approach was in error", "probably anything you've been taught on Romans 7 is wrong", "I don't know any preachers other than myself that teach this correctly", "here's how R.C. Sproul manifests his unbelief (before reading from Sproul's commentary), "these guys (25-30 commentary authors) don't believe like we do". When some-one claims to have the truth that no-one else within orthodox Christianity has, I get a warning bell. Particularly so when the teaching is a combination of historical errors and false doctrine. While churches differ on some doctrine, there are basic truths upon which we agree. And there is a good reason why, across all our different denominations, we are not being taught certain things. It is my assessment that the Pearls are teaching error on essential basic doctrine.
In practical terms, believing that we no longer sin is setting ourselves up for pride, and we would deceive ourselves in regard to our own shortcomings. In the place of forgiveness and grace there will be a legalistic adherence to standards of "holiness". Thinking that our own heart is above sin is to think contrary to God's word. None of us are perfect - we press on for the upward call of Jesus Christ, being continually conformed to his image.
Continued in Part 2:
Michael Pearl on Original Sin: An Analysis
Also Recommended:
Review: To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl - Allthings2all
Review: Created To Be His HelpMeet, Part 1 - Spunky Homeschool
Part 2 - Spunky Homeschool
Part 3 - Spunky Homeschool
Part 4 - Spunky Homeschool
On the Pearls and Parenting - Tulip Girl
Pearls Po-Russki - Tulip Girl
Christian Families on the Edge - Rachel Ramer, Christian Research Institute
Labels: Examining Teaching
posted by Catez at 9/30/2005
|
© Copyright Catez Stevens. << Home