DISCERNING OR DECEIVED?

I posted a short video clip the other day from Jamie Winship (clip below) —a popular evangelist whose theological approach and ministry methods are considered by some to be unconventional and, by others, even concerning. I had never heard of him before. But when I heard his theory on Joshua taking Jericho through sonic dissonance, I found it fascinating.

As someone who enjoys creative thinking and isn’t afraid to look at things from a different angle, I considered the possibility that God could have revealed something to Joshua that we’ve never fully understood. The theory didn’t lessen the miracle for me. I still saw it as God’s supernatural intervention.

At the same time, after listening to Jamie’s full presentation (on YouTube), I noticed he often avoids traditional biblical language, using terms like “intuition,” “consciousness,” and “imagination” that can make some believers uneasy. Curious, I looked into his ministry and quickly recognized why some people might have concerns. That’s when I decided to post the clip and see what kind of collective discernment might emerge. (I’ll admit—I don’t mind rocking a boat or two:-).

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about discernment—about the messages we hear and the messengers we follow. I’ve always believed that Scripture is the anchor from which all truth is established. But not everything we encounter is neatly categorized as entirely right or entirely wrong. Sometimes there are other variables to consider, specific questions to ask, and elements that require wisdom rather than quick conclusions. In a time when many are rightly concerned about deception, I’ve noticed that knee-jerk reactions can sometimes replace thoughtful discernment and weighing of content.

What surprised me was how many people immediately celebrated the clip and praised me for posting Jamie Winship. Evidently, he has a much larger following than I realized:-). A few even questioned why I included a disclaimer. It didn’t take long to find out.

Before long, comments appeared expressing concerns about Jamie’s theology and ministry. Some felt his explanation of Jericho removed the miraculous element altogether and reduced the event to a scientific phenomenon. Others questioned broader aspects of his approach to ministry and evangelism.

Are those concerns valid? I think they’re worth considering.

Any responsible believer should examine every message through the lens of Scripture, no matter how compelling or creative it sounds. At the same time, does using different language automatically make someone unbiblical? Does presenting spiritual truths in unconventional ways necessarily mean those truths are inaccurate? And if certain ministry methods make us uncomfortable, shouldn’t we also consider the fruit being produced?

From the limited exposure I’ve had to Jamie’s ministry, I’ve been impressed by what appears to be happening among Muslims and unbelievers around the world due to his ministry. That’s not a final endorsement of everything he teaches. It’s simply an acknowledgment that we also have to consider the fruit. But, does the end justify the means? Where’s the line?

But my point isn’t really about Jamie. I could have posted someone else just as easily. As I said in the original post, this is less about the messenger and more about the message—and how we evaluate both.

“…they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11 ESV).

I believe it’s possible to hear truth from someone we don’t fully agree with or even completely trust. Just as it’s possible to hear error from someone we deeply respect. That’s why true discernment requires both the lens of Scripture as well as the eyes of the Spirit. We need both.

Those who lean heavily toward the Spirit often appreciate people like Jamie. They’re willing to think outside the box, take risks, and explore fresh ways of communicating truth. Their passion is often focused on reaching people rather than preserving tradition.

Yet history has also shown that passion alone isn’t enough. I’ve personally witnessed gifted evangelists bear remarkable fruit, but I’ve also seen some drift into error, compromise, or misuse of their influence. (How many “power evangelists” have recently been called out for compromise?) Good intentions and impressive results are not substitutes for sound doctrine. That’s why the issue isn’t simply whether we like a messenger or dislike one. The issue is how we weigh what we’re hearing.

We should never compromise the core truths of our faith in an effort to reach people. At the same time, I believe there’s room for fresh and creative expressions of the gospel that don’t fit neatly into our religious expectations. Jesus Himself modeled that tension. He challenged traditions, upset assumptions, and broke rules that others thought were untouchable. The difference, of course, is that Jesus knew exactly which boundaries could be crossed and which could not.

Do we?

And this isn’t about sharing your opinion about Jamie Winship. It’s about the larger question of what we discern and how we discern. We will likely never agree on all the finer points of doctrine, nor on whom to follow. But we should all seek to grow in our ability to rightly discern both the Word and Spirit of Truth in a way that brings us to maturity and wholeness.