The Shepherd’s Chapel

The following article is an exact copy of the letter that Steve Lagoon (in behalf of Religion Analysis Service) sent to Arnold Murray's ministry (The Shepherds Chapel). In a phone conversation, Arnold Murray's son, Dennis Murray, promised a written response to this letter. However, shortly after receiving the letter, Steve Lagoon received a call at the office of Religion Analysis Service from Dennis Murray stating that the Shepherd's Chapel ministry would not honor their word, and had decided not to answer the letter as they had previously promised. Read the letter and find out what Arnold Murray is afraid of!

Mr. Dennis Murray

PO Box 416

Gravette AR 72736

Tuesday, May 08, 2001

Dear Mr. Dennis Murray,

I was privileged to speak with you on the telephone on February 27^th and I want to thank-you for your kindness and generosity, and your commitment to answer my concerns about the teaching’s of the Shepherd’s Chapel (hereafter SC) in writing. It was my intention to follow up our conversation with this letter much sooner, but I was greatly affected by the tragic death of my 17 year old son Kyle in an automobile accident. I apologize for the delay.

We at Religion Analysis Service often receive inquiries about your father and the teachings of the SC. It was decided that we would research your ministry and put together an article for our ministry’s journal which is called the Discerner magazine. In doing research for that article, I came across several articles that were critical of the ministry of the SC. I also became acquainted with your own website. I was most interested in your doctrinal statement (Our Statement of Faith), and especially the article written by your father (In Answer to Critics by Pastor Arnold Murray) in which he seeks to answer some of the criticisms leveled by “Christian Research” organizations. I am organizing this letter to you around the format of your father’s In Answer to Critics.

In the first paragraph of your father’s In Answer to Critics he says that “since 1991 several so called ‘Christian Research’ organizations have willingly quoted each other’s falsehoods and labels, without direct research, until they are blindly printing outright lies.” He (hereafter PM for Pastor Murray) also said at the end of paragraph three that, “Now let’s take a look at some of the usual points of criticism that some of these so-called ‘Christian Research’ people seem to steal from one another in their rush to reproduce lies against myself and the Shepherd’s Chapel.”

I am sorry if your father has been victimized by shabby scholarship in the past, and I am determined that my article will be fair and balanced, while still tackling the tough criticisms that have been leveled. I know from past experience how easy it is for researchers to be inaccurate, and mischaracterize someone’s teachings. By working directly with you, I hope to clear up the misunderstandings that are out there, and provide sound information to our readers.

In the second paragraph of In Answer to Critics, PM relates his involvement as a veteran of the Korean War. We honor his service to our country, and thank him for his part in protecting the freedoms we now enjoy.

In the third paragraph PM states, “I believe many of the inaccurate perceptions of what I teach at the Shepherd’s Chapel could be resolved quickly if those interested would simply request our ‘Statement of Faith’ which has been freely available for many years.” I want you to know that I have studied the Statement of Faith and In Answer to Critics very carefully, and yet they do not seem to alleviate the criticisms that have been leveled. It is not for want of effort that I arrive at this conclusion, for I have personally viewed many hours of the television program, and listened to many of the cassette tapes.

The first topic your father addresses is under the title “The Trinity or Godhead.” The critics charge that the SC does not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, affirms a Modalist view of God. At this point it is important to define terms. By the doctrine of the Trinity I mean this; that the Bible reveals that there is only one God (monotheism), and yet within the nature of this one God there are three eternal personal distinctions (usually called persons) called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) share the very nature and essence of God, but carry out different roles and functions within the being of God (the Godhead).

For Example, the Bible teaches that the Father loves the Son, sends the Son and so forth. It also says that the Son loves the Father, that he obeys the Father (John 16:12-13), that the Son sends the Holy Spirit (John 15:26), that the Father sends the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), that the Holy Spirit obeys the Father, and that the Holy Spirit intercedes to the Father (Romans 8:26-27).

This distinction of the persons existed not only after the Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ, but also before (John 1:1-3, 6:38, 17:5). This in brief is the doctrine of the Trinity believed by the historic Christian church, based solidly upon God’s word.

As to Modalism, it is defined in this way: There is only one God (monotheism), but within the nature of this one God, there is only one person. How this is so is explained in two different ways depending on which type of Modalism is in view.

One type is that commonly called Sabellianism which teaches that the three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are just different manifestations or roles, of the one divine person. In other words, God played the role of Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and now “plays” or “manifests” himself as the Holy Spirit. The divine person plays these roles successively, and not simultaneously.

The second type of Modalism I call the Noetian type. It is the most prominent view among Modalists today (i.e. the United Pentecostal Church). It teaches that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not two separate persons, but just two different titles or names of the one divine person. They then teach that at the incarnation, this one divine person (the Father/ Holy Spirit) took on human nature and it is only the human part of Jesus Christ that is called the Son. In this view, Jesus Christ himself is all at once the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (the Father/ Holy Spirit being the Divine part of Jesus, and the Son being the human part).

I took the time to define these terms so as to avoid misunderstandings. That said, it certainly appears that the SC denies the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined above), and instead teaches a doctrine of the Godhead roughly equivalent to the second Modalistic view defined above.

For example, many articles quote PM as follows:

You have these yo-yo’s that will say, “Well I want you to think of water (sic) and ice” and so on, various gases or so forth, or then they’ll say, ‘I want you to think of a 200 watt bulb, and a 150 watt bulb, and a 50 watt bulb.’ Well they’re all the same wattage, friend. So why not just simplify it instead of playing stupid games, and understand there are three offices of the Godhead. Like this little lady said. She said, ‘To my husband I am a wife, to my children I am a mother, that’s my office. To hundreds of third graders I am their teacher and have been down through the years. That’s a different office; none of them the same, but I’m still the same person.” I like that. It’s simple and to the point (The Shepherd’s Chapel, broadcast June 4, 1991).

Another quote often repeated is that God “Gots (sic) three offices he serves” (The

Shepherd’s Chapel, Broadcast May 14,1991).

These quotes are clearly Modalistic as defined above. These types of statements along with the fact that your ‘Statement of Faith’ does not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity make it appear that the SC’s teachings are rightly classified as anti-Trinitarian and Modalistic. In your response then, it is important to clarify the actual view of the SC.

The second area that PM addresses in In Answer to Critics is the issue of whether the SC teaches that men can become “little Gods.” PM states, “Also, I have never taught that men were little gods. It would be a lie for someone to say so. I do teach all souls were created by our father.”

Although the statement is vague and unclear, it appears to verify the charge that the SC teaches that all people were created directly by God before they were created (Adam and Eve) or born into this world (everyone else). The following quotes from the SC program support this conclusion. “Do you appear as your soul appeared in the world that was? (Tape #146). “We always were with Him [God] until you were born into this earth (Kenites, Tape #436). Along the same lines, it appears that the SC teaches that the earth had been populated before the creation described in Genesis 1:2 and following, and so the six days of creation described in Genesis One are really a re-creation or “reconstruction”of the earth after it had been judged and destroyed by God. In this view there is a “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which gap is believed to be a long period of earth history (the so-called Gap-theory). As I understand it then, the SC believes that mankind had preexisted on this earth in some form before the creation of Adam and Eve.

I accept the statement by PM that he has not taught a little gods doctrine. However, how does the SC answer the charge that teaching that all mankind has existed before coming into this world is not supported by Scripture?

For example, the verses that PM appeals to in support of this idea such as Jeremiah 1:5 and Ephesians 1:4 do not show that we preexisted our existence here on the earth, but rather merely shows God’s foreknowledge of all things: past, present, and future. The fact that “He knew us” before we were born, even before the foundation of the world, does not mean that we existed then. It just means that God can know the future through the use of His foreknowledge and omniscients. The Apostle Paul speaks to this idea when he said “the God who. . . calls things that are not as though they were (Romans 4:17b).

The Psalmist declared “But from everlasting to everlasting the LORD’S love is with those who fear him (Psalm 103:17). Because of God’s omniscients, God has always “known us,” that is, he has known about us. But just because God has always known us, doesn’t mean that we have always existed. If that were the case, mankind would be eternal as well; a preposterous supposition.

The Gap theory has been around a long time, but has never gained common acceptance because it is a theory looking for evidence, and finding little. While the idea itself is not impossible, it is not the plain and straightforward meaning of the text. The arguments regarding the Gap theory are detailed and beyond the scope of my research here, but I refer your attention to an article by Russell Grigg entitled “From the Beginning of Creation: Does Genesis have a Gap? which can be found at the following web address: "http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1132.asp" However, I have this question; If it is true that we have existed before our present births on earth, can you tell me where we were before being born?

The next area that PM addresses in In Answer to Critics is the subject of Racism. I take PM at his word that the SC is not racist in the sense that it promotes hatred of any race. However, it does appear that the view of the origin of the races taught by the SC is both unbiblical and easily compatible with supremacist tendencies. But in fairness, I want to make sure that I accurately understand the view of the SC in this regard. Therefore, I am going give my understanding of the SC’s teaching on the origin of the races of mankind. As best as I can determine the SC teaches that there were two different creations of “man.” The first is described in Genesis 1:26-28, and is the creation of some (including blacks), but not all of the races. The second creation of man is described in Genesis 2:7-25, and this was the creation of Adam and Eve (and their descendants).

If this accurately reflects the teaching of the SC, doesn’t it conflict with Romans 5:12-19 which describes how sin has been passed onto all mankind through Adam? Likewise, how does such a view explain the apostle Paul’s statement that “From one man [Adam] he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole” earth (Acts 17:26)?

The next subject heading in In Answer to Critics is entitled Serpent Seed. Now it seems pretty clear that the view of the SC is (again correct me if I am wrong) that in the Garden of Eden, Eve had physical sexual relations with the Serpent who is of course, the Devil. The result of this is that Eve became pregnant with Satan’s child who when born was named Cain. The descendants of Cain are known in history as the Kenites, and they have been a constant thorn in the side of God’s people. Furthermore, some critics have stated the SC teaches that Eve was also pregnant with Abel at the same time that she was pregnant with Cain, Adam being the father of Abel. I would like to clarify if that is actually your teaching.

Following from the above, the Kenites are not only antagonistic to God’s people, but they are actually pretending to be the real Jewish people. In other words, those in Israel today are not real Jews, but rather are Kenites inspired by Satan to deceive the nations. Furthermore, those who are the real Jews, the real chosen people of today, are those of white stock, primarily residing in Europe and North America.

If this is the view of the SC, please answer the following questions. Why do you reject the opinion of most scholars that there was more that one group of people called Kenites in Scripture (for instance, see “Kenites” in the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1963, p.463)? However, if we operate under the assumption that all the Kenites mentioned in Scripture are indeed wicked hybrid descendants of Cain (and Satan), why are they so frequently presented in a positive light in the Scriptures?

For example, Judges 1:16 records that Moses was married to a Kenite woman, and yet there is not the slightest alarm raised in the Bible about it. The same verse says that the Kenites peacefully co-existed with “the men of Judah” without any indication that this was a problem (as you would expect if these Kenites were the offspring of Satan). In Numbers 10:29-33, Moses pleads with the Kenites to help the Israelites as they travel, which the Kenites decide to do. The passage expresses no concern about the danger to Israel at the hands of these alleged hybrids of Satan. In Judges 4:11-24, the account describes the heroic action of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, in killing Sisera and helping to strengthen the Israelites. 1 Samuel 15:5-6 states that “Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. Then he said to the Kenites, ‘go away, leave the Amalakites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.’ So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.” Again, does this passage even hint at the wickedness of these Kenites?

Also, if Eve’s eating of the fruit meant that she had physical sexual relations with the Devil, then what about the fact that Adam also ate of the fruit (Genesis 3:6)? Does this mean that Adam engaged in physical homosexual relations with Satan? The passage also describes Adam as being present when Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. Does this mean that Adam stood by and witnessed Eve’s “encounter” with Satan?

The next section in In Answer to Critics is entitled “Exclusive Messenger.” PM denies ever claiming or even thinking himself to be “God’s exclusive messenger for this era.” This is good, but I would appreciate a clarification on this subject. Does the SC recognize as true Christians, those who do not agree with the teachings of the SC. In other words, is it necessary to accept the teachings and/or leadership of PM and the SC in order to be saved?

The final section in In Answer to Critics is entitled “Doctorate of Religious Education.” In this section PM says, “It is true that I have a policy of not publicly stating where I earned my doctorate. . .” So we can infer from this that PM does indeed have an “earned doctorate” and not an honorary degree, or no degree at all. Now I personally don’t think one is required to have formal credentials in order to have an effective ministry for the Lord. Such has often been the case, D. L. Moody being a prominent example. Nonetheless, it seems to me that by withholding the information about his educational background, PM is doing more damage to his ministry than being open and forthright would do. For example, why was PM willing to reveal his involvement in the military? Wasn’t he worried that critics would judge him by his association with the military? In other words, it seems inconsistent to reveal some information, and withhold other information. Certainly, there are some things that a man has a right to keep private, but his educational background is not usually one of them.

Dennis, I want to thank you again for taking the time to respond to this letter. It is my hope that it will help in clarifying the issues for all involved to the glory of God!

If you have any questions, you can contact me in the following ways. Our telephone number at Religion Analysis Service is 1-800-562-9153. Our e-mail address is: info@ras.org and our mailing address is: Religion Analysis Service, PO Box 22098, Robbinsdale MN 55422-0098.

God bless,

Steve Lagoon