Jude 3 Project

Yes. A Christian can be open to the gifts of the Spirit and still be committed to reason, evidence and sound doctrine. The real work is knowing what has the final word when the two seem to pull apart. This guide is built for that work. It sets the charismatic believer’s concerns beside the skeptic’s concerns, asks where each one is right, and gives you a practice for restating the other side fairly before you answer it. You can use it alone over two or three sittings, or with a group in about an hour.

The guide draws on a Jude 3 Project podcast conversation between Lisa Fields and Pastor John Daniels, who leads The Outpouring, a church in East Orlando. It helps to know what kind of conversation this is. It is not a debate between a charismatic and a cessationist. Both speakers come from charismatic backgrounds, and both went on to seminary. So the skeptical concerns and the charismatic concerns both come from inside the same two people. That makes them useful guides. Neither one is describing the other side from a distance.

Two suspicions, and why each was earned

Start by naming the suspicion each side carries. Getting these right matters more than getting to the answer quickly.

The skeptic’s suspicion is that charismatic practice, especially prophecy, slowly replaces the Bible. Lisa Fields voices this concern directly. She is careful to say it does not describe every charismatic church: “I know a lot of charismatic churches that don’t really have people prophesying at all.” But in circles where prophecy carries great weight, she argues, “the emphasis on prophecy becomes dangerous because a lot of times it overrides the authority of scripture.” Daniels adds a second concern, about who gets hurt. He observes that “people are more apt to believe something when it’s tied to their socioeconomic status.” Someone desperate for a turnaround will grab a promised breakthrough before checking it against Scripture.

The charismatic believer’s suspicion runs the other way. It says careful study cools faith down. The old saying Lisa raises in the conversation is that seminary is cemetery. Daniels has heard it “a thousand times.” This suspicion is often dismissed as anti-intellectualism, but Lisa offers a historical explanation worth weighing. In her account, Black students were long kept out of conservative seminaries. The alternatives were often mainline schools where, as she describes it, the orthodoxy could be lost. If that is the history someone inherited, distrust of seminary is a reasonable conclusion drawn from real cases. It is not laziness.

There is a second charismatic complaint too: outsiders judge the whole movement by its loudest examples. Daniels describes seeing a viral video of two prominent charismatic figures explaining why their ministries needed a jet. He does not defend it. He simply notes, “I can see where the opinion can be formed, that that is all that the charismatic movement is about.” Lisa adds that “people usually post negative, they post the negatives more than they do the positive.”

Pause here. Before going on, write one sentence that states the skeptic’s concern in words a skeptic would accept. Then write one for the charismatic concern. If you are in a group, read a few aloud and ask the person who leans the other way whether they recognize their own view.

A passage that holds both commitments

Read 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 slowly: “Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” This is a short run of commands in a letter to a young church. The genre matters. These are instructions, not a description of what one congregation happened to do.

Try three observations before you interpret anything:

Which commands guard against the skeptic’s fear, and which guard against the charismatic believer’s fear?
What is the object of “prove”? Is it only prophecy, or “all things”?
What happens to the passage if you keep two of the commands and drop the other two?

Then read 1 Corinthians 14:29: “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.” In Corinth, where the gifts were plainly active, speaking and weighing happened in the same gathering. Paul does not treat testing as an insult to the gift.

Be honest about what these passages do not settle. Faithful Christians disagree about whether gifts such as prophecy continue today, and Jude 3 Project treats spiritual gifts and how they operate as an open-handed question. A cessationist reader will usually argue that these instructions applied to the apostolic era, before the New Testament was complete. A continuationist reader will take them as instructions for the church now. Both can agree on what the passages say about authority. Whatever was spoken in Thessalonica or Corinth was weighed against something outside itself. Jude 3 Project teaches that Scripture is the inspired, authoritative Word of God and the final standard for faith and practice. Both readings can stand under that conviction.

Where each concern holds up

Once the two concerns are laid side by side, they turn out to be about different things. That is why they can both be right.

The skeptic is right about authority. Both speakers grant this without hedging. Daniels draws the line where “the prophetic goes off the rail of scripture” and moves into claimed revelations nobody tests. Lisa Fields gives the rule plainly: “what’s in his word supersedes what you thought you heard.” She also explains why feelings cannot settle it: “you could think you hear a lot of things when you are high on emotion.” The skeptic is right about vulnerable people as well. Daniels’s warning about words tied to money is a warning about who pays when the word fails.

The charismatic believer is right about caricature and about history. Judging a movement by its viral clips is bad reasoning, and both speakers say so. Daniels also offers his own experience against the cemetery fear. He says his “true salvation experience personally came within a charismatic church,” and that later “my conviction for the word of God was strengthened in seminary more than anything.” One person’s story does not prove a rule. It does show that the two inheritances can live in the same believer, which is all the charismatic believer needs to show to answer the claim that they cannot.

Where the two actually converge. Neither speaker denies that God can speak. Daniels says, “I’m not saying that someone can’t give you a word that is accurate or that can warn you of something that has to come.” Lisa Fields describes a word she doubted that came true about two weeks later, and others that never came true. Her test is simple: “if it’s true, it’ll come to pass. If not, it won’t.” Then she adds the part that carries the weight: “keep your hope rooted in the authority of scripture.” So the shared ground is this. A spoken word, if God gives one, never outranks the written one.

Where they still divide. The remaining question is not whether Scripture rules. It is whether, and how often, God gives such words today, and how a church should handle them. The podcast does not resolve that, and it does not need to. Naming it precisely keeps you from turning an argument about gifts into an argument about the Bible’s authority, or the reverse.

A practice: restate before you respond

The most useful skill in this kind of disagreement is restating the other person’s view so well that they would sign their name to it. Try this exercise over one week, or in a single group session.

Write the strongest case for the side you lean against. Use three or four sentences. Include its best evidence, not its worst example. If you lean charismatic, write the skeptic’s case using 1 Corinthians 14:29 and Daniels’s point about desperation. If you lean skeptical, write the charismatic case using 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 and the history behind the cemetery saying.
Test it with someone who holds that view. Ask them, Did I get this right? What did I leave out? Revise until they agree. In a group, pair people who lean in opposite directions and have each read the other’s draft.
Find the shared premise. Underline one sentence both sides would affirm. Daniels’s statement that “we have to really study and know the Bible for ourselves so that we don’t fall victim to emotionalism” is a good candidate to check against.
Name the exact question that divides you. Write it as one question. Then write what kind of evidence from Scripture would move you on it.

For facilitators: watch for drafts that quietly weaken the other side, such as a skeptic’s version of charismatic faith that is only about emotion, or a charismatic version of skepticism that is only about pride. Gently ask the writer to try again. The goal is not agreement by the end of the session. The goal is that each person can describe the other’s view accurately.

How to have the conversation without losing the person

The last part of the podcast turns from what is true to how to say it, and it is easy to skip. Lisa addresses listeners who look down on charismatic believers. She warns that you will not be heard “if all you do on social media all the time is throw stones at them.” She explains why pastors in particular are off limits as a first move. In many Black churches, she notes, a pastor has been present at doctor’s appointments and at funerals, filling a role an absent father did not. In her words, “attacking their leadership and saying, let me correct him, is the worst way to go.”

Daniels presses on motive. He does not assume bad faith in the people he disagrees with: “Sometimes I think it just comes from a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge of the scriptures.” Then he asks the question anyone tempted to post a public takedown should ask: “Is your motives just to blast this person? Or is your motive to win your brother?” He prefers going privately first. He also holds that “our approach is just as important as the information that we approach them with.”

Lisa Fields points to Paul and the church in Corinth. In 2 Corinthians 7:9 Paul writes, “Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance.” His letter was hard, and he did not apologize for it. The point Lisa Fields draws is that Paul stayed. Speaking the truth in love, she argues, is not mainly about a gentle tone: “It’s about being committed to the process of the person.” This applies in both directions. The charismatic believer who dismisses careful study owes the same patience to the skeptic.

Questions for discussion

Which suspicion did you bring into this guide, the skeptic’s or the charismatic believer’s? Where did you first pick it up: from Scripture, from experience, or from what you have seen online?
Lisa’s test is that a true word will come to pass. Is fulfillment enough to show a word came from God? What else would you want to check, and where in Scripture would you look?
Daniels connects belief in prophetic promises to financial desperation. What would it look like for a church to take that seriously without becoming cold toward people in hardship?
Read 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 again. Which of the four commands does your own church, or your own habit, tend to neglect?
Does the history Lisa gives behind the cemetery saying change how you hear charismatic believers who distrust seminary? What would it take to rebuild that trust?
Think of someone whose teaching you believe is off. Using the speakers’ counsel, what would a first private conversation with them sound like? What would make you stay after it went badly?