Which evangelical watchdogs have formally accused high‑profile pastors of being false teachers, and what are their criteria?
Executive summary
Several self‑styled evangelical “watchdogs” and discernment ministries — including Justin Peters’ ministry, Michelle Lesley’s site, SO4J and compilations like GodWords — have publicly labeled prominent pastors as false teachers and maintained lists explaining why, while broadly conservative theologians and publishers (Crossway, New Growth Press, Monergism) have articulated the biblical criteria commonly used to make such judgments [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Major mainstream outlets or denominational judicatories issuing formal ecclesial censures are not documented in the provided material, and much of the action appears to be grassroots, online discernment work rather than formal institutional discipline [1] [2] [3].
1. Who calls whom a “false teacher” — the watchdogs on the record
Discernment ministries and bloggers are the most visible accusers in the supplied reporting: Justin Peters’ ministry has recently named TD Jakes, Todd Bentley and Joni Lamb among figures it deems problematic and urges exposure of deception [1]; Michelle Lesley maintains evidentiary findings and lists of “popular false teachers” used by concerned readers to evaluate authors and speakers [2]; SO4J runs a public “False Teachers List” that accuses prosperity‑gospel preachers such as Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn and others of teaching contrary to Scripture [3]; and sites like GodWords compile lists and critiques that include political alliances as reasons to distrust certain leaders [4]. These are ministries and independent websites rather than denominational courts or peer‑reviewed academic bodies [1] [2] [3] [4].
2. The stated criteria — doctrinal tests, ethical tests, and practical harms
Across the sources a pattern emerges: watchdogs apply both doctrinal and character/ethical criteria. Doctrinal red flags include denial or distortion of core gospel truths, added prophecy or extrabiblical claims (SO4J, GodWords, Crossway) and teaching “prosperity” doctrines that reframe God and human identity [3] [4] [5]. Ethical or behavioral criteria include exploitation for money, sexual abuse or cover‑ups, and leadership abuses that contradict Christian witness — Justin Peters cites scandals and abusive acts as reasons for vigilance, and Christianity Today warns that “false teachers Jude warns against” can deny Christ through behavior as much as through doctrine [1] [8]. Practical harms — exploiting followers, promoting sensational prophetic claims that fail, or cultivating power for self‑interest — are repeatedly used as disqualifiers [6] [9].
3. How conservative theology shapes the accusation list
The sources show that many watchdogs emerge from conservative evangelical convictions: they prioritize biblical inerrancy, apostolic doctrine, and a low tolerance for prosperity theology or New Apostolic Reformation tendencies [5] [3] [7]. That theological frame determines which teachings are labeled “false,” and it explains why figures who diverge or who ally politically with controversial movements attract scrutiny [4]. Critics within the evangelical world push back too: some commentators caution against careless labeling and urge clearer, biblically grounded criteria rather than partisan or ad hominem lists [10].
4. Methodology and transparency — strengths and limits of online watchdogging
Many critics publish specific alleged errors and supporting citations (Michelle Lesley’s evidentiary posts, SO4J’s prophecy tests, Justin Peters’ exposés) which can be useful for congregants seeking information [2] [3] [1]. Yet the reporting shows uneven standards: some lists mix doctrinal deviation with moral failure and even political association, and a number of warnings come from unaffiliated bloggers rather than adjudicating church bodies, which raises questions about due process, nuance, and potential bias [10] [4]. Major denominational discipline or formal ecclesial pronouncements are not documented in the provided set of sources.
5. What this means for readers trying to evaluate accusations
Evangelical discernment work today rests on two complementary tests reflected in the sources: the doctrinal/apostolic test (does teaching align with core gospel and Scripture?) and the character/fruit test (does the teacher’s life and practice embody the gospel?) [5] [8] [6]. Those who label high‑profile pastors “false teachers” in the cited material typically invoke one or both tests; readers should note the theological posture and institutional standing of the accuser, seek primary evidence cited by the watchdog, and recognize that independent lists rarely carry the weight of formal ecclesial discipline [1] [2] [3] [10].