As you know, I’ve been following the Todd Bentley fiasco and attempting to reconcile the fact that people may be healed and miracles may happen in his services. How can he be a false prophet, if there is positive fruit in his ministry?
One explanation is that God is endlessly compassionate and responds to the sincere faith of His children, even when they are receiving ministry from someone on whom God’s calling and gifting no longer rest, because they have disqualified themselves through immorality or false doctrine.
But I think there’s a better explanation for Todd Bentley. We know that miraculous signs, healings and even professions of faith are very poor indicators of whether someone is a true prophet, because Scripture predicts that in the last days false prophets will perform miracles and deceive even the children of God (Mark 13:22).
Therefore, is it possible that signs, miracles and healings in Bentley’s ministry are being performed by the enemy for the purpose of validating the bad doctrine and lifestyle of a false teacher, so that weak believers may think that God does not care about morality, truth or righteousness?
Satan’s ultimate goal is not the destruction of bodies, so allowing a healing or miracle here and there is no big deal to him. His targets are much larger: the supremacy of God’s word, the sanctity of marriage and family—the building blocks of the church itself and a reflection of God’s own Trinitarian nature. If he can give people the impression that God is not particularly concerned when a man cheats on his wife, leaves his children and marries his girlfriend, he will gladly risk people being saved, delivered and even healed through that man’s ministry.
My friend Rich passed on this fascinating article about a man who murdered a woman in cold blood in 1975, was converted in prison, served eight years of a sentence and now pastors an Assemblies of God megachurch in the Nashville area. Biblical accounts of redeemed murderers like Paul and David notwithstanding, here are a few of my questions about this story:
Just because Jesus says “case closed”, does this mean an offender no longer owes a debt before God to society or to his/her victims? A man may be forgiven by God for abandoning his wife and children and marrying his girlfriend, but he still must pay child support and alimony. A woman may be forgiven by God for driving the getaway car in a bank robbery that claims the life of a teller, but she will spend time in prison for colluding in the crime.
On the flip side, just because a court says “case closed,” does that mean the biblical demands of justice have been met? We must consider the possibility that God’s demands of justice may not be equivalent to that of our legal system, which often metes out justice based on money, class and race, with little regard for God. A court may have a statute of limitations on when a victim of rape may no longer accuse her attacker, but a rapist is still accountable to God for his actions. A court may call someone “married”, but this doesn’t necessarily make them wed in God’s sight, and a secular court’s writ of divorce does not mean the covenant a couple made before God is no longer in effect. While we’re on the topic, just because a court says a fetus is not a human being does not mean this is true.
I don’t think there’s any easy answer to these questions, except to say that the church often uncritically accepts our secular society’s views of justice and accountability without considering that God’s standards may be even higher. It is also true that biblical reconciliation, forgiveness and restoration are sometimes viewed as scandalously liberal from the viewpoint of modern society. Although biblical grace is radical in its demands both for the sinner and the victim, someone recently described the current Christian conception of grace as closer to someone robbing a bank, saying they’re sorry and getting to keep the money.
One ironic note on the Nashville story: Within his denomination’s restrictions (until they were changed several years ago), this pastor would have been unconditionally disqualified for ministry if he had divorced his wife and married another woman—instead of murdering someone—before becoming a believer.
The Gnostic: He possesses secret knowledge that God has supernaturally revealed to him because of his access to levels of spirituality unattainable to the common layperson. When he preaches, he prefaces his remarks with comments such as, “You’ve never heard this before, but …” or “The Lord revealed to me a new way of reading this passage …” His phraseology and convoluted explanations turn the simple complex as he transforms the plain teaching of scripture into mystical codes that may only be unlocked by one person: himself.
The Tycoon: He envisions the ministry as a bottomless source of personal enrichment, using his spiritual influence to sell products and build a business empire. The gospel—if it is ever preached—is subsumed under layers of business-speak and assurances that financial and professional advancement are the inevitable fruit of godliness. The tycoon fashions himself as the model of the benefits that come with following Jesus, but the only one reaping any benefits from his corrupt brand of religion is himself.
The Politician: Because his preaching is empty of any transformative power, the politician must resort to leveraging the forces of public policy to transform society. The pulpit becomes a mouthpiece for partisan invectives—both left and right—as the preacher seeks the affirmation and recognition of government leaders and policy makers. He envisions himself as a catalyst for cultural change, but ends up serving as a pawn in the hands of political opportunists looking to legitimize their self-serving agendas with his clerical endorsement.
The Moralist: His motives could not be more pure, as he strives to give you the tools to live a more productive, moral, unselfish life. His sermons are laced with nuggets of truth and maxims of self-improvement. From child-rearing and handling your finances to setting goals and getting along with your co-workers, the practicality of the moralist’s sermons is undeniable, but they are empty of the gospel. The moralist—whether the fundamentalist pulpit-pounder or the sensitive, liberal sociologist—is an expert in human nature, but ignores the only solution for transforming it.
The Comic: He genuinely believes that God is most glorified in you when you are most entertained by him. He can hold an audience in the palm of his hand with jokes about insightful babies and drunken Baptists. But these are merely a distraction from the real task that he cannot bring himself to perform: feeding his flock with solid meat.
“Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” – 1 Timothy 4:16
I was recently talking to a friend who is walking through some deep waters in his marriage and family. As we were unpacking some of the issues he is facing and I was recommending some resources for him, we became mutually aware of a disturbing reality.
He has been a believer for many years and has been a part of “gospel-preaching” churches—some that even add the word “full” to their gospel. He has heard multiple sermons on tithing, on the importance of bringing your family to church, getting involved in “ministry”, supporting the vision of the pastor. But he has never been exposed to any substantive, biblical teaching on the role of the father as a shepherd and pastor to his own family.
As the lights went on, my friend became angry, as he realized that many of the things he had been taught in church had not been for the purpose of empowering him to fulfill the primary role God had given him. Instead, he was being systematically programmed to orient his life and his family’s life to support and to become dependent on a religious institution and to subcontract his God-given responsibility to professional clergy.
Two types of people will one day be held accountable for this travesty: first, the pastors who encouraged it for the sake of increasing their egos and ensuring the security of their careers; and second, the lazy and cowardly fathers and husbands who farmed out their responsibilities.
There has been a lot of talk lately about the importance of the church “engaging” culture. So, I offer here a brief, but helpful, primer on three ways you can engage culture this week:
Mimic It. This can be very lucrative, since Christians would prefer their hard-earned dollars go to a fellow Christian, not funding someone’s porn or drinking habit. The goal is to stay hip, but also make a spiritual statement. T-shirts and mugs can really make someone think about the emptiness of their life without God. How can it be wrong, when the product we’re advertising is life changing?
“Find God” in It. You may be surprised to discover that God can be found in many books, movies, TV shows and songs created by people who hate Him. He’s tricky that way. To help you find Him, you will need a book or small-group study written by someone who is knowledgeable in these various cultural artifacts. It takes an expert, because sometimes He’s wearing a vampire cape, or short and green He is and reverses His grammar He does.
Hate. When all else fails, it is important to inform our fallen culture that it is in fact fallen. For instance, if—by holding signs at their funerals and “weddings”—we make sure homosexuals and other sinners know where they are going, it’s possible that they will stop doing those dirty things that God hates and He will like them as much as He likes us.
So, I overreacted in my post several months ago on leadership. Some readers a bit more discerning than myself pointed this out in conversations and comments, so I thought I’d revise the post. (Note, I’m not deleting it. This blog is a living record of my learning process.)
As it turns out, what I was reacting against was probably not real biblical leadership in the church, but “savage wolves” posing as shepherds. Of course, this should come as no surprise, since Paul warned that such thugs would rise up from within the church and ravage it. But the presence of wolves does not negate the need for shepherds—it reinforces it. [And, yes, Mr. Stanley. With all due respect, we should still call them "shepherds."]
Of course, what that leadership looks like is something unusual, countercultural and crucifying to the flesh. There is no model for true New Testament church leadership apart from that found in scripture. It is not found in the business world, in the military, in the classroom or even in the Old Testament religious structure.
I wrote, “The early church had essentially no authority but the Holy Spirit as he worked in the hearts of believers.” But, as friends pointed out, elders and deacons clearly had positions of authority and oversight in local fellowships, and bishops seemed to have responsibility over groups of congregations. While the ultimate accountability for spiritual growth lies in the hands of the individual, scripture does point to those who have been called to leadership in congregational life.
Note my emphasis of “congregational.” I still don’t see much biblical substantiation for modern denominational government beyond the local level—whether Protestant or Catholic—or the similar “apostolic” and “prophetic” spiritual pyramid schemes common in the independent charismatic/Pentecostal community.
But I’m open to change. Show me the scriptures, like you did last time …
Since when did the word “worship” become synonymous with the practice of singing and playing instruments during a congregational meeting? The biblical concept of worship is much broader—something far greater than the liturgical aspects of singing, playing instruments, etc. It encompasses one’s lifestyle, one’s orientation toward God, one’s work.
I recently saw the following video of a “worship leader” encouraging kids to remove their flip-flops and spin them around as a sign that they were on “holy ground.” There are not a lot of words, but the song is catchy and basically talks about God spinning us around like a record. It’s hypnotic and goes on for 10 minutes. Don’t worry. If you watch the first 2 minutes, you’ve heard the whole song.
So, imagine my surprise when I heard the “real” song a few days ago when I was at a water park with my kids. Luckily my kids were in the wave pool, so the lyrics were drowned out. The song euphemistically (yet repeatedly) describes a sex act. Sorry, there are some things you just can’t sanctify.
Recently, I was in a car with a few of my colleagues—all older and smarter than me—and I began making outrageous statements (as is my custom) to see if any of them would rise to the occasion and correct me as a young fool in need of some schooling. Unfortunately, no one took the bait. I’m not sure what that means, but I’m hoping that someone here will take the challenge and set me straight, if I’m in need of edjewkashun. Here are some bullet points of my thoughts on the topic of marriage and divorce—and its implications in the church:
Marriage is something that God (not a pastor or justice of the peace) performs (Genesis 2:22; Matthew 19:6). It occurs when God seals a man and woman into a life-long, covenant relationship with the community of faith as witnesses. Governments and religious bodies may or may not recognize this union and confer on it various legal privileges or responsibilities, but their recognition (or lack thereof) in no way legitimizes (or delegitimizes) the union.
Therefore, divorce among believers is not a legal issue, but an issue of “church discipline”, as it is a breaking of a covenant within the body of Christ (Matthew 18:15-17). Reconciliation, not legal dissolution, should be the first step of dealing with it. If an offended party refuses to reconcile, or an offending party refuses to repent, there would appear to be biblical substantiation for the church body to expel that person (or both) from the covenant community and for the faithful party to separate him/herself from his/her spouse indefinitely until the sinning party repents and is restored to fellowship.
Now, maybe these statements don’t seem that inflammatory or controversial, but consider the implications. I’m arguing that there is no biblical concept of “secular” marriage, since marriage is a covenant institution inextricably intertwined with its purpose as a reflection of the Trinity and the relationship of Christ and His church and as a means of advancing the gospel. Therefore, …
Are unbelievers really married? Apparently so, because Paul gives instructions to people who are married to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 7:14).
Do new believers, who were previously married, need to get “re-married” or affirm their covenant in the presence of the believing community?
Just because a couple is legally divorced, are they really divorced in God’s sight, if they have not gone through church discipline?
What would a church look like if it actually applied these principles? How long would it take before it was sued or the pastor “ridden out on a rail”? (Someone, please explain that euphemism, while you’re at it.)
On a personal note, I would like to take my Holy Ghost time machine back in church history and strangle the person whose idea it was to relinquish marriage into the hands of secular government.
One of the attributes of God is “independence”—not one that gets preached on too much, because it cuts across the grain of human arrogance with a vengeance. The implication of God’s independence is that He doesn’t need us, that we can neither add nor take away anything from His existence. Additionally, He can carry out His plan of global redemption independent of our involvement.
How does this relate to pastors having affairs?
Consider the Orlando pastor (and father of four) who carried on a 1-year-long affair with an exotic dancer, leading his wife to divorce him and start a church of her own down the road. After a three-month period of “counseling” he was back in the pulpit. You would think the “restoration” process away from church leadership would be at least as long as the affair that led to it.
Or what about the church planter who was removed from his position after being caught carrying on an illicit relationship with his married personal assistant? Now, 11 weeks later, he and his wife are divorcing (he also has small children), but a quick perusal of his Twitter feed would indicate that the primary thing on his mind is planting another church.
Many would assume that these pastors are simply power-hungry reprobates, but I have a different theory. When I read interviews with them and posts from their blogs, I think they actually believe they are indispensable to God—that the ministry they have been called to cannot be carried out without them. Simply put, God needs them. Their motives for returning to ministry are noble: They want to reach people for Jesus, and they see themselves as possessing a unique gift for doing this—sometimes even more so after they have fallen into sin. It is the activity surrounding this “indispensable” ministry for God that gives them fulfillment, because they are convinced that they play a crucial role in God’s Kingdom.
I think it is this demonic codependency that leads to many being “called” into pastoral ministry who belong in a different field, and it leads many to stay in ministry long past the time they have disqualified themselves.
“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.” – Acts 17:24-25
I’ve observed an interesting trend in at least three megachurches recently: the man who grew the church to “mega” status retires and appoints his son to replace him. All of the young men are in their late 20s or early 30s and served on staff at their fathers’ churches before being appointed senior pastor.
Only time will tell how this will work out, but consider that in all three instances the young men grew up in great wealth and privilege (think private jets and mansions) with the unique status of being a PK. They began preaching at an early age—often in their teens—attended Bible college or did an internship, and are now given leadership of congregations of thousands, huge staffs and budgets of tens of millions of dollars. In the process, associate pastors with greater maturity, education and experience have been passed over and are now their employees.
Am I the only one who sees a disaster in the making?
