Lakeland and Lying

A lot of uproar surrounding the Lakeland revival fiasco has focused on Todd Bentley's divorce and rapid remarriage. However, I'm surprised that his lying has garnered less attention. As far as I know, it has not been addressed by Rick Joyner at all. (Rick is leading the so-called restoration process for Todd.)

A Christian leader who cannot be consistently honest in his words surely does not deserve to be followed or trusted. As Jesus said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' (Matt. 5:37)

A couple example where I have found Todd Bentley was dishonest in his statements.

1) Overstating the Number of Healings

While I am convinced that God can heal people miraculously, it seems Todd overstated the number of healings that actually took place. Some people refuse to accept that anyone was healed at Lakeland, but I find that a difficult position to defend as one would have to follow up with every single person who claimed to have been healed. Proving an apparent healing did not occur miraculously as a result of prayer is just as difficult as proving that one did. Healing can be a subjective measure ("I feel less pain than before"), but even for healings that can be clinically confirmed ("The tumour has shrunk in size by 50%") it is still virtually impossible to determine what caused the healing. Was it last week's chemotherapy or this week's prayer that did it?

When ABC Nightline did their investigative report on Lakeland on July 9, 2008 (see Part 1, Part 2), they asked for contact information for just 3 people who claimed to be healed. Todd promised to do so, but could not. ABC could not confirm a single case of verifiable miraculous healing. Sometimes getting confirmation can be difficult because people (or their doctors) do not want to be thrown into the public eye, but surely 3 out of the alleged thousands of healed people would have been willing to come forward.

The most remarkable claims that Todd made was regarding resurrections -- dead people who were miraculously being raised to life. The counts kept increasing -- then decreasing -- then increasing. One supposed resurrection that Charisma magazine (which was largely supportive of the revival) mentioned in their article on May 22, 2008 was about a brain dead girl who came to life on the operating table just before having her organs harvested. The article concludes with the sentence, "The hospital denied the report." Why publicize it as a resurrection when there is clear evidence from the hospital contradicting that claim? Apparently a few days later, Todd publicly stated that the little girl had "died again" although if no resurrection ever took place, it would appear she had in fact only died once.

Robert Ricciardelli, a (now former) member of Peter Wagner's apostolic network and a contributor to Charisma magazine, began investigating these claims of healing as one who supported the revival. He started raising warning flags in July 2008. Andrew Strom has collected some of Robert's internet postings, a couple of which are presented below:

"Charisma reporters and a few others like myself have tried to get these [healing claims] verified and cannot... We actually had offered to help, because any news of a resurrection in my opinion is world news if it can be validated. But then when the totals continued to mount which led to hype and embellishment, they began to ask us to stop asking questions."

"We have investigated the 20 plus 'raised from the dead' claims as we want to report them to the media, and they cannot be verified, but were only called in, or sent in from an email. This is not responsible reporting, and leaves many questions, which also adds to the claims of hype and embellishment."

One email report of a resurrection that Todd read on live TV was admitted to be false by its author as an attempt to test the screening process for healing claims. It obviously proved to be a very good test of a very poor screening process! To my knowledge, the mistaken resurrection claim was never retracted by Todd.

2) Lying About When He Got His Tatoos

Todd's tatoos obviously attract a lot of attention to him, and I suspect that's why Todd has them in the first place. While I don't find tatoos attractive, I don't have a particular problem with them per se. What I do find disturbing is Todd's lies about when he got them.

In an article published by The Charlotte Observer, we get one version of the story: "He [Todd Bentley] said most of his tatoos are from his pre-Christian days, but he makes no apologies for them."

However, it is clear from photos taken only a few years ago (one example here) that there were no tatoos visible on his neck. Further, most of his tatoos have overt Christian themes. Why would a non-Christian teenager get tatoos like that?

On May 8, 2008, Todd wore a T-shirt on stage with the words, "Jesus Gave Me My Tatoos."

Lastly, Rick Joyner admitted that Todd had an unhealthy obsession with tatoos over the past few years.

It is clear that Todd got most of his tatoos recently but lied about it to the newspaper reporter.

There are other examples of Todd Bentley's mistruths, but they aren't necessary to make the point.

To my knowledge, Todd Bentley never corrected any of these lies nor repented of his lying, neither during the revival nor since he has begun his restoration process. Which begs the question: Why is an unrepentant liar being restored to Christian leadership?

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 3

In Part Two, I discussed the pros and cons of restoring a fallen Christian leader to their ministry. In this final post, I would like to return to the Lakeland situation and evaluate what has been happening with Todd Bentley's restoration. Regardless of whether you believe fallen leaders can be restored or not, there are some particular problems with this situation that need to be highlighted.

A Few Lessons from Todd Bentley's Restoration Process

1. Restoration Must Begin With Complete Removal From Ministry

Even though Todd immediately stopped leading his revival meetings in Florida, two things happened right after he moved to Rick Joyner's church to begin his restoration process: a) donations were invited for Todd's support; and b) it was announced a new charity would be set up for his new ministry.

Rick Joyner has since denied this implied that the outcome of this process was guaranteed. He said people were asking to donate money, and he was simply accomodating their request. As for setting up a charity at the beginning of this process, I don't believe Rick ever commented on that.

Todd now has an office at Rick's church and apparently is being supported by donations, even though he is doing no ministry work.

The restoration of a fallen leader must begin with a complete removal from church ministry. He must get a job and support his family with work outside of the church. There is no need for the church to support him (or private donors) because he is not doing any ministry in the church. Why should he be paid for not working in the church? Surely this is poor stewardship of church funds.

Further, there is no need for a new charity until the end of the restoration process because it is not known if it will be needed. By creating the new charity at the beginning, Rick effectively admitted the outcome of the process is guaranteed. Why go through the process then?

2. Restoration Does Not Begin When The Fallen Leader Decides It Should

Todd's apparent disappearance for approximately 8 months after his pending divorce became public is a big part of the problem. Where were his overseers during this time? Why was he allowed to quickly finalize his divorce and remarry before his restoration process began?

Rick Joyner has publicly said he should bear some of the blame for Todd's rapid remarriage, apparently by giving Todd some vague advice that was misinterpreted. If that's so, then Rick should be disqualified from leading Todd's restoration process. It was a failure in oversight over Todd that made this big problem even worse, and further eroded trust with the church.

Oversight should have happened immediately after Todd's divorce plans became public by trying to restore Todd's first marriage. It may not have prevented the divorce, but it was the logical first step.

By permitting Todd to determine when his restoration process began (i.e. after he moved to Rick Joyner's church), he got to lock in his divorce and his new marriage. Repentance has no consequences now. Nothing can be undone. Which leads to my final point ...

3. Repentance Is Not Just Saying "Sorry"

By locking in his divorce and remarriage, Todd gets to avoid undoing his sin. Repentance involves admitting one's sin, changing direction, and cleaning up the mess. Todd has confessed his errors, but how has he changed his direction? How has he cleaned up his mess?

Todd admitted his inappropriate "emotional" relationship with another woman, and dealt with it by divorcing his wife and marrying his new girlfriend. That doesn't sound like a change of direction to me. It sounds more like keeping the same direction and stepping on the gas.

Hypothetical story: A pastor confessed of defrauding his church of a huge amount of money, stepped down from his leadership role in the church, and disappeared for 8 months. Then he reappears again, says the money has now been spent and he's broke, but he's ready to repent. He's truly sorry, but it's no longer possible to return the stolen money because it's gone. Too bad, but that's just the way it is. Would you consider that repentance? Sounds more like opportunism. Let's finish enjoying the sin, and then we can enjoy the forgiveness.

Repentance is the fruit of a change of heart. Words can be empty; actions speak louder than words.

Todd Bentley and Rick Joyner have been shouting apologies, but Todd's actions have drowned out his words.

Lakeland and Restoration, Part 2

I want to continue on the topic of restoring a Christian leader to their ministry, as Rick Joyner is doing with Todd Bentley. (See Part 1 here.)

I closed the last post with the point that not everything gets restored after someone sins. The question for this post is:

Should a Christian leader's ministry be restored after moral failure?

I think there are only two possible answers to that question: Never, or Sometimes.

I don't think many would argue that a leader should always be restored, because at minimum it requires repentance, and not everyone repents. So it boils down to a question of restoration to church leadership being possible or impossible.

There is also an assumption of the seriousness of the sin. Obviously all Christian leaders sin to some degree, because no one leads a sinless life. What we are talking about is some kind of serious, moral failure that is blatantly inappropriate for a Christian leader.

Restoration: Never

One position is that a Christian leader is permanently disqualified from church leadership after falling into gross sin. John MacArthur is one prominent person in this camp. His argument is based on the following points:

• Disqualification in the character requirements of church leaders is permanent.
  For instance, John argues that one can never be "above reproach" (1 Tim. 3:2) after shattering one's reputation with sin. Therefore, one can never meet the qualifications to be a church leader again.
• Restoration to fellowship, not leadership.
  Forgiveness is offered for the sinner's return to fellowship with the church, but not for return to leadership in the church. Galatians 6:1 is not talking about restoring a person to leadership, but rather relationship. We need to help, encourage, exhort, support, and minister to the fallen leader, but we do not put them back in charge.
• Church health takes priority over the leader's expectations.
  By putting a fallen leader back in a position of leadership, John argues the reputation of the church is damaged. Further, the message is sent that sin is not serious and there are no long-term consequences from it. By preventing a fallen leader from returning to their former position, it shows both the world and the church that sin is serious and that it holds its leaders to a higher standard than the world does.

Restoration: Sometimes

Another position is that a Christian leader can be restored to public ministry, providing certain conditions are met. Rick Joyner obviously holds this position and feels that it applies to Todd Bentley. Leadership Journal featured a story in 2006 about a pastor who had an extramarital encounter and was eventually restored to a pastoral role in a different church. The frequent arugments for this position include:

• Christians must offer grace and forgiveness to everyone who sins, including leaders.
  Galatians 6:1 applies to everyone, including restoration of fallen leaders to their former roles once they have repented and addresssed their sin. If a leader disqualifies himself from leadership, he can requalify himself given sufficient time. Character failures can be mended.
• Restoring fallen leaders gives hope to others who have sinned.
  When a leader repents and is restored to leadership, it gives hope to others inside and outside the church who are in similar circumstances.
• Fallen leaders who are restored can relate well to others who have sinned.
  Because of their experience with the sin and their repentance, they can relate to others in serious sin and can provide practical guidance during their restoration process.

So Which Position Is Correct?

Unfortunately the New Testament does not include a story of a church leader who sinned, repented, and was either restored to leadership or prohibited from being restored to leadership. That would've made things much easier to discern.

I believe both of the above arguments have some degree of Biblical basis, but neither side can point to a clear passage or verse to justify their position entirely. There seems to be strengths and weaknesses in both camps.

Interestingly, I think both sides can cause harm to the church. There are instances where a fallen leader was restored to his position, bringing scorn on the church from the outside world and division inside the church between those who trust the leader and those who do not. There are also instances where a fallen leader is not given the option of returning to leadership, but is neither offered any forgiveness or fellowship in the church. Their options are to hide their history and find a different, unsuspecting church, or to give up on church altogether.

This is one key weakness of the "never restore" position: while in theory a fallen leader can be offered fellowship without leadership, in practice I think it seldom happens. People used to relating to a person as their leader have trouble relating to them as just another follower, just as the former leader must get used to relating to his former followers as peers. Further, if the church was severely wounded by the leader's sin, it takes a long time before fellowship can be freely offered again. Deep wounds are never healed quickly. Restoration to fellowship but not leadership seems to be a theoretical position more than a practical one.

On the other hand, arguing a fallen leader can relate to sinners better because of their sin turns Scripture on its head. If sin makes such a great qualification for a pastor, then seminaries should have adultery practicums, or fraud courses. Such a claim is ridiculous, as it disqualifies Jesus from leading his church. Hebrews 2:18 says that "Because he himself [Jesus] suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Sin is not required to relate well with sinners, just the temptation to sin. And everyone is well-qualified in the area of temptation.

It just shows how messy things get when leaders sin. The consequences are significant and complex, and the possible solutions to the problem are equally complex.

So how do we sort through the complexity? More to come in the next (and final) section.