Lakeland and Greasy Grace

Earlier this month, the editor of Charisma magazine J. Lee Grady published an article regarding the Lakeland saga titled The Tragic Scandal of Greasy Grace.  In it, he is critical of the quick remarriage of Todd Bentley so soon after his divorce, and especially the quick move to begin restoring Todd to ministry.

The term "greasy grace" is not new, but it was used by Peter Wagner in his first letter following the public announcement of Todd's separation from his wife.  Peter was one of the apostolic leaders who publicly laid hands on Todd in late June.  In that letter, Peter commends the apostolic leaders who were stepping in and removing Todd from his ministry leadership:

I am  delighted that they are not buying into typical charismatic soft morality, also called “greasy grace” or “don’t touch God’s anointed” or “mercy must triumph over judgment,” phrases that have been used on other similar occasions as convenient religious cop-out excuses. They’re proceeding in love, but it is tough love!

I don't know this, but Lee's title may be an intentional reference to Peter Wagner's use of that term, and thereby an implicit criticism that what is happening with Todd is exactly what Peter said was not happening.

What is Greasy Grace?

An understanding of greasy grace has to start with an understanding of grace.  

Grace is getting something good that you don't deserve.  It is unmerited favour.  In the context of Christianity, it is God allowing Jesus' death to be counted as punishment for our sins.  God's grace flows as a result of his love for us.

Grace is risky.  It means undeserving people get good things.  Most of us would prefer that good people get good consequences, and bad people get bad consequences.  That is justice.  God's grace says Jesus can take my bad consequences, and I can receive Jesus' good consequences instead.  Justice is served overall, but it wasn't justice for Jesus to be punished when he didn't sin, nor is it justice that I don't get punished for my own sin.  Grace is joining God's love with His necessity for justice.

When Christians confront someone who has sinned, we have the choice of being gracious like God has been gracious to us, or we can dispense justice.  Of all people, Christians should be the most gracious when it comes to dealing with sinners, but that's not always the case.  Throughout history Christians have been very effective and doling out punishments and dire consequences to fellow Christians who are caught trespassing in some way.

Greasy grace therefore is a negative term used by folks who feel someone has inappropriately slipped out of the consequences of their sinful deeds in the name of grace, or has benefited inappropriately from their sin.  Like Peter Wagner implies, greasy grace is the opposite of "tough love."  

Lee Grady describes what he means by this term:

Many Christians today have rejected biblical discipline and adopted a sweet, spineless love that cannot correct. Our grace is greasy. No matter what an offending brother does, we stroke him and pet him and nurse his wounds while we ignore the people he wounded. No matter how heinous his sin, we offer comforting platitudes because, after all, who are we to judge?

Therefore, Lee is suggesting that greasy grace involves forgiving and not disciplining the offender, while ignoring the pain of the victims of his sin.

Observation #1:  All Grace is Greasy

The more I think about grace, the more I am faced with this question:  Isn't all grace greasy?  Doesn't grace by definition mean that all Christians are getting away like bandits?  

Yes!  If we are receiving good things that we don't deserve, we are experiencing grace.  That ridiculous display of God's grace for us by sending Jesus is what is supposed to motivate us to love God in return.  Grace is really shocking when you think about it, especially when you start to dispense it to others.

It's either greasy grace or sticky justice.  I don't believe there can be such a thing as "sticky grace."

Observation #2:  Grace Does Not Ignore The Victims

Grace does not deny that people have been hurt by that sin, nor does it ignore them.  

Sometimes people think that if you forgive someone, you have to pretend the sin did not occur.  If you forgive them, you are saying there never really was any harm.  That is completely untrue.  Forgiveness simply means I give up my desire to seek revenge or punishment for that person.

We cannot be ungracious to people who have been wounded by a person's sin.  We must care for and stand with them as they attempt to process their pain and come to a place where they can offer forgiveness as well.  We must protect them if a risk exists of being wounded in the same way by the same person, such as in an abusive relationship.

Failure to support the victims of sin is not due to grace being offered to the sinner; it is just a failure to support the victims.  That failure is wrong, but it is a separate issue from how we deal with the sinner.  

However, we cannot become so consumed with a desire to restore a sinful leader that we overlook the victims.

Observation #3:  Grace Does Not Preclude Correction

Being gracious with a sinner means we choose to forgive and not punish them for the sake of punishing, but that does not mean we cannot bring discipline and correction to them.

In fact, Jesus gave us each the responsibility to make disciples (Matt. 28:19).  You cannot make a disciple (literally a "disciplined one") without bringing discipline.  So how could a Christian leader be restored without bringing discipline and correction?

Grace means we will correct a sinner in love; we will stand with them and not abandon them; we will not condemn them; we will help them face and deal with the consequences of their sin; we will help them see their error and learn to avoid it; we will make an environment where it is possible for them to be restored.

Final Thoughts

All of these things are really easy to write about in a blog.  They are much harder to live out, especially when you have been wounded by the sin.  Situations are complicated and God's wisdom is needed to know how to deal with the people involved.  But as Christians, we have no choice but to be gracious with sinners.  We have been the biggest recipients of God's grace, and we must dispense grace to others.

The Lakeland Outpouring: Pouring Out Some Thoughts

While I haven't particularly followed the so-called "Lakeland Outpouring" last year, recent developments have got me thinking about a number of related issues.

By way of background, in the spring of 2008, Ignited Church in Lakeland, Florida held some revival meetings led by Canadian Todd Bentley.   Supernatural healings started taking place, and people started coming from far and wide to experience it.  Some people went back home and experienced healings in their home churches.  However, Todd Bentley had a history of questionable theology and uncomfortable ministry practices, and when the Lakeland events were broadcast on GodTV, those issues suddenly became visible to many.  Some people began raising their concerns.

I found it fascinating how Christian bloggers quickly became polarized around Lakeland, either strongly supporting it as an evident move of God, or strongly opposed to the theological error and awkward practices being played out on stage.

In the summer, it was announced that Todd and his wife were separating and that Todd was no longer leading the Lakeland meetings.  The Outpouring quickly fizzled, and many bloggers were more than willing to add their "I told you so" to the chorus of commentators.

In March 2009, more details emerged.  Todd had divorced his wife and married the woman with whom he had been having an "inappropriate relationship" when his separation was announced last summer.  Further, he is beginning a "restoration process" led by Rick Joyner.  He is setting up a new charity in the U.S. (he was asked to step down from the Canadian charity he started 10 years ago) and Rick Joyner has begun putting out weekly update videos on Todd's progress.

Truth is stranger than fiction, and it would've been hard to script something fictional with as many plot twists, scandals, and surprises.  While I don't feel like adding my voice to the throngs who are taking sides in this battle, I do want to use it as an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of both the players and some commentators in this sad real-life story.  My next few blogs will try to tackle a few of these lessons.

Science vs Opinion

I read an interesting column today in The Globe and Mail by Andre Picard, entitled The Internet Has Changed The Nature Of Scientific Debate.

His main point is how responses to his columns about healthcare have changed over the years, particularly that "there no longer seems to be much place for civilized disagreement, honest scientific-based dissension, on differing analyses of agreed-upon facts."

Offering an argument based on facts has been replaced with personal attacks and a head-count of how many people agree on a given point. As Andre quotes Anatole France, "If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

There is a similar phenomenon happening with the global warming debate. It's not whether there are scientific facts that show greenhouse gases created by humans are the problem; it's about how many experts think that conclusion is likely correct. Scientific truth is now determined by a democratic vote among certain approved experts. If you disagree with the populist view, then you likely aren't qualified to vote.

Conspiracy theories and their adherents are growing substantially in our day. Lately I've been curious why that is. Andre suggests a lack of science literacy among the population, and I think he is right. If you have no capacity to evaluate statements based on objective evidence, you simply get to choose which expert you want to agree with. And it's always easiest to be on the side of the expert who already has the largest following.

But I think there is something more fundamental at work here than simply declining science education. I believe we are losing the desire to seek out truth itself. After all, that objective is at the very heart of the scientific method. There is truth and there is error, and the scientific method says both can be determined by an objective investigation of the facts.

Defining your own truth in your own world is much simpler than facing absolute truth. It allows you to form reality in your own image. And why wouldn't folks choose to have that kind of power?