I find it interesting that the same people who would probably question the authority of the Pope have set up for themselves authority structures that rival the Catholic Church—and are often just as lacking in accountability. Lately, this crowd has been castigating Charisma editor Lee Grady for questioning the "restoration" process of evangelist Todd Bentley.
Bentley left his wife and children last August amid admissions of alcohol abuse and infidelity, married the family's nanny and is now on his way to reentering ministry under the restoration of prophetic minister Rick Joyner and associates. Lee questioned the speed and effectiveness of Bentley's restoration, calling it "greasy grace" in one of his columns. Joyner fired back in an online video, suggesting that Lee was pharisaical and questioning what ministry a "journalist" like Lee had ever built that would give him the legitimacy to criticize Joyner.
Joyner's defense consistently returned to the issue of authority—who has authority to correct, who has authority to restore, who has authority to question authority, etc. According to Joyner, only those who have big ministries and a following should have a voice in these matters--they've earned the right to speak. For Joyner, it is the clerical elite--although he calls them elders, apostles, prophets, etc.--who are in charge of the church.
I used to almost agree with this premise--that there were authorities in the church who had to be obeyed--pastors, teachers, other leaders. Now, I don't. My study of the New Testament has led me to believe that the early church had essentially no authority but the Holy Spirit as he worked in the hearts of believers. The church was flat--in contrast to the hierarchical pagan religions of the Near East at that time, and in contrast to the church as it developed in later centuries. Paul advocated mutual submission, James called for corporate correction of the erring, and for Peter it was Jesus, no mere man, who was the head of the church.
How far we've come. Now, I hear pastors instruct their sheep to faithfully attend each service, to be sure to tithe, not to question the man with the vision. I dread to think that when Jesus returns it may be to rescue his Bride from the rapacious businessmen and hirelings who have usurped His position as head of the household.
[[UPDATE: For my revised perspective on this topic, click here.]]
15 comments:
Them's fightin' words! Mind you, I commend you for your courage to speak the truth, and I agree with you. I tend to think that anyone with too big a ministry is cause for skepticism. Jesus said to make disciples. That means disciples who follow HIM, not some mere man. If someone has too many followers, it is likely they are not actually following Jesus. Let's all keep each other accountable.
Wow, Matt, I agree with Paul. You don't bite on the "small" hooks, do you? :-D
I have watched with much skepticism the "new" hierarchy of Apostles, Prophets...etc...that has created the "new in-crowd" for authority in the church. In the end, it *will* be the body who will decide on Todd's proper place, not Joyner. The sad thing is that many will be deluded along the way. :-(
Glad you're back!
Greg
Matt,
I do tend to see that there is much said to keep things at a local level. I do think that you have in Acts the convening of a council to answer the "tough" questions of the day. The Jerusalem council seemed to be a constructed "higher authority." How does this fit in with local authority?
Shaun,
Good point raised. The issue with the Jerusalem Council was that it was a "council". Leadership was distributed among many people. Although some seemed to possess more influence, because of their association with Jesus, anyone had the right to question or raise concerns. Of course, this also brings up the difference between "authority" and "leadership", which I should have made more clear in my rant. Leadership is more about influence. I choose to be influenced by whomever I want. I don't have as much say over who has authority over me. Church leaders nowadays talk about leadership, but it's really authority they want because they don't have real influence (except over a gullible few) or their ideas aren't worth following.
Thanks for reading, gents.
Matt
Are you suggesting that we are to move to the local body being elder lead by a group of elders? :)
Matt, there may be some hair splitting here. True, people were allowed to speak, yet the apostles did hold to some type of authority. When Peter spoke, he was listened to and respected. Why, because of his leadership or because he was one of the twelve?
Did not Paul mention that the prophets and apostles were the foundation along with Christ being the cornerstone?
Is there authority in the church? I agree that authority has been abused but just having influence seems too nuanced from what Paul talks about. Did Timothy or Titus have authority or influence? Why did they get to chose elders and not the churches?
Shaun
What about Paul in his letter to the Corinthians in which he says, "Expel the immoral brother,"?
In regards to the last paragraph you wrote, this is more of a anti-Socratic approach to things, "I don't want to be challenged because I am afraid. I am not really interested in a quest for knowledge and truth." This is usually a hard one for many I think especially those who don't not have a quest to really better themselves or are just as equally afraid of pressing their "vision" to the ultimate of issues, sacrae scripturae.
On a practical note, I had a two board members admit to being involved with pornography, so was I wrong when I told them that they were dismissed from being board members? Because clearly I was doing so as the authority of the church.
Finally matt, you have encouraged me to reopen my website and start blogging myself. Thanks!
You guys just keep making good points that will eventually help me refine my views on this.
Shaun, I see what you're saying about Timothy and Titus, but it also seems that their authority wes temporary, as local structures were being put in place.
Andy, your dismissal of erring board members was an action most likely delegated to you by the members of the church through the church's bylaws, but you make a good point.
I'm not so much reacting against the responsibility for occasional pastoral correction that is vested in the shepherd, as much as I'm railing against the ridiculous language I keep hearing about the need for church members to get on board with the "vision of the house" as it is carried out by the senior pastor--no questions asked.
One pastor here in Orlando recently castigated his congregation from his plexiglass pulpit for having Bible studies and small groups not sanctioned by the church leadership. "If you can't get on board with my vision and the vision of this house, to hell with you," he said. And what do you know? The folding theater seats of that church were just as full the next week. What a sad bunch of helpless sheeple.
I think the point that we're all missing is the fact that there was a definite difference in the role of prophets of the Bible than these new "prophetic pastors" who go on drinking binges and leave their wives...
The problem with "big ministries" is that they're all about the authority that comes from themselves through the facade of being a minister. Todd Bentley is not the first of his kind, and will not be the last. I'm not necessarily saying that he's a false prophet, as mentioned in the Bible who will lead many astray, and judgment is in the hands of Jesus, but let's be honest here.
His "revival" was shrouded in secrecy and lies and was pretty much proved to be a fake. Then this "leader" left in disgrace... Prophets are living messages of God's promises and their lives are the message, not just what they say or do on television. But, then again, maybe he's just like Hosea...
As for this "ruling body" that's coming up from the famous televangelists, I don't think it has anything to do with anything. You're right, authority only comes from what people give them. It's sad, but people follow these kinds of people. No matter what they do or say. Its one of the main reasons that Christians get lumped together as blind followers and sheep.
If you don't like the "authority" and "leadership" then keep writing about it. A kingdom makes a king.
I have another one for you Matt. What about Matthew 18, where the body can make a determination to treat someone like a tax collector. Especially important in that passage is when Jesus makes the statement, "bind on earth bound in heaven, loosed on earth loosed in heaven."
In regards to the other pastor, I don't wonder if the root of where you are coming from isn't found in the weakness of the pastor. Obviously that pastor had some serious inner-security issues, but there has to be something said for pastoral authority.
Boards are notorious now days for micro-managing pastors with some degree to the fault of previous pastors. There has to be a happy medium. Maybe the real problem, and I have thought about this for a while, is the American desire for representation and running things like a business is at the root of it all.
Another thought I have in regards to all of this has something that lies even deeper in the psyche of the American Evangelical which is we all too often see the Bible from that lens, being American 21st century Evangelicals. If it doesn't fit into where we are now, then it all must have been wrong to begin with.
Your blog has brought up some thoughts that I have been having recently on another subject closely related to what has been said here. Years ago, when Jimmy Swaggert was a part of the AG and was one of its executive presbyters, he came up with a rule that essentially says that a minister who gets caught in a sexual sin should be removed from ministry for two years. But why? What is so perfect and round about the number two, that we say that is the right and correct amount of time a minister should be out of ministry?
To me it is a bit of a double standards because if a Royal Ranger commander was caught cheating on his wife, he might be asked to step back for a while, but if he got his marriage together over the next nine months they would let him be a Royal Ranger commander again.
We falsely make the statement that all sin is the same because if it was all the same we would treat it all the same (secondly, Biblically speaking though all sin will put you at enmity with God, not all sin is seen the same). If all sin is the same, then all sin should receive the same amount of forgiveness, correct? If a Royal Ranger commander can be allowed back into ministry, shouldn’t a pastor be allowed back in the same nine months if he has done the equal to the commander?
What has happened to the restoring of the brother when he asks for forgiveness? To put it plainly, when a pastor sins like that his career is all but gone, especially after two years. If an AG pastor sins, others will know because how many do you know that are back in ministry? I’m sure this moves beyond the AG and I’m sure the double standard exists in all other denominations.
The double standard exists so profoundly that if you are a famous minister you can get away with a little more than others, just ask Rick Warren. Just a few thoughts.
Good points - I find myself very concerned with Todd's speedy restoration process. What could have been a good and beneficial thing seems to be degenerating into a weekly defense of Todd's pre-fall actions. This could be even more damaging to Todd than divorce and alchohol was - that is for him to feel unquestionable and above scrutiny. Frightening . . . we need to pray.
The big difference between the Catholic church and the charismatic church is that the Catholic church only has one pope (sorry for the sarcasm;-)
Good book on the subject of authority and accountability is: http://tinyurl.com/kurwpb
This book honestly puts things in perspective. Authority comes and is limited by function and not by position over a group of people.
Great points Matt. The model Jesus presents regarding servant leadership (washing each other's feet) is in stark contrast to some of the model's presented by some of today's ministries.
[...] I overreacted in my post several months ago on leadership. Some readers a bit more discerning than myself pointed this out [...]
very good...
[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]...
Post a Comment