Bethel: Jesus Cult or Jesus Culture?
(See part I and part II here and here)
The August 2019 edition of Premier Christianity magazine carried an article on the Brudehof Christian community. From the article alone one can be forgiven for assuming that Brudehof are just another Christian variant that can be placed in the mainstream. But anyone who understands the sectarian mind knows that Brudehof would likely vehemently reject this themselves; if my hunches about them are right then they would see the mainstream as at best a tainted compromised version of Christianity. In any case alarm bells should start to ring when one hears that the members of the group "share" their economic leverage; that is, all property and wealth rights are handed over to the trust of the group identity which in practice means that the (usually male) leadership hold all the economic cards. Moreover, more often than not we find that the leadership is in fact a headship, a headship which is all too ready to insist on their divinely bestowed right to rule and will no doubt very quickly turn to the NT passages on authority in order to justify their "covering authority".
The October edition of Premier Christianity carried a letter from an experienced cult watcher who took the magazine to task for letting Brudehof off the hook. The language of the letter was evidence that the letter writer had knowledge of cults and their ways and reflected my own concerns about what looks to be an exclusive community. But I'll give the author of the Christianity article the benefit of the doubt and allow that she may not have wanted to assume the role of a kiss and tell journalist. Nevertheless I feel there should have been some indication that all is not well with the Brudehof: They are a "nostalgia" sect who wish to return to what they fancy as "New Testament" purity: What that means in practice is removing arbitrariness from life as far as possible and giving it an unambiguous and secure shape by combing the Bible for the rules of life, rules that they believe are the key to good community, perhaps even a kind of heaven on Earth.
A similar situation arose in an interview with Bill Johnson the Bethel church-chain supremo, an interview which was published in the January 2015 edition of Christianity. The article makes very little mention of the controversy surrounding Bethel and one can be forgiven for thinking Johnson is a wonderful, wonderful prophet to whom we should all be avidly listening.The article tells how "God touched" Johnson at the Toronto Airport Fellowship, home of the notorious "Toronto blessing". The writer was clearly bowled over by Johnson and to all intents and purposes is one of his "converts".
Below I quote parts of the article and interleave my comments.
Below I quote parts of the article and interleave my comments.
***
Johnson and Bethel inevitably have critics outside the Charismatic church but also within the movement. Some UK charismatics are wary of Bethel because it teaches that it is God's will for everyone to be healed. ....at Harrogate leaders' conference....a church leader asked him 'What is your theology of suffering?' Johnson's response was as articulate as it was provocative: 'I don't have one . I refuse to have a theology for something that shouldn't exist' .... I was to learn much later that the provocation was deliberate and I'd rather missed Johnson's point. It was to get people to think .
MY COMMENT: The correspondent goes on to extol Johnson for his "Prophetic ability to provoke people to come to the Bible afresh and consider what it really says rather than simply accepting the received hermeneutic of a particular theological tradition.". As we saw in part 2 exactly the opposite is in fact the case: The ethos at Bethel favours a shutting down of thinking. In fact that's exactly what Johnson is trying to achieve here: Our world is full of strife, pain and evil and yet Johnson is telling us to forget the years of thoughtful faithful theodicy and just follow his "cease and desist" theology. As for "something that shouldn't exist"; that applies to the whole gamut of sin, evil and suffering. The irony is that this sin and suffering are precisely what Christianity targets with its message of salvation and new life; in fact one might argue that Christianity is nothing but a theology of suffering, sin and evil. Johnson's truculent response isn't especially wise as his naive correspondent thinks but rather is simply an excuse intended to deflect attention from the fact this "Yoda" like guru (See previous post) is simply in the same position as many of us humble mortals who find ourselves faced with a very similar conundrum; we simply don't have any adequate answers to the problem of suffering & evil. Johnson's pugnacious prosperity teaching is no answer to this age-old problem.
Interviewer: What exciting things do you see God doing at the moment?
Johnson: Anywhere I see hunger with humility I know break through is in the air. I've seen hunger in the UK for a long time, but just recently I've started to see a measure of humility that is at another level.
MY COMMENT: As a rule gurus and even more so their followers measure "humility" in terms of the susceptibility to the package they have on offer. These followers look at their movement and see how successful it has been in its take-up, not to mention those highly esteemed guru-leaders; naturally enough this impresses the rank-file to such an extent that anyone willing to so much as challenge this phenomenal group identity is regarded as out of their pecking order and thinking above their lowly status ranking in the social scheme of things. Therefore those less than amenable to the group's teaching will appear to be lacking in humility or even arrogant. I've seen other sect members use the term "teachable" of those who "humbly" (and gullibly) absorb their message.
Johnson: .....to cultivate humility we need to return to the simple things. Complicated Christianity only thrives where experience is required. Where we have arrogance this is often a product of ideas without experience.
MY COMMENT: By "experience" Johnson is probably referring to two categories: a) Inner light experiences such as the Toronto Blessing and b) Signs and Wonders such as the "glory cloud", "angel feathers", "gold dust and diamonds", healings, and resurrections. We heard about the glory cloud in part 2. This part is about Johnson's views on healing and in part 4 we will hear something about resurrection. For an explanation of the other signs and wonders see the panel below which I have scanned in from Premier Christianity.
VNP doesn't have any a prior problems with epiphanies ("encounters" is the current vogue term!) but it does have a problem if they are used as a gnostic-like initiation into an exclusive spiritual elite and/or take on bizarre outward manifestations such as laughing mania or barking whilst on all fours (as we saw with Toronto). No doubt some would-be super-spirituals regard such manifestations as the epitome of humble submission to God's will, but to me it smacks of spiritual manipulation by the gurus who promote them.
When Johnson contrasts "simple things" with what he calls "Complicated Christianity" he is in fact pushing for a "shut down" (see part II) of theodicy in favour of his own theology (which he denies exists! - see part II) and instead tries to get past us the affectation and disingenuous "I refuse to have a theology for something that shouldn't exist"; what he means is that we should all be healthy (and wealthy?) and we don't need any theology to justify it!
Interviewer: What exciting things do you see God doing at the moment?
Johnson: Anywhere I see hunger with humility I know break through is in the air. I've seen hunger in the UK for a long time, but just recently I've started to see a measure of humility that is at another level.
MY COMMENT: As a rule gurus and even more so their followers measure "humility" in terms of the susceptibility to the package they have on offer. These followers look at their movement and see how successful it has been in its take-up, not to mention those highly esteemed guru-leaders; naturally enough this impresses the rank-file to such an extent that anyone willing to so much as challenge this phenomenal group identity is regarded as out of their pecking order and thinking above their lowly status ranking in the social scheme of things. Therefore those less than amenable to the group's teaching will appear to be lacking in humility or even arrogant. I've seen other sect members use the term "teachable" of those who "humbly" (and gullibly) absorb their message.
Johnson: .....to cultivate humility we need to return to the simple things. Complicated Christianity only thrives where experience is required. Where we have arrogance this is often a product of ideas without experience.
MY COMMENT: By "experience" Johnson is probably referring to two categories: a) Inner light experiences such as the Toronto Blessing and b) Signs and Wonders such as the "glory cloud", "angel feathers", "gold dust and diamonds", healings, and resurrections. We heard about the glory cloud in part 2. This part is about Johnson's views on healing and in part 4 we will hear something about resurrection. For an explanation of the other signs and wonders see the panel below which I have scanned in from Premier Christianity.
VNP doesn't have any a prior problems with epiphanies ("encounters" is the current vogue term!) but it does have a problem if they are used as a gnostic-like initiation into an exclusive spiritual elite and/or take on bizarre outward manifestations such as laughing mania or barking whilst on all fours (as we saw with Toronto). No doubt some would-be super-spirituals regard such manifestations as the epitome of humble submission to God's will, but to me it smacks of spiritual manipulation by the gurus who promote them.
When Johnson contrasts "simple things" with what he calls "Complicated Christianity" he is in fact pushing for a "shut down" (see part II) of theodicy in favour of his own theology (which he denies exists! - see part II) and instead tries to get past us the affectation and disingenuous "I refuse to have a theology for something that shouldn't exist"; what he means is that we should all be healthy (and wealthy?) and we don't need any theology to justify it!
Interviewer: Some in the UK have hailed you as the 'new John Wimber'
Johnson: ...I had the same theology that he had...
MY COMMENT: No, Johnson you certainly don't have the same theology as Wimber! Wimber wasn't afraid of Christian scholarship and scholars, but Johnson looks to be subliminally diffident about both; after all they tend to generate a lot of "complicated Christianity"! I very much doubt that Wimber would have claimed he hadn't got a theology and then try to prevent its examination by denying its existence. Johnson is using Wimber's name to normalise his theology, a theology which he claims he doesn't have!
Interviewer: But you differ from Wimber.. He took the view that God can heal when he soveriegnly chooses; the now and not yet. Why do you believe it is always the will of God to heal?
Johnson: Jesus healed everyone who came to him. If I am using him as a model I can't lower the standard because I don't see everyone healed. (My emphasis) I can't make up a theological reason that he didn't demonstrate.
MY COMMENT: Congratulations to the interviewer! This is one of the few critically aware questions!.
If we analyse Johnson's response we find it empty of significant content: We all know that it is God's ultimate intention to remove sin and suffering but the question is over the long term plan. We all know that God doesn't always immediately ameliorate suffering and evil anymore than he immediately took away the cup of Jesus suffering in spite of Jesus prayer indicating that at one level he did not want this cup and asked his Father to deliver him from it (...but only if it was in his Father's permissive will). As I've emphasised in the quote above Johnson himself actually accepts that not everyone is healed. Big deal! The times I've heard that one! Further; we often can't find a theological reason for continued suffering, although we believe the Gospel will ultimately address this problem - in the long term. Johnson has told us nothing here that we do not already know and seek.
Johnson's motive, once again, looks to be that of wanting to close down thinking by placing a ban on thoughtful theology about the problem of suffering and evil. He then goes on to effectively build a straw man out of the rest of the church by insinuating that they don't accept the ultimate mystery of suffering and evil: But in fact I've been to many a discussion with thoughtful Christians who, although they may tender theological ideas as to why a sovereign God doesn't stop suffering and evil dead in its tracks, will nevertheless accept that in the final analysis there is an ulterior mystery here. After all, there is the scriptural mystery of why Jesus' cup of suffering wasn't removed as he prayed it would. There is an apparent disconnect between what God wants and what God allows. So in spite of what Jesus (God) wanted he didn't get what he wanted there and then. As we know all goal seeking beings have a hierarchy of goals: In this hierarchy short term goals are notorious for conflicting with long term goals; the conflict is resolved with a system of priorities ('Morality' is about managing this system of priorities). In fact in one sense it is perfectly correct for Bethel to "teach that it is God's will for everyone to be healed", but we know that this goal is modulated by deeper theological goals and priorities; things that perhaps we will not fully understand in this life.
But oh, the irony of it all! On the one hand Christianity is nothing but a theology of suffering and evil addressed via the incarnation, sacrifice and salvation and yet here is Johnson trying to pass off the notion that he doesn't have a theology of suffering! He can't be serious!
Interviewer: A big problem in this position is that it's pastorally untenable. What about when people don't get healed?
Johnson: You have to teach people to live with the mystery.... I can and do teach people to live in the grace of what we are experiencing, because all things work together for good. It doesn't mean all things were designed by God. Not all things that happen are God's will.
MY COMMENT: Once again Johnson is saying nothing startlingly original here. He alludes to the mystery of God's permissive will which Christians have acknowledged since time immemorial and he actually hints that the long term may trump the short term: Viz: all things work together for good. The fact is many Christians don't get healed and Johnson has really nothing new to say about it. Johnson is trying to make out he is saying something new and challenging but he really isn't.
Johnson: I won't change my theological standard of what to expect in life and I won't blame God, myself or the sick person. I'm, not going to say 'it's because you don't have faith' - that's not sound theologically....I'd rather teach people to expect the best and then learn to walk through the mystery.
MY COMMENT: So which is it to be? Are we to "expect" healing without qualification or accept the mystery of why healing doesn't always come as we may be led to "expect" and accept that this is neither our fault, the sick person's, nor God's? Clearly Johnson is so qualifying his "theological expectations" that they no longer become necessary expectations!
I think we are seeing once again a straw man being applied to people who in Johnson's opinion are "changing their theological standard" while at the same time he is actually saying nothing that vastly differs from the very common Christian view of suffering and evil: Viz: We all seek to ameliorate suffering as far as possible and take it to God in prayer and yet we all know that the persistent existence of suffering, given the absolute sovereignty of God, is an ulterior mystery; one can hear such in many a church discussion group and one doesn't need to go to this guru to hear it. Notice that Johnson has conceded the important pastoral point: Blaming persistent suffering on a lack of faith isn't sound theology as Johnson says. So Johnson does have a theology after all, the hypocrite! In the final analysis it is clear that not everyone is healed and Johnson realises that he has to accept this fact as a mystery without recrimination. Big deal Johnson, that's what we all have to face! So what's new? Authoritarianism, fideism, gnosticism, spiritual recriminations. spiritual bullying and bizarre signs and wonders is what's new! Actually, none of that is really new; plenty of highly sectarian groups major in these kinds of things.
Interviewer: ...some have said that it (Bethel) can appear to be soft on sin. When Todd Bentley (of the Lakeland revival) stepped down due to moral failure and then turned up at Bethel, he received a standing ovation.
Johnson: I won't make public my conversations with Todd so that people will think I'm hard on sin.
MY COMMENT: I'm sure an unwillingness to scald people is not one of Johnson's faults and that he undoubtedly gave Todd a good telling off! After all Johnson is very ready to publicly scald us for not humbly accepting his incoherent prosperity doctrine of "high health expectations" in the face of the acknowledged mystery of suffering and evil!
However, Todd Bentley's sexual sins are just a spicy distraction. Male leaders of the pack across all sorts of traditions often face and often succumb to consensual sexual temptation given their high "alpha male" status and especially so in patriarchal church organisations. Frankly I'm not interested (unless it becomes abuse). What is of far greater concern to me is Bentley's bizarre "ministry" and some of his theological claptrap. But I suspect it was Bentley's bizarre rallies which earned him his standing ovation at Bethel. I doubt Johnson scalded Bentley for his crackpot ministry because Johnson is going down a similar road. See below:
See here for further examples of "Johnsonease".
NEXT TIME:
If we analyse Johnson's response we find it empty of significant content: We all know that it is God's ultimate intention to remove sin and suffering but the question is over the long term plan. We all know that God doesn't always immediately ameliorate suffering and evil anymore than he immediately took away the cup of Jesus suffering in spite of Jesus prayer indicating that at one level he did not want this cup and asked his Father to deliver him from it (...but only if it was in his Father's permissive will). As I've emphasised in the quote above Johnson himself actually accepts that not everyone is healed. Big deal! The times I've heard that one! Further; we often can't find a theological reason for continued suffering, although we believe the Gospel will ultimately address this problem - in the long term. Johnson has told us nothing here that we do not already know and seek.
Johnson's motive, once again, looks to be that of wanting to close down thinking by placing a ban on thoughtful theology about the problem of suffering and evil. He then goes on to effectively build a straw man out of the rest of the church by insinuating that they don't accept the ultimate mystery of suffering and evil: But in fact I've been to many a discussion with thoughtful Christians who, although they may tender theological ideas as to why a sovereign God doesn't stop suffering and evil dead in its tracks, will nevertheless accept that in the final analysis there is an ulterior mystery here. After all, there is the scriptural mystery of why Jesus' cup of suffering wasn't removed as he prayed it would. There is an apparent disconnect between what God wants and what God allows. So in spite of what Jesus (God) wanted he didn't get what he wanted there and then. As we know all goal seeking beings have a hierarchy of goals: In this hierarchy short term goals are notorious for conflicting with long term goals; the conflict is resolved with a system of priorities ('Morality' is about managing this system of priorities). In fact in one sense it is perfectly correct for Bethel to "teach that it is God's will for everyone to be healed", but we know that this goal is modulated by deeper theological goals and priorities; things that perhaps we will not fully understand in this life.
But oh, the irony of it all! On the one hand Christianity is nothing but a theology of suffering and evil addressed via the incarnation, sacrifice and salvation and yet here is Johnson trying to pass off the notion that he doesn't have a theology of suffering! He can't be serious!
Interviewer: A big problem in this position is that it's pastorally untenable. What about when people don't get healed?
Johnson: You have to teach people to live with the mystery.... I can and do teach people to live in the grace of what we are experiencing, because all things work together for good. It doesn't mean all things were designed by God. Not all things that happen are God's will.
MY COMMENT: Once again Johnson is saying nothing startlingly original here. He alludes to the mystery of God's permissive will which Christians have acknowledged since time immemorial and he actually hints that the long term may trump the short term: Viz: all things work together for good. The fact is many Christians don't get healed and Johnson has really nothing new to say about it. Johnson is trying to make out he is saying something new and challenging but he really isn't.
Johnson: I won't change my theological standard of what to expect in life and I won't blame God, myself or the sick person. I'm, not going to say 'it's because you don't have faith' - that's not sound theologically....I'd rather teach people to expect the best and then learn to walk through the mystery.
MY COMMENT: So which is it to be? Are we to "expect" healing without qualification or accept the mystery of why healing doesn't always come as we may be led to "expect" and accept that this is neither our fault, the sick person's, nor God's? Clearly Johnson is so qualifying his "theological expectations" that they no longer become necessary expectations!
I think we are seeing once again a straw man being applied to people who in Johnson's opinion are "changing their theological standard" while at the same time he is actually saying nothing that vastly differs from the very common Christian view of suffering and evil: Viz: We all seek to ameliorate suffering as far as possible and take it to God in prayer and yet we all know that the persistent existence of suffering, given the absolute sovereignty of God, is an ulterior mystery; one can hear such in many a church discussion group and one doesn't need to go to this guru to hear it. Notice that Johnson has conceded the important pastoral point: Blaming persistent suffering on a lack of faith isn't sound theology as Johnson says. So Johnson does have a theology after all, the hypocrite! In the final analysis it is clear that not everyone is healed and Johnson realises that he has to accept this fact as a mystery without recrimination. Big deal Johnson, that's what we all have to face! So what's new? Authoritarianism, fideism, gnosticism, spiritual recriminations. spiritual bullying and bizarre signs and wonders is what's new! Actually, none of that is really new; plenty of highly sectarian groups major in these kinds of things.
Interviewer: ...some have said that it (Bethel) can appear to be soft on sin. When Todd Bentley (of the Lakeland revival) stepped down due to moral failure and then turned up at Bethel, he received a standing ovation.
Johnson: I won't make public my conversations with Todd so that people will think I'm hard on sin.
MY COMMENT: I'm sure an unwillingness to scald people is not one of Johnson's faults and that he undoubtedly gave Todd a good telling off! After all Johnson is very ready to publicly scald us for not humbly accepting his incoherent prosperity doctrine of "high health expectations" in the face of the acknowledged mystery of suffering and evil!
However, Todd Bentley's sexual sins are just a spicy distraction. Male leaders of the pack across all sorts of traditions often face and often succumb to consensual sexual temptation given their high "alpha male" status and especially so in patriarchal church organisations. Frankly I'm not interested (unless it becomes abuse). What is of far greater concern to me is Bentley's bizarre "ministry" and some of his theological claptrap. But I suspect it was Bentley's bizarre rallies which earned him his standing ovation at Bethel. I doubt Johnson scalded Bentley for his crackpot ministry because Johnson is going down a similar road. See below:
 |
| Inside Bethel's box of tricks (click to enlarge) |
NEXT TIME:
In the news recently is the tragic case of the death of the child of parents who attended Bethel, one of whom was a worship song writer. Bethel's very public prayers and expectation of the resurrection of the child did not have a happy ending. The story is here
https://www.faithwire.com/2019/12/30/bethel-church-holds-funeral-for-worship-leaders-daughter-after-praying-for-resurrection/
I have just discovered that this story is being told in the March edition of Premier Christianity. So, in part 4 I will look at this article.
I have just discovered that this story is being told in the March edition of Premier Christianity. So, in part 4 I will look at this article.
