Henry Neufeld has written this very sensible advice as the conclusion of a thoughtful post addressed to anyone unsure about Todd Bentley and the Lakeland outpouring, or any similar movement:
My intention here is to make it clear that caution should not become avoidance. One can miss a great deal spiritually by refusing to experience some new thing. For some reason, when people do things that appear foolish at a ball game or a concert, we think it’s funny; when people do something similar in church we regard it as dangerous. …
My suggestion is to change the motto “Danger, Will Robinson!” to “Check it out!” See what happens!
I must admit, Peter, that I’ve never understood this type of reasoning. Why is there an obligation to give something the benefit of the doubt, or to “check it out”.
I can’t imagine saying to my kids, “I’m not quite sure if it’s a ravine on the other side of those bushes, but go and check it out.”
That’s not to say that an individual is wrong to decide to investigate things further, in the spirit of the Bereans. Yet, it just seems an unwarranted assumption that this should be our apriori position.
Thanks for the link, Peter. I was thinking of publishing that directly on Threads to keep it with the rest of my writing on the topic, but the Pacesetters newsletter addresses a particular constituency.
Graham: I’m really not sure how to process this:
To continue my robot analogy, it reminds me of those science fiction movies in which a robot kind of implodes when presented with something outside its programmed frame of reference. It sounds to me like you’re saying, “It’s good to check it out, but don’t make “check it out” your a priori position.” Ignoring some problems I have with “a priori” in that context–we are, after all, not talking about a conclusion, but a desire to investigate–it seems that you’re saying, check it out, but there are some things it is not good to check out. How do you know which is which if you don’t check?
While I personally have some theological differences with what I tentatively, and I repeat tentatively, understand to be Lakeland positions, I have to say that much of the criticism I read seems either ill-informed or off point. I’m refraining from drawing conclusions because I haven’t been there, even though I’ve talked with people I trust who have been there. We seem to have people jumping one way or the other with only the very minimum of information.
Henry, thanks for answering Graham, better than I could have done. My main issue is with people who condemn based on lack of information, or on second hand information or just a few old and carefully edited video clips. These are the people who especially need to check it out, before speaking abusively against what they do not understand – Jude 10.
If you know there is a ravine the other side of the bush, of course don’t let your children play there. But first look for yourself if there really is a ravine before warning everyone to keep clear. Of course check it out with your eyes open, so you don’t fall in. But don’t spread possibly false stories about a ravine you have not even seen.
‘If you know there is a ravine the other side of the bush, of course don’t let your children play there. But first look for yourself if there really is a ravine before warning everyone to keep clear.’
Thanks for the response, Peter. Actually, in the analogy, I didn’t know if there was a ravine or not and based on this post it seemed that I should presume there wasn’t. My question was, why? Why is ‘investigate’ supposed to be our default response? How about we just keep walking down the road?
Hi Henry,
I’m not sure what in particular you are having trouble processing. Clearly, I’m not suggesting that no one should ever check out anything new to them. However, when there is possible cause for concern – which seemed to be the context you were speaking of (‘caution’) – then there is no reason why “Check it out!” should be our response. In fact, I just don’t understand that as a default position or see it as workable.
<blockquote’How do you know which is which if you don’t check?’
It’s a good question and one which is surprisingly not being discussed that much. (Where’s Jonathan Edwards when you need him?!) Don’t we all have filters that we feed these things through before we check? Isn’t that how a robot in a decent sci-fi movie would actually respond? So, I don’t you went running-off to the local Mormon Temple when you heard that healings were taking place. And I didn’t go along to the Spiritualist Church when people talk me of genuine healings taking place – because they ticked enough ‘Cause for Concern’ boxes.
Now, you and I may have different criteria alongside our boxes, but I think it can be irresponsible to suggest that the default response should be ‘investigate’ rather than ‘evaluate’. I just don’t understand that positon of Peter and other pro-Lakeland folks that suggests we should probably be for it. How about: this kind of thing is rare in Christian history, seems to be tied in with questionnable doctrine at the core, is promoted and rooted in a money-machine model of Church and ministry… so therefore it’s wisest to keep one ear to the ground but otherwise keep our distance.
Graham, of course if you have no need to investigate the ravine, you may stick to the road. But if there is something greatly to your advantage behind the bushes, then you would be stupid not to check it out just because of rumours of a ravine. And if there is something there greatly to others’ advantage, even of life-changing importance, it would be irresponsible of you to tell those others not to go there because of the ravine unless you had some real evidence that it existed.
As for your last points: healing linked with evangelism is not that rare; there is nothing really questionable about the doctrine, just some criticism based on ignorance; and your “money-machine model” point is a libellous slur. To balance this, lives are being changed for the better at Lakeland, people are being healed, being saved, and being empowered to bring healing and salvation to others worldwide – at least those are the claims. So there is a large potential benefit. I accept that there is also some cause for concern. But, as with the ravine, where there is a large benefit promised and no confirmed danger, it is surely sensible, although not mandatory, to carefully check it out.
Peter, I think you’ve misread my tone and thus responded in like-manner. I’m not ignorant of what is taking place; I just share a different perspective to you.
Would you not describe the Word of Faith movement as a “money-machine model”? I was there clearly referring to the *root* of this movement, not necessarilly its current public face. So let’s not throw around phrases like ‘libellous slur’.
I wasn’t claiming that ‘healing linked with evangelism’ was rare. I’m far from anti-charismatic and would guess that my missionary experience and church planting and leadership suggests that I’ve seen more healing linked with evangelism than most folks. I was referring to the events that are taking place – “Revival” itself, if you will.
And of course there are questionnable doctrines! Just because you’re not asking questions, it doesn’t mean that many others aren’t.
If you’ve decided that you’re pro this thing, then that’s great. However, I have to confess to being pretty fed-up with hearing implied claims that those of us who aren’t, are somehow lacking in passion or faith and less interested in seeing people’s lives changed. Believe it or not, some of us who are not into this are against it for pretty much the same reasons that you’re for it.
Well, Graham, I’m not sure whether Todd Bentley in fact has roots in the Word of Faith movement. But he certainly isn’t practising any “money-machine model”. So I don’t think it is fair to link him to this model.
Every doctrine is “questionable” in the sense that some people are asking questions about it. Yes, every doctrine! So if your word “questionable” is intended to have any meaning, what is that meaning?
What I am fed up with is people attacking this movement for its alleged associations and by using pejorative words of it with no evidence to back them up.
Again, I didn’t say Todd has roots in the Word of Faith movement. I said that this current movement – and what is happening in Lakeland – does. That’s not an allegation, it’s a simple fact that Bentley gladly admits.
Again, I didn’t say that Todd was practising any “money-machine model”. What I did say was very clear – as is the link.
The idea that we can financially sow into a revival is questionable. The idea that there is a female angel called “Emma” is questionable. The idea that he is healing thanks to William Branham’s angel is questionable. (William Branham?! How’s that for an alleged association?) The idea of an end times “Joel’s Army” is questionabe. Todd saying, “I’m not a man because I’m under the anointing” is questionnable. Saying that “we do not have to age” is questionable. The idea that there are angels in heaven “assigned to get me money and wealth” – who intercede on our behalf! – is questionable. The Manifest Sons of God doctrine is questionable.
It’s irrelevant whether Todd can then justify some of these doctrines, as he he sought to do recently with “Emma”. They are enough to raise eyebrows and would meet most definitions of “questionable”, even if later shown to be defensible. What’s your definition?
And can I suggest that if you’re really unaware of the evidence for these claims, then perhaps it is you – not the critics – who is speaking from a place of ignorance?
However, we don’t seem to capable of discussing this with anything close to objectivity, or without getting the wrong end of each other’s sticks, so I’ll leave it there.
Bless you.
Graham, the Church of England of which I am a member has its roots in the Roman Catholic Church, but that does not make me personally guilty of any abuses of the mediaeval or modern RCC. And I would consider it offensive if you, for example, accused me of having roots in the “money-machine model” of indulgence selling as I have rejected that abuse. Similarly, if Todd has rejected the abuses of the supposed “money-machine model” of Word of Faith, it is offensive to continue to tar him with that brush.
Graham, the idea that there is a God is questionable, in that there are plenty of people questioning it. By your logic I should avoid attending any church which holds to this questionable doctrine. Yes, some people question many of Todd’s teachings. Some of those teachings, perhaps, for good reason, as there is not one preacher or pastor in the world whose teaching is perfect. Others of those teachings out of sheer ignorance, for example the incorrect claim that there are no angels in female form in the Bible. And to be honest the most questionable thing about some of the teachings you list is whether Todd actually teaches them, or whether it is more a case of off the cuff remarks being taken out of context.
Yes, indeed, let’s leave it there as this is generating more heat than light. If we can’t say positive things about our Christian brothers and sisters, it is generally best to keep quiet.
Hi Peter,
The analogy by Henry Neufeld is false. The very notion that something done in the flesh, such as the outladish behavior demonstrated at football games, justifies similar behavior in sprirtual matters belies the misunderstanding of what the theme of prophetic ministry is to be. Prophectic ministry is that which proceeds from the direct unction of the Spirit of Christ. It is not of the flesh. This is best described in Romans 8. Unfortunately, in many so-called “prophetic” ministries the minister has quenched the Spirit through pride and no longer can operate in the anointing. Thus, he/she resorts to increasingly absurd and grandiose manifestations that have their origin in the flesh.
This I speak as a matter of experience in this movement. The fleshly operation eventually gets so obsessive that they no longer listen to the sound warnings of those closest to them, and eventually their self-idolatry manifests in God giving them over to the destruction of their flesh in gross sin, usually sexual. Examples are abundant to this pattern.
To the point: do we truly know what it means to live and operate in the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ, or has operating in the flesh become so much the standard that we can’t “divide between soul(flesh) and spirit”?
Graham: To clarify what I can’t process in what you’re saying, consider this sentence:
You suggest evaluation as opposed to investigation. I don’t see how that can be done. I generally have to investigate before I can evaluate, and evaluation is also an element of the investigation process.
I would hate to accuse you of evaluating without investigation, as that is what it appears to me that many are doing in this case. But perhaps you understand these two words differently than I do.
Jody:
You say:
There are times when a misreading or misapplication of a written text truly astonishes me and this is one of them. I have difficulty comprehending how you could get this from what I wrote.
My analogy is about the response, and is not intended to provide the justification. But I continue to question the attitude that thinks that just because enthusiastic behavior occurs at a revival is sufficient cause to reject it.
I don’t understand how my analogy suggests anything about what I believe the “theme of prophetic ministry” is to be. In fact, I hope you are not claiming to know my beliefs on that matter, because that would involved judgment without knowledge and discernment, and again something I would prefer not to accuse you of such a thing.