Jesus and Authority

If the “Son” is sent by the “Father,” and if the “Son” comes to do the will of the “Father,” does it not stand to reason that God wishes by this language to indicate something of the authority and submission that exists within the relationships of the members of the immanent trinity?

– Bruce Ware, quoted here (see also here).

It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first.

– J.I. Packer in Knowing God (1973), quoted here.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. …”

– Matthew 28:18 (TNIV)

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

– Philippians 2:9-11 (TNIV)

So is Jesus the one who submits to authority or the one who exercises it?

A new note about Todd Bentley

The keepers of  The Official Todd Bentley Facebook Fan Page have posted a new note which is in fact an article from Charisma magazine, Todd Bentley Enters Restoration Process by Paul Steven Ghiringhelli. (Thanks to End Times Prophetic Words for the link, but I do not endorse the commentary on the article given there.)

There is also a new wall post at the fan page, written by its administrator, as follows:

Hello fans! This fan page was set up for those to love and encourage Todd during his time of rest and restoration. Todd Bentley does frequently check this page and leaves personal comments at his leisure. Please leave tasteful comments that express your love and encouragement. Please do not leave comments that will be interpreted as insensitive or to purposely offend Todd Bentley. We understand that there are a lot of people who are hurt, confused, and offended. There is a process behind the scene that the public is not aware of and we ask for your patience as we all wait for Todd to be restored. He will also be releasing a statement on his behalf with Rick Joyner shortly, that will explain his heart and his actions. Please understand that this is not the page for you to unleash your frustration but your love for Todd. So let’s please be respectful and enjoy this fan page.

Thank you for becoming a fan and God bless you.

This was posted after the Charisma magazine article, and so the “statement on his behalf with Rick Joyner” to be issued shortly is something different. Note also that

There is a process behind the scene that the public is not aware of…

The Charisma article, dated December 2008 but apparently written in October, includes a number of interesting points:

Todd Bentley … was planning to move to the campus of MorningStar Ministries in Fort Mill, S.C., in late October in search of healing and restoration.

Interestingly, the now deleted comments on this blog quoted at End Times Prophetic Words, in the name of Robert Ricciardelli, were posted in September from an IP address located in this same small town of Fort Mill, SC. Were they perhaps from someone with inside information at the MorningStar campus? Fort Mill is very near to Charlotte, NC, where Ricciardelli has his base.

In the current case, Joyner said Bentley does not believe his marriage to Shonnah is salvageable. “[Bentley] has also taken steps to make the relationship with the girl that was inappropriate, appropriate,” Joyner said.

He explained that both Bentley and the unidentified woman have expressed “deep remorse” over the situation, knowing they were “two wounded people who fell into a trap.” Joyner said Bentley acknowledged that even if his marriage were to fail, his timing for beginning a new relationship was “terrible.”

Joyner said that though it is tempting to judge, observers must remember that all parties involved are struggling to do what’s right. “A divorce is one of the most traumatic things you can go through,” Joyner said. “For a while, Todd had spun down into some pretty deep hopelessness.”

Ahn echoed Joyner’s sentiments. “Our goal is to restore Todd to his relationship with Jesus,” he said. “His restoration as an evangelist is secondary. …”

There is not really any new information here, except perhaps for the claim that Todd has made the relationship with the girl “appropriate”. It is hard to know what exactly this means. But we mustn’t forget that it takes two to salvage a marriage. There are all sorts of reasons why it will be very hard for Shonnah to take Todd back at this stage.

All the bloggers out there who are showing a seriously unforgiving attitude to Todd need a reminder that in insisting that the marriage be restored they are effectively requiring Shonnah to forgive Todd and forget what he has done. Would they be prepared to do that if their spouses were involved in the kinds of relationship which they claim Todd is involved in? If she has made the decision, quite reasonable in the circumstances, to start a new life apart from Todd, there is nothing that Todd can do about it except go through with the divorce.

We need all the more to pray for Todd and Shonnah.

Apologies to Robert Ricciardelli: it wasn't him gossipping about Todd Bentley

I wish to apologise to Robert Ricciardelli of Vision Advancement Strategies, a member of the International Coalition of Apostles led by Peter Wagner, for accusations I have made against him on this blog, and in comments elsewhere.

Certain comments were made on this blog in September 2008 in Robert’s name which purported to reveal private information about Todd Bentley and the woman with whom he has admitted an inappropriate relationship. Some of these comments have recently been picked up and quoted by another blogger, and linked to elsewhere including here.

Both in September and again in comments on the recent posts, I accused Robert of spreading gossip about Todd. But now Robert (in comment 84 here) has denied making the comments in his name in September, and has reported that someone else has been making inappropriate comments in his name.

It is clear that the imposter posting in Robert’s name is sinning by doing so, bearing false witness in putting Robert’s name on his comments even if the reports are true, as well as spreading unverifiable private information, i.e. gossip, presumably with malicious intent against both Todd and Robert.

It also now seems clear that the genuine Robert Ricciardelli is not spreading gossip. So I now apologise to him and to anyone else reading this for suggesting that he might be, and withdraw any comments to that effect.

I have deleted from my blog the comments apparently made by the imposter and my responses to them. This refers to comments on this post, also some on this more recent one. Since my post “Thoughts on Todd Bentley, healing, and the dead being raised” (dated 20th September 2008) was primarily a response to the comments on an earlier post in Robert Ricciardelli’s name, and several other comments were made in his name on this post, I have deleted the post and all its comments.

I don’t know if the information in the deleted comments is true or false. I do know that it is personal information about two people who are not currently in public ministry, and that it has been reported by someone who has been proved a false witness for misrepresenting their own identity. I would therefore urge bloggers, indeed all Christians, to avoid repeating or giving any credence to this information. The name of Todd’s lady friend has I think never been revealed by any reliable source. And in the absence of any verifiable evidence to the contrary everyone should accept Todd’s own statement that the inappropriate relationship between him and her started in July 2008.

Todd Bentley on Facebook too

Two days ago I reported the news that Todd Bentley apparently has a new Myspace page together with a blog. Now Agathos aka Scott has discovered that Todd also has a new, as of 16th December 2008, Facebook page, The Official Todd Bentley Facebook Fan Page. (I’m not sure if you need to be a Facebook member to view this.) Again there is no proof or confirmation that this is genuinely from Todd.

Todd has already acquired 361 fans (none as far as I can see called Jessa). On the site there are five “notes” apparently by Todd, all dated 16th December, including the announcement of a new book Kingdom Rising, which is being sold, and promoted on their home page, by Todd’s company Sound of Fire. Two of the other “notes” are explicitly older writings by Todd. They are not the same material as on the Myspace blog.

Todd has also contributed to this discussion linked to the fan page. Again I can’t be sure that this is the real Todd, but he does have 4735 friends (again no Jessa). He writes

Hi friends tell me your testimonies from Lakeland outpouring love and blessings

and

wow i love reading your testimonies please keep them coming.

But the longest post in Todd’s name in this discussion is in fact not by him but the story of “One of The Fan Page Admins”. The latest message from Todd is dated 21st December:

Merry Christmas friends

Todd Bentley the blogger?

I haven’t been following blogs about Todd Bentley recently, largely because they are so often full of speculative nastiness. But my eye was caught by a post at Onward, Forward, Toward… because it linked to one of my posts. And there I found some interesting information which seems to be more than speculation. It is certainly true that someone has set up a Myspace page in Todd’s name. This appears to be new, with a signup date of 16th December 2008.

I cannot confirm what is stated in the post, that the Myspace page has been set up by Todd himself, or at least by someone acting on his behalf. There is surely the possibility that this is an unofficial page set up by someone wanting to blacken Todd’s name even further – or my a misguided supporter. But it does look quite genuine.

What I discovered is that linked to this Myspace page there is a blog. Now the Myspace blogging software is so poor that the link to View Todd’s Blog leads to an almost unreadable page. But there are three posts there, all dated 16th December 2008, which can be read if accessed individually. And they do appear to be genuine writings by Todd, although not necessarily new ones.

PJ Miller, who has also posted about Todd’s new Myspace page, claims that

You won’t find anything on his page concerning his recent troubles–including his separation, impending divorce [he lists himself as ‘single’] or the fact he is continuing to live in adultery.

The fact here is not the presumption that Todd is continuing to live in adultery (for which the only evidence offered is that one of his Myspace friends is allegedly the woman with whom he has admitted an inappropriate relationship). The fact is that there is in the Myspace blog material relevant to Todd’s personal situation, although not explicitly about it. For two of Todd’s three posts are about Restoration. Here is an extract from this post, based on Isaiah 61:2-4:

Actually, did you know that it’s one thing to loose and undo the work of the devil—it’s one thing to be set free—but it’s another thing to have God restore back in your life all the damage that was done because of the oppression of the enemy?! In other words, just think for a moment about the alcoholic that gets set free, and we thank God for that. But what about all the aftermath—the damage that the alcoholism did to the children and others—or the drug addict that’s now free, but the family is still broke?

The fact is, there are testimonies of people that have come into notable freedom, yet there still remain lingering negative consequences. But biblical restoration cuts off those negative consequences! That’s because, when God restores, one: He brings an increase; two: He multiplies beyond where you were; and three: He adds the extra, making it better than it was before. Look at Job. When God restored Job, He gave him double (Job 42:10). In fact, you cannot be touched by the anointing of restoration and, for example, just get your money back at the same measure. It’s not just recovery of a former condition. No! You’re not going back to a former state. You’re going back to better! I mean, when God restores, say double, it’s everything double—life, joy, and revelation, and much more!

Is this the kind of restoration Todd is looking for? Indeed God can restore him from his current brokenness and give him an anointing that is double even that which was poured out at Lakeland. But one prerequisite for that is repentance. There is no mention of that in this article, although it is a start for Todd to recognise “the oppression of the enemy” in what has happened to him. What we do read is that when Todd was praying for his father to be saved God

revealed to me that my dad had made certain choices and he wanted the darkness. That being the case God was prevented from breaking in to help him.

Todd has also reportedly made certain choices, to live in a sinful way, which prevent God from restoring him. If he seeks restoration, first he needs to make different choices. The details of what he needs to do are known only to his close advisers. But it must include turning away from any inappropriate relationship with his former nanny and seeking reconciliation with his wife and children.

The youngest ever bishop: not Nazir-Ali

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is in the news again, this time because an aide of Archbishop Rowan Williams used a (moderately) rude word about him in an article which was sent to 10 Downing Street and to 43 diocesan bishops. The most detailed and explicit account I have seen is in The Independent. Ruth Gledhill of the Times also reports the story, more briefly and with asterisks in the word in question. She gives her own ringing endorsement of Nazir-Ali, and also posts a transcript of an interesting BBC interview with him (to be broadcast on Radio 3 at 20:45 tonight, in progress as I write, so I’m surprised Ruth is allowed to publish the transcript in advance). Anglican Mainstream has posted an extract from the transcript.

But the BBC interviewer, Joan Bakewell, makes a small error in her introduction when she says:

As the youngest ever Anglican bishop, Michael Nazir-Ali was only thirty-five years old when he was appointed Bishop of Raiwind in his native Pakistan.

He may have been the youngest Anglican bishop at the time, but he certainly was not the youngest ever. I don’t know exactly who was. The preface to the Church of England ordinal (in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) states that

every man which is to be ordained or consecrated Bishop shall be fully Thirty years of age.

I knew a man who was consecrated as an Anglican bishop as soon as he reached that age of 30. So he might have been the youngest ever. He also had the distinction of being a bishop for more than 60 years, very likely another record.

I was actually rather surprised to find a Wikipedia article about Bishop John Dickinson, which confirms my memory of this gentle man. From what I heard, he was consecrated in 1931 as soon as he reached the canonical age because of the urgent need for anyone to serve as bishop in Melanesia. Perhaps this was because of the disgrace and resignation of Bishop Frederick Molyneux – Gene Robinson is not the first gay bishop, just the first to be openly gay.

After only six years service as a bishop, Dickinson returned to northern England and became a country vicar, as indeed he remained until he retired. I think it was then that he married my mother’s first cousin Frances. In 1946 he officiated at my parents’ wedding in Westmorland (now Cumbria). I’m told that he walked 20 miles across the open moorland of the North Pennines, carrying his vestments, to get there. My mother thought of him as highly eccentric, but his decision to walk may have been partly from poverty.

I remember visiting his vicarage in a tiny village in Northumberland, probably shortly before he retired in 1971, and getting a taste of rural parish life as he drove me around for part of a day. I also remember visiting him and his wife in their retirement home. Despite his unusual start in life, to me he was a good kind example of a traditional country vicar.

PS Wikipedia appears to report that Bishop Daniel Tuttle became a bishop in the USA aged 29, and so illegally, but this conflicts with a Time Magazine article which implies that he was 31.

Avery Dulles (1918-2008) on Jesus' Atoning Death

Since this blog is back on the subject of why Jesus died, I thought it would be interesting to link to the views of the recently deceased Avery Dulles, a Roman Catholic cardinal described by John Hobbins as “an enthusiastic supporter of the Evangelical Catholic movement” (John’s link replaced by a more appropriate one). Michael Barber has posted an extract from Dulles’ writing which is of great relevance to the atonement debates on this blog and others.

Here is a large part of what Michael quotes from Dulles:

One person may represent another, but cannot substitute for that other except in a merely functional way. As Dorothee Sölle has brilliantly explained, substitution is the definitive exchange of reified objects, whereas representation is the provisional intervention of persons on behalf of other persons. To retain this distinction, it seems preferable to avoid speaking of “substitutionary atonement” in the case of Jesus Christ. Sölle herself proposes to speak rather of Christ the Representative…

Because there is no mechanical substitution of one person for another, the representative death of Christ does not automatically remit the guilt of sinners. The merits of Christ are not simply imputed to us by some kind of juridical fiction; rather we are truly and inwardly healed through the infusion of the grace that flows from him. We have to allow ourselves to be taken over by Christ as he stands in for us. This we do by appropriating Christ’s action on our behalf through free and personal acts of faith, hope, and loving obedience…

Does the vicarious nature of redemption mean that Jesus is punished in our place? Some authors, indulging in very powerful rhetoric, describe in lurid terms the way in which the wrath of the eternal Father was visited upon the guiltless Son, so that he felt rejected and even hated by God…

Against these views, I would insist that Jesus remained at all times the well-beloved Son, living in close communion with the Father through the incomparable grace that flooded his soul…

The advantages of the representational sacrifice theory, and the answers to the objections raised against it, may be clarified by a review of the alternative theories described at the opening of this paper. In some ways the sacrificial interpretation, as I have proposed it, resembles the first theory, that of penal substitution, but the differences are important. Both theories maintain that Jesus suffered terrible ordeals and thereby won for sinners a release from the pains they deserve. But the penal substitution theory makes it appear that God punishes the innocent in place of the guilty, thereby suggesting that God is unjust. The theory of representative headship, by contrast, looks upon Jesus as one who offered satisfaction, rather than endured punishment. These are true alternatives. As Anselm insisted, sin requires either punishment or satisfaction; satisfaction takes the place of punishment… Satisfaction is voluntarily given, whereas punishment must be coercively endured. Satisfaction, unlike punishment, can be offered by the innocent as well as by the guilty.

Punishment, as an act of justice, must be strictly proportioned to the offense, but satisfaction, as a work of love, may be superabundant. According to Thomas Aquinas, Christ “offered to God more than was required to compensate for the sin of all humanity.”

For more of this, read Michael’s post, or follow his link (which I have not done) to the whole of Dulles’ article.

What Dulles wrote seems to me to make a lot of sense. Penal substitution is sometimes seen as a mere variant of Anselm’s satisfaction model of the atonement. But Dulles makes it clear how different it is – or at least how different certain popular understandings of penal substitution are. And it is against these popular understandings that writers like Steve Chalke and Jeffrey John reacted so strongly.

But, to be fair, the position of the more careful proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, such as J.I. Packer, is not so different from that of Dulles. Packer writes:

The Trinitarian principle is that the three distinct persons within the divine unity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, always work inseparably together, as in creation, so in providence and in every aspect of the work of redemption. … It was with his own will and his own love mirroring the Father’s, therefore, that he took the place of human sinners exposed to divine judgment and laid down his life as a sacrifice for them, entering fully into the state and experience of death that was due to them. Then he rose from death to reign by the Father’s appointment in the kingdom of God.

I would be surprised if Dulles would have had serious disagreement with Packer’s article.

Todd Bentley speaks out

No time at the moment to post about anything else, but this one needs a mention:

Thanks to my commenter Rhea for the link to a new article about Todd Bentley, which reports both the statement by Fresh Fire Ministries which I reported last week, and a response to it from Todd himself. Todd denies several things stated by Fresh Fire. Specifically he denies leaving his wife Shonnah to be with his former nanny. Here is part of the new article:

On Tuesday, Bentley said there had been no sexual immorality between him and the former nanny. He claimed that for two years no “spark or interest” in the former staff member existed, and that the two developed only an emotional relationship several weeks after July 1, when Bentley filed for divorce.

He admitted, however, that the budding relationship was “absolutely” bad timing.

“I would call it an inappropriate relationship, in the sense that it was too soon, too quick, and should’ve never happened the way that it happened,” Bentley said. “Emotionally, she had stepped in to comfort me as a friend would.

“But I never left my wife to be with another woman,” he said. “There was nothing premeditated or inappropriate in my heart. I had never even entertained the idea that I liked this girl. It never went there.”

Claiming to have gone through years of counseling with his wife, Bentley said he is divorcing her over “irreconcilable differences.”

He denied disconnecting from his children and told Charisma he is in constant phone contact with them and plans to see them as soon as he sorts out issues with his visa.

Meanwhile Rick Joyner

did express disappointment with FFM’s recent statement about Bentley and said he tried to persuade them not to send the letter in its current form.

“There is almost always another side to a story, as there is to many of the things they presented in this letter,” Joyner said. “Sometimes the truth is found somewhere between the two sides, but if we’re going to ever get to real healing and reconciliation I don’t think this kind of thing helps.”

Indeed. The truth must lie somewhere between what Todd says and what the Fresh Fire board has written. I hope that this frank exchange of views helps rather than hinders the process of restoration and healing for Todd, Shonnah and all involved.

As with my last post about Todd, I welcome rational discussion here. I will not tolerate comments which simply condemn Todd in ways which will not contribute towards his hoped for repentance and restoration.

Can Christians fall away? The examples of Bentley and Obama

Every time I write about Todd Bentley, as I did on Monday, there is a huge jump in traffic to this blog. So I feel justified in writing on a subject in which there is a lot of interest. Or is this just tickling my ego? Whichever may be true, here is another post about him, and about Barack Obama. To be more precise, it is about the way we evangelical Christians react to people like these two.

What do these two have in common? It is that they were both at one time doing what good evangelical Christians should do, and now neither of them is doing. Obama responded to an altar call and had what I have called “a clear evangelical conversion experience”. Bentley started with this and went on to become an international evangelist with a major (but controversial) healing ministry. Obama, at least to some extent, rejected evangelical theology and became something of a universalist. Bentley’s rejection was in a different direction, a fall into sin from which he has not yet repented.

As an evangelical I might say that these two have fallen away from the true faith, in very different ways. But can a true Christian do this? Jeremy Pierce seems to deny it, when he writes, in a comment here concerning what I called Obama’s conversion experience, that

Obama seems to me not to have had such an experience, and if he had then I think he would have a very different attitude toward scripture (for one thing, actually believing it and following it when his inclination is to reject it as making God too cruel).

In other words, Jeremy seems to be claiming that Obama’s low view of Scripture and generally liberal theology is proof that he never had been a genuine evangelical Christian. I find this an astonishing claim, in the light of the evidence that many former evangelicals have drifted into liberal theology.

Let’s first detach this claim from the issue of whether such people will ultimately be saved, which I have discussed here before – something which cannot be known in the present, especially as there presumably remains a possibility of them repenting of liberal ideas and fully returning to the evangelical fold.

But what are the implications of Jeremy’s claim? If tomorrow the pastor under whose ministry I was converted, or who baptised me, or from whom I regularly receive communion, turns away from his faith and professes liberal ideas, where does that leave me?

I can’t help wondering if Jeremy would also hold that Bentley’s persistence, for the moment, in sin is proof that he too never had been a genuine evangelical Christian. There are certainly plenty of people around who cite this sin as evidence that his ministry was never genuine and the whole Lakeland outpouring was some kind of fraud. But does such reasoning make sense? I don’t think so.

Let’s remind ourselves that the church rejected Donatism, the sectarian teaching that ministers of the gospel who denied the faith could not be restored, that their repentance could not be accepted. My own Church of England clearly teaches, in Article XXVI, that the ministry of even the most sinful ministers is valid. This article directly contradicts any suggestion that baptism by an apostate or backsliding pastor or exercise of spiritual gifts by a sinning Todd Bentley is invalid. It even more clearly rules out any conclusion that baptism by a pastor who later becomes an apostate or backslider or exercise of spiritual gifts by Todd Bentley before he fell into sin is invalid.

So how should we relate to a Bentley or an Obama? Both apparently started well but then went astray. There are plenty of biblical examples of this, such as: King David, at the time of his adultery; King Solomon; the Galatians as addressed in Galatians 3:1-5; Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1 Timothy 1:19-20. In none of these cases is there any suggestion that these people were not at first genuinely following God’s way. Now I admit that that suggestion is made about the “antichrists” of 1 John 2:18-19; but I hope no one is going to suggest that either Obama or Bentley is the Antichrist! The biblical response to such people is not to condemn them or write them off. It is, as demonstrated by Nathan and by Paul, to call the backslider to repentance, which may involve what Paul calls being “handed over to Satan”.

At least in the case of King David this process actually led to repentance. So this can happen. My pastor told a story of how he was visited by a pastor who had been suspended from ministry for an adulterous relationship, together with his lady friend, also a Christian. They maintained to my pastor that their relationship felt so right that it must be good and holy. He asked them if they prayed together. They, with some embarrassment, said “no”, exposing to themselves that they still felt shame about their relationship. He suggested they should pray together. Shortly afterwards they realised that their relationship was wrong and repented, and the man was eventually restored to ministry.

So this restoration can happen. Let’s continue to pray that it happens with Todd Bentley, and quickly. As for Barack Obama, we can pray that his eyes will be opened to more of the truth of the gospel, and of course, in line with the verses immediately following the ones about Hymenaeus and Alexander, that he will turn out to be a good President who will make it possible for his nation and the world to “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness”.

At last, more news about Todd Bentley

It is more than two months since my last serious post about Todd Bentley. That post and my others about him continue to attract quite a bit of traffic to this blog, so people are still interested in him. But there has been no news to report, at least nothing I have seen, until now.

Just two days ago the Board of Directors of Fresh Fire Ministries, the group of which Todd Bentley was the main public face (not the founder, despite some false reports), issued a new statement about Todd. This is a long statement, and I will not attempt to give it an adequate summary here. So please read it for yourselves. I will simply note that they state clearly that Todd has done wrong and has not fully repented of this; they acknowledge their part in this by allowing him to become burned out; and they continue to “say that we know, without a shadow of doubt, that Lakeland was and is an authentic move of God”.

I should add one more thing here: my apologies to Shonnah Bentley for suggesting that she might have initiated a separation. I suggested this on the basis of Todd’s explanation to Rick Joyner, but it seems that that explanation was not the whole truth. Fresh Fire now writes:

It also needs to be clarified that Shonnah has in no way initiated this divorce and has no present intention to do so at any time in the future.

I welcome rational discussion here of this statement, but please remember that I did not write it and am not in a position to defend it. I will not tolerate comments which simply condemn Todd in ways which will not contribute towards his hoped for repentance and restoration.

(I note that Polycarp and Jim West, among a few others, have seen this before me, but I saw their posts only after I wrote this, and they seem to have got completely the wrong end of the stick.)