More on Todd Bentley

Yeah Jules thanks but I see the home was bought by Fresh Fire Ministries I might have missed it but didn’t see Todd Bentleys name mention

SLW, that’s pretty much where I was going – acorn, rather than an oak. Or even the acorn before it falls into one’s life. If ministers had someone to whom they knew they could be absolutely accountable when they have a “stray” thought about, say, adultery — knew they’d be counseled and not judged, and not removed from ministry, ostracized, and fed to the wolves — how many of those stray thoughts would be prevented from becoming actions?

I think a lot of leaders never say something at the “there could be an acorn” stage, because they see what happens.

In what other army are the officers tortured and fed to the enemy if they get shot?

I’m not so sure that it’s all as Ron said and implied, Jules. It looks like they got a very good deal on the property. Six bedrooms, 4 baths, lakefront.

Pulling some figures: Mortgage should run around 2,917.86 per month. Checking on rentals.com I’m only finding one home/condo/apartment that size, for $2300/month – plus you have to pay, of course, significant out of pocket for deposits and the like.

So – with a difference of a couple hundred bucks a month, and the option to buy and build equity (in a growing area), or rent and toss the money in the lake, I think they made the wiser financial decision.

Well I’ve got no axe to grind on the house; just provided the link to the property deal. The house was bought by FFM at the time when Bentley was involved with them as a Board member (who signed the paperwork on behalf of FFM?), and quite possibly as a local base for him (making a not unreasonable assumption on that point). No idea what will happen to it now, and I didn’t contribute financially to it in any case.

“In what other army are the officers tortured and fed to the enemy if they get shot?”

Yes that’s very true. But if you have an officer who’s gone renegade and is causing damage and got shot in the skirmish, the first thing you do is take his gun away, no? You’ve got to protect the other soldiers as well as taking him off the battlefield, with the intention that he gets medical attention and is not given a gun again until his superiors are sure he’s no longer a danger to others. Because a soldier like that is a liability to himself and to others.

I agree very much with the idea of accountability; if that’s in place then things needn’t degenerate to the point where a renegade soldier goes wild.

I’m reminded of the Corinthian situation which I’m studying at the moment. As I ponder the Lakeland saga my views are being modified on an almost daily basis – not in my assessment of the original event (I believe God blew it up for doctrinal and practical dangers as much as because of Bentley’s sin), but in how to deal with the aftermath. Paul has some very hard words about unrepentant sinners and advocates putting one outside the church, but the others he seems to call to repentance for their folly while still in the church.

Is it right that Bentley is no longer ministering? Yes – he needs to focus on his relationship with God, and start to sort things out with his family. But I don’t recall anywhere in scripture where a sinning leader is put outside the camp for a specific period of time. A big topic that I’m still pondering. I think Bentley’s attachment to the other woman isn’t the greatest of the issues he has to work through, and for that he has my prayer support.

But I think the bigger picture is a challenge to all the charismatic leaders in how they’ve conducted themselves and allowed the whole situation to develop instead of failing to protect the church from error. Wagner’s lot have set themselves up as an apostolic network but I don’t so far see much evidence that they’re contending for the truth.

@Kathi
Thanks for the response, I absolutely agree with you. If we actually followed that method, the ranks of ministry would be much healthier.

@Jules
If an officer has gone renegade, there is a given biblical order to deal with it. It doesn’t include an a priori assumption that he’s no longer fit for combat. A strong, clear rebuke, followed by a response of submission and contrition is what is called for. Who exactly, do you suppose is ever in a position to ensure that an officer is no longer “a danger to others.” If Peter and Paul had eggs go bad in their baskets, what would make any of us feel we were in a position to be more discerning than they were able to be? We have one mediator, which is Christ, why should we put someone between the officer and Christ?

SLW – I’m not disagreeing in general with what you’re saying. My point is Bentley was allowed for too long to demonstrate unbiblical practices in terms of his public ministry. It’s possible someone on the apostolic team rebuked him for the angel stuff, the violence, the moneygrabbing, the promotion of false teachings. But to the general public it wasn’t apparent that anything was done; he had tacit approval from his overseeing team. The problem with Lakeland was everyone’s problem: Bentley’s for doing and promoting unbiblical things, the apostolic network for not providing correct oversight for everyone’s protection (including his), and the public’s for flocking to him and not discerning the very apparent errors.

Jules,
I understand, and am not unsympathetic to your concerns. The Kingdom of God is not a carnival, and should not be promoted nor performed like it is.