Blue Rose 2,
Without getting into any argumentativeness, I would like to address your post from page 1, point by point.
You wrote, "I think you should go back and read the article. No where in there did it say what you guys are saying it did. The process is just starting, and everyone wants microwave miracles."
Okay, well, here's the basic problem Todd Bentley presents to your supposition. The process in fact is NOT just starting. Todd Bentley was exposed in the latter part of August, fully seven months ago, at which time he agreed to step down and start helping to fix the revival that was unravelling because of his own poor choices. Todd Bentley has been going through disciplinary action for quite some time now, which leads into your next set of points.
You stated, "It said Todd is doing PUBLIC apologies, which is good. He needs to do this. He fell publically, he needs to repent publically."
No - it said Todd will NO DOUBT be doing public apologies.
He will no doubt be doing a lot of public apologizing during this time because the public deserves these apologies.
If you go watch Todd's "restoration video", nowhere do you find Todd Bentley making any sort of an apology. He speaks of his ex-wife Shonnah and his children like they are "those people over there", that he is glad they are receiving the help they need, and as though he is absolved entirely of remaining around in Canada to try to make any sort of rectification for his mistakes. He says he is trying as much as he can to talk to his children. He says he is visiting with them. But while on the surface this may seem all well and good, it doesn't remove the question of why he has moved.
The question is unanswered as to why he is immigrating to the United States when he has a family who needs restoration.
I Googled the distance between Abbotsford, British Columbia in Canada, and Charlotte, North Carolina.
It's just shy of 3000 miles.
Does this sound to you like someone who is trying to make it right with his family?
Does this sound to you like a daddy who cares about his children?
Does this sound to you like a former husband who wants to make sure his wife is okay?
Does this sound to you like someone who has honor and integrity?
You further stated, "I think you all misread the article. NO where did either article say Todd was innocent. He has made alot of mistakes and yes, sin. Totally sinned. But I have to agree with Rick Joyner, who are we to sit in judgement? We certainly aren't perfect. Let the process start before tearing it down or expecting instant results. Goodness."
I for one did NOT misread the article. I read it as stated. This is why I have further drawn conclusions that neither Todd Bentley nor Rick Joyner have interest in Todd doing the right thing. Both men have their concerns with making sure Todd has as comfortable life as possible getting away from his wife and children, that Todd has as good a life as possible with his new wife, that the body of Christ sweep his stuff under the rug because God forgives all, and,
NOW WATCH THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART ...
that Todd Bentley be able to rush back into full-time ministry as soon as is humanly possible.
You said I misread the article.
Let me quote you some statements FROM that article and address their points also.
Lee, I think what you call "the Lakeland disaster" would be disputed by multitudes of people who got healed or touched there.
Right out of the box, Joyner never even addresses Todd Bentley's situation.
He uses the logical fallacy known as "red herring", which is defined as "a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument". Joyner begins his entire response by trying to make the situation about the Lakeland Revival, when in fact, Lee Grady's issue is with Todd Bentley's restoration process. It's a very subtle and smooth attempt by Rick Joyner to "throw the dogs off the scent", so to speak.
Then, Joyner states:
If you are such judge of this what gives you the credentials? What moves of God have you led? What have you built? Paul the apostle claimed to have authority for building and for tearing down, but what gives you authority to tear down the work of others is having built something yourself.
Basically, here, he is still using the red herring of the Lakeland Revival to try to change the subject. The basis of this entire paragraph is, "if you have not led a revival or a move of God, and if you have not built up a church, then you have no right to have criticisms or observations about such a revival." Of course, when people speak favorably about Todd Bentley, I'm quite sure Rick Joyner accepts their praise and compliments
prima facie, no questions asked about their having led revivals or having built churches.
Next paragraph:
I, Todd, Bill [Johnson] and Jack [Deere] all know this is a very serious matter, and are treating it as such. I am deeply offended that you would call our work "a travesty." The Lord had far more grace for sinners than for the self-righteous, who He had no grace for at all. I am personally far more concerned for you than for Todd.
Once again, Joyner changes the subject. In fact, he uses a pure misrepresentation of fact in this instance. When he states that Lee Grady calls their work "a travesty", he shifts the focus of his argument wrongly. The fact is that Lee Grady never called THEIR WORK a travesty. Here's what he actually stated: "We have not mourned this travesty. We have not been shocked and appalled
that such sin has been named among us.
We act as if flippant divorce and remarriage are minor infractionswhen in actuality they are such serious moral failures that they can bring disqualification." Then Joyner states that the Lord had far more grace for sinners than for the self-righteous, who he had no grace for at all. So, without actually saying it with the words "Lee Grady, you are self-righteous" he
indirectly states that Lee Grady is like the Pharisee of Scripture who thought himself better than the next guy, and that Todd Bentley is like the sinner who gets the grace for crying out to God.
Side note: This is a favorite tactic of Charismatics who like to defend their cause. When a person objects to them on scriptural grounds, and the first person feels their cause is just, the person who objects then becomes a Pharisee, because the person objected with righteousness and by stating that something is not right before God. At this point, we get into circular reasoning which implies that I am Jesus and you are the Pharisees. There is no in-between for this kind of reasoning, no gray area. It's the sheep versus the goats. It's the wheat versus the chaff. It's the epic battle of good and evil - and we are the good while you are the evil. In this kind of child-like and base reasoning, there is no room for diverging opinion. It is not that we are two guys with two differing points of view, and "hey, let's agree to disagree". If you disagree with these people, to whom you are their Pharisees, you are automatically in the place of danger of the judgment.
Then Joyner states, "I am personally far more concerned for you than for Todd". [condescending language, "you poor man who stands under the wrath and judgment of God because you are a self-righteous Pharisee for whom the Lord had no grace at all."] Poor Lee Grady - we should be so concerned for him. Let's send him some flowers and make sure his insurance is paid up. How trite.
Joyner goes on to state, "Lee, I love some of the things you write, but I also feel that some are straight from the mouth of the accuser. I do think you have done at least as much damage to the church as Todd's fall has by your unrighteous and unfair judgments. I don't think you have earned the credentials for it, and you're putting yourself in far more jeopardy by trying to be such a self-appointed judge."
Okay, it's the old "mouth of the accuser" trick. Someone says a "negative" comment about us, and it's not that they have an opinion or observation, or God forbid maybe some good wisdom or counsel, NOOOOO. It's "Go to jail; do not pass Go; do not collect 200 dollars; you're straight from the devil, you hell's emissary, you." Once again, the subject is changed from the argument to an attack on the individual's CHARACTER rather than address the individual's ARGUMENTS. This is also known as the logical fallacy
ad hominem.
What these Charismatics fail to see is that they respond with all kinds of negative accusations themselves, and if they apply their own logic to their own statements, then they too are the accuser of the brethren. But in their hypocrisy, by calling the kettle black, they don't see that THEIR negativity is wrong. Everyone else is wrong, but they are the anointed of God.
Next paragraph: "I'm quite sure you will misunderstand what I'm saying, and I'm definitely not implying that we want to cover anything up, or promote cheap grace. We have just started the process and its being judged negatively. Give us some time, and some grace. Grace is, by the way, something we are supposed to be giving to each other."
He automatically assumes that Lee Grady will misunderstand him. This is based in both lies and self-pity. The lie is that Lee Grady's intent is to misunderstand, when in fact, Lee Grady said many good things about Todd Bentley until Todd decided to go south with his marriage. The self-pity part of this paragraph implies, "woe is me, I'm so misunderstood, waaa waaa waaa." Then Joyner defends this process of "restoration", which neither includes a show of open repentance, nor for Todd Bentley to have refused to marry Jessa, seeing that Jessa was the woman with whom he committed the adultery. What Joyner fails to see is that by acknowledging the relationship and affirming it, he stains this so-called "restoration process" from its inception. The process is warped - damaged. It is flawed at its foundation. If the foundation is cracked, the house itself does not stand.
Next paragraph: "If you care to follow this, Todd and I will be doing Video Special Bulleting each week that will be posted on our website, U-Tube, and carried by many others. These will be short, like the first, only about 10 minutes, but we want to cover the mistakes Todd has made, and as much as we can in the time we have, how he fell into some of the traps he did, strictly for helping others to not have to go through what Todd has. He will no doubt be doing a lot of public apologizing during this time because the public deserves these apologies."
They don't cover the mistakes Todd has made in these videos. They make brief references to how things went wrong, but Todd himself never takes the blame or says "I am sorry for what I did". If this revival was so awesome, why does Todd not apologize for ruining what supposedly was such a wonderful thing? Where is Todd's remorse in ruining his marriage, and in ruining the lives of his children? Where is Todd's remorse for setting such a poor example of how ministers should maintain their conduct? Where is Todd's fear of the Lord? The whole video is cavalier and gung-ho, and nowhere in it do I see evidence of a man who has conviction of the Holy Spirit on his life.
Next: "I think you owe Todd, myself, Bill, and Jack apologies for your presumptuous judgments. I think they should be as public as this letter was. If not, I feel that I will have to address this publicly, and I don't think that is in your best interest."
Childish behavior. Veiled threats.
Next:"I also think you need to come down and spend some time with Todd and me. If you have problems with someone we have Matt.18 as a guide to how we should deal with them. Read the first part of that chapter. This was given to help protect people from becoming stumbling blocks, which the Lord made quite clear was something we do not want to be. If you think being a journalist exempts you from complying with Scripture, I would like to know what philosophy you have bought into that trumps Scripture."
Matthew 18 refers to violations within the context of PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. He says, "if you have a fault with your brother, go to him, and if he hear you, YOU HAVE WON YOUR BROTHER." Church discipline within the context of actual SIN is quite different from trying to mend personal relationship between two individuals. Let us make a clear distinction here. We're not talking about an issue one guy has with another, where the other guy refuses to be reconciled. We're talking about someone who ruined a ministry, a revival, confidence in ministers, a marriage, and a family.
Then Joyner closes out his statement with a good-bye that is less than sincere.
Blue Rose 2, I assure you that I have read this article. I fully understand what Rick Joyner is trying to say, and what he is actually saying. It disgusts me, the attitude of handling this so-called "repentance".
What they have called "grace" should really be called "permissiveness".
After all, forgiveness is easier to get than permission, right?
instead? Novel concept since we call ourselves Christian. And I didn't run away. I am detecting a tad bit of bitterness there. Its ok to have a difference of opinion. Really it is.
