I’ve recently written about a couple of things that touch upon Bethel Redding. That’s dangerous territory to step into because Bethel seems to be a marmite issue, you either love them or hate them. The two areas that I’ve picked up on have been the question of New Apostolic Reformation/Seven Mountain Mandate (and links to Christian Nationalism) and the issues around Shawn Bolz.
In terms of the marmite danger, Mike Winger who brought the Bolz scandal to the wider church’s attention has taken some flak from some because he said that he wanted to see reformation at Bethel. Others, as in the video below have insisted that it’s not reformation that is needed but rather warnings because Bethel is a false church.
It’s that question I wanted to engage with here and not just to answer the question about Bethel but rather to help us think a bit more about how we engage with those that not only seem to sit at the opposite end of the spectrum to us but seem to exist beyond the acceptable margins. Whilst Bethel is the obvious candidate for those who are conservative and even cessationist around gifts, there may be churches and movements that exist beyond the margins on the opposite end of the spectrum to those of us within charismatic contexts. What do we do with some of the aspects of John MacArthur’s church in Sun Valley and the associated ministry Grace To You? Or what about examples in the UK such as the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Then, in terms of the Christian Nationalism debate, we cannot ignore the big questions about Federal Vision and Christchurch, Moscow Idaho. Naming those names should also warn us that if we are quick to find specs in the extreme wings at the opposite end of the spectrum, people from a different perspective might be spotting a few logs in our own.
When it comes to Bethel and the wider movement connected to them, including Jesus Culture and others, a lot of the focus previously has been on what are seen as wilder charismatic practices, the grave sucking rumours[1], prophecy uno cards and that kind of thing. And to be honest, that’s all I would have known about them so long as they were at a distance, a church with some wilder practices but some pretty banging worship tunes. However, for various reasons over time, they moved up and across my proximity/danger matrix and so I’ve had cause to do more of a deeper dive into the movement.
The red lights flashing for me are around the following theological areas.
- Rheme/logos distinction. This is a common fallacy in prosperity teaching circles, though not exclusive to them. It makes an over distinction between the Greek words for “word” and gives one kind (rhema) an almost superstitious power.
- The kenosis error. This is the idea that Jesus emptied himself of all deity whilst on earth and so carried out his miracles as a normal human being in the power of the Holy Spirit.
- The NAR/Seven Mountain Mandate issues I’ve raised in previous articles.
It’s worth observing at this stage that whilst each of those are concerning and whilst some would go out and out and refer to them as heresies, there have been people throughout church history who have been considered mainstream who have strayed to some extent into more than one of the above. For example, if you insist on singing the original lyrics of “And Can it be” then you are happily singing that Jesus “emptied himself of all but love.” It takes quite some gymnastics about poetic license to get around that one. Perhaps one major concern though would be the conflation together of these erroneous teachings.
We also have to consider things that fall into the culture category as well though. For me, the first and most obvious red flag is the way that leaders describe themselves as shepherding a movement which to be honest feels more like a brand. There is a risk there that the brand/movement takes priority over the local church. This coupled with references to 18000 alumni and the idea of a global church are concerning, though, again, not unique to Bethel. Secondly, whilst listening to their messages I am concerned about the tone and, to borrow from others, a sense of how the mixing desk is set up, what is amplified, what is turned down etc.
So, for example, the volume is turned up high on the idea of being generational game changers and influencing culture. Now as is the case in most errors, I think there is some truth in there that God’s people are meant to be salt and light in the world around us and perhaps too, a little bit of inspiration to “attempt great things for God” isn’t a bad thing. Then, as I’ve listened to talks and read books, there’s something that has concerned me, something that it’s been hard to quite put my finger on. I think the best I can do is to say that the volume seems to have been turned down low on the work of the Cross, what it achieves in terms of paying the penalty for sin. More peculiarly, whilst there’s a big emphasis on miracles and gifts, it has also felt as though the volume has been turned down quite low on the Holy Spirit as a person as the volume has been turned up on power. It’s hard to completely pinpoint that. I’d be interested to know what others think.
Now, does that all add up to Bethel being a false church to be warned against, not reformed? Well, it’s worth observing that Luther, Calvin and co were raising very similar concerns about the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope as we hear cited against Bethel. Yet, their aim, for as long as possible was to reform the church. Eventually it became impossible and they were kicked out. I would suggest that that’s a pretty convincing sign, when the “church” in question refuses to recognise or engage with other Christians as churches and as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Crucially, I think that in Bethel’s case, whilst, as far as I can see, the volume on power and success is turned up well too high and the volume on the persons and deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as the atonement far, far too low, it is not that we are seeing outright denial. Further, it does seem to be that the marks of the church as historically understood are present, if at times ropey: Scripture, The Means of Grace/Sacraments and Church Discipline.
So, what I’m leaning towards is that this is something that looks decidedly unhealthy. That means we have got to be cautious. There’s a health warning around anything connected to Bethel and I would strongly discourage churches and movements from following their example, using their model or taking their advice. I’d exercise serious discernment around using their music and I’d not be stocking books from their leaders on the bookstall (not that most of us have one of those these days). However, if they are family, then we should have a concern for them and pray for them.
[1] Bethel leadership deny teaching this. See here Does Bethel Church Teach Grave Soaking? | Rediscover Bethel – YouTube However, it’s important to be clear that what they deny is the idea that they would talk to/pray to the dead. Bill Johnson does however talk about seeking to honour revival figures of the past, visiting places associated with them, with a sense that such places are special. This combined with pictures of key people including the late Beni Johnson lying over graves leaves the matter decidedly ambiguous.
Faithroots 