I want to pick up here on one of the challenges with critiquing Bethel’s teaching. It’s the challenge of being able to say with certainty what their position is on a number of points. I don’t think it is impossible but it can be tricky at times. Here I’m going to pick up on two examples from Bill Johnson that we’ve engaged with in our deep dive into Bethel’s theology.
Does Bill Johnson teach Kenosis theory?
In a video interview with Dean Farrelly,(Associate Pastor at Bethel), Johnson responds to the question, “Do Bethel believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man?”[1] This is in response to the statement Johnson has made in the past that in the incarnation, Jesus “laid aside his divinity.” It’s worth noting that this isn’t actually the criticism made of Johnson. The specific question is as to whether, by making that statement, Johnson had slipped into the error of the Kenosis theory (the belief that in some way, Jesus emptied himself of certain attributes in terms of his sovereignty).
Now, the problem with Kenosis theory is, as we saw when we looked at it, that because God is simple, not made up of parts, every aspect of his nature is essential to him so that he cannot give up characteristics, permanently or temporarily without losing what it means to be God. In other words, “laying aside his divinity” is an incredibly accurate description of the impact of Kenosis theory. However, we can recognise that as the affect, the logical implication of the theory whilst recognising that this wasn’t the intention of those advocating that position. If Johnson holds to Kenosis theory whilst seeking to also hold to the full humanity and divinity of the Son then he is in good company with many other believers throughout history.
However, when people are publicly teaching, then it doesn’t matter whether or not their intentions were good and orthodox what actually matters is the public content of what they said. This is particularly so, when what they are saying is not an off the cuff, one of verbal comment but is a position that has been thought out and committed to writing.
In this video, Johnson says that he recognises that the language of Jesus “laying aside his divinity” was unhelpful. He says
“Oh it’s misunderstood a lot. I would write it differently because of how it’s heard.”[2]
Notice that he isn’t acknowledging that the statement is in and of itself wrong. He’s not saying that he now accepts that Jesus didn’t lay aside his divinity. This suggests that he doesn’t fully grasp what the problem is with the statement. He simply thinks that people have been misunderstanding him and that of course puts the responsibility and blame back on the audience not on him. Later, when asked what he meant, he says:
“oh I meant exactly what I said.”[3]
Johnson says:
“All, I was trying to do was put language to Philippians 2.”[4]
Now, it is worth observing at this point that we don’t need to put language to Philippians 2. Philippians 2 states clearly what it intends to and isn’t saying anything close to what Johnson says. It’s nothing to do with Jesus giving up attributes, it’s not a comment on his nature. Rather, it’s to do with status, it’s about stopping down as a king to be a servant. Indeed, as becomes clear in the interview, Johnson isn’t so much trying to put language to Philippians 2 as he is trying to explain the question of how Jesus’ infinite divinity comes together with his finite human nature. Moreover, he is doing that with a motive because his aim is to motivate people to seek after miraculous experience by following that aspect of Jesus’ example.[5]
Ona side note, at this point they share that the change has come in response to a scholar friend of Johnson’s contacting him privately to suggest that he might want to word things differently. Frarrelly says:
“Let me get this straight. A scholar, instead of writing a blog post against you or going on and developing a whole ministry or industry about your words actually personally contacted you and said, ‘did you mean to say this.’” [6]
Notice the cynicism here. To disagree with Bill Johnson means that you are seeking your own personal gain and agenda. Remember, again that Johnson had not made this comments, one time, in private, off the cuff. These are things he has said more than once, in public. We are permitted to deal with the actual public words, to respond to them in public. That’s not to attack a person’s motives, nor is it unloving.
And the crucial thing here, is that whatever Johnson did not mean, he has been clear in his arguments that Jesus limited his divinity in some way, that he did miracles as a man, relying on the power of the Holy Spirit. In order to draw this conclusion, he also has to misquote John 5 and has Jesus saying “The son of man can do nothing of himself”.[7] In fact, Jesus simply refers to himself as the Son at this point and his sonship is understood by his opponents as a claim to divinity. Jesus isn’t describing the limits of his humanity but rather giving us an insight into the wonderful relationship between The Father and the Son in the Godhead. He is defending his claim to unity and equality with the Father.
You can see here the challenge. Johnson denies that he is saying something that is in fact, the unavoidable, logical implication of what he has said, whilst at the same time insisting that he did mean, exactly what he said. He wants to tell us that Jesus laid aside his divinity but also that Jesus did not cease being God. This is at best confused and ambiguity.
New Apostolic Reformation
In another video, Chris Vallerton responds to the suggestion that Bethel are associated with NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). Farrelly claims not to know what NAR is and only have found out by being shown the Wikipedia article. Vallerton insists that Bethel are nothing to do with this. That boils down to him reporting that people seeing apostles as “like kings” and having controlling authority. He wants to insist that this is not what Bethel are like at all. He argues that they are very empowering.[8]
Vallerton goes on to talk about how people come to Bethel, looking for the leaders there to be their father figures. He claims to have lots of emails with such requests. Now, it may well be the case that Bethel’s leaders have no interest in providing “father figures” at a distance, however, it is the case that they do allocate father figures to people who join Bethel, especially through the School of Supernatural Ministry.
And this again is another example of the kind of mixed signals and ambiguity that we see from Bethel. Whilst Vallerton wants to insist that Bethel are not part of NAR, he couches that denial in terms of New Apostolic Reformation as other people seem to perceive it and describe it..
On the other hand, Bethel not only agree with the idea of a continuing apostolic and prophetic ministry, as do many churches and networks within the charismatic movement, the specific definitions they choose to describe those roles fit with the NAR understanding. The NAR concept of an apostle as someone who brings heaven and supernatural ministry to earth, is very different to how other movements define the role as someone, often involved in planting churches, who through relationship to them has an invited in authority.
Further, by denying intention to start a denomination or being part of NAR in some formal sense, Vallerton ignores the fact that like with many movements, NAR is not so much about formal institutions as it is about informal relationships and alliances. Indeed, it is that kind of informality that provides another form of ambiguity and potential confusion as it has proven unclear at times as to whose apostolic covering different people are under. Was Shawn Bolz, for example accountable to Bill Johnson or Che Ahn? He seems to have fallen down the crack between the two apostolic figures.
Further, whilst Vallerton tries to play down the connection to C Peter Wagner, recognised as the founding father of New Apostolic Reformation (it just happens that some of us were taught at seminary by him and we agree with some core principles he taught), the relationship, theologically and culturally is much closer. The same people share the same platforms together, recognise one anothers’ authority, are guests at each others’ churches etc. In Bill Johnson’s case, he is the co-author of a key book on Dominionism (one of the central tenants of the movement) with C Peter Wagner and other key figures in the movement.
Conclusion
There is a history of ambiguity to what Bethel’s key leaders have to say and that creates further ambiguity and confusion about what they believe. Whether or not this is an intentional, studied ambiguity or reflects sloppy thinking is not for me to say. However, I would observe first of all, that those who seek to lead should aspire to clarity of thought and word. Secondly, whilst the ambiguity may make it harder to assess underlying motives and intent, this is not our concern when engaging with Bethel theology, at least for our purposes here. Rather, our concern is with what they actually have said and done and how those things are understood by the ordinary, reasonable person. Thirdly, it is arguable that this tendency to ambiguity has played a part in causing some of the high profile problems that Bethel are currently facing.
[1] Kenosis and Jesus’ Deity – Was Jesus Fully God and Fully Man? | Rediscover Bethel (0.22).
[2] Kenosis and Jesus’ Deity – Was Jesus Fully God and Fully Man? | Rediscover Bethel (4:19).
[3] Kenosis and Jesus’ Deity – Was Jesus Fully God and Fully Man? | Rediscover Bethel (12:50).
[4] Kenosis and Jesus’ Deity – Was Jesus Fully God and Fully Man? | Rediscover Bethel (4:52).
[5] Kenosis and Jesus’ Deity – Was Jesus Fully God and Fully Man? | Rediscover Bethel 6:25.
[6] Kenosis and Jesus’ Deity – Was Jesus Fully God and Fully Man? | Rediscover Bethel (6:39).
[7] Kenosis and Jesus’ Deity – Was Jesus Fully God and Fully Man? | Rediscover Bethel (15:10).
[8] Does Bethel Church Belong to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)? | Rediscover Bethel (4:01).
Faithroots 