Todd's Restoration; Emails to MorningStar Ministries

Well, it's been more than two years since I laid out the case against Todd being restored to ministry (and three since the so-called restoration began), knowing full well it would fall on death ears at MorningStar Ministries, but my hope was to persuade the larger Body of Christ to no longer follow this charlatan.  

Now again, too be clear, restoration to the Body of Christ and restoration to ministry are two entirely different and separate events.  Of course, due to the fact that Mr. Bentley is still living in an adulterous relationship (his second marriage) one has to wonder if restoration to the Body has really even occurred never mind restoration to ministry. Since my last post, I have been in contact with Rick Joyner via email, to which to date, none have been replied to directly, but rather have been answered in part through the video updates and special bulletins.  My first email was a response to the video update on Todd being restored to "local" ministry.


Hello Rick,

So Todd has been restored to local ministry?  Does the Bible make a distinction between local and national?  I am assuming he has been restored to the Body of Christ, first and foremost, yet that has not been mentioned or addressed.  Shouldn't one be FULLY restored to the Body before being allowed to minister to the Body?

Yes, we are to restore a brother who has fallen into sin (Galatians 6:1), but should he be restored to ministry?  Restored to the Body and restored to ministry are two entirely different things.  Are there not things that now disqualify Todd from ministry?  If not, what to do with I Timothy 3 & Titus 1, or have you received revelation from God that contradicts what the Bible says?  

I would be interested in hearing from you as there are those in my church family who believe they have been given direction from Todd's ministering at a recent conference at MorningStar, but I fail to see how it was from the LORD, when the Bible says that one such as Todd should not be leading any kind of ministry in the Body, which leads me to believe that it may not be GOD who is directing him, as was clearly the case in Lakeland.  

If you disagree with my last statement, you have to ask yourself a question.  If it was GOD through the Holy Spirit directing Todd in Lakeland, then who was it who exposed Todd?  Your answer to this question is key to whether or not you are really of God as well.  I will give you a hint; Patricia King got it wrong, and exposed herself as not being of the one true GOD.  I will be looking forward to your answer.

Your Brother-in-Christ,

Michael T Peabody

Stratford, CT

Now some may be asking... Isn't this a little harsh?  But again, the Bible makes it very clear that God doesn't use someone who harbors sin in their heart. (Proverbs 28:9, Psalm 66:18, Isaiah 59:2, I Peter 3:7, John 9:31)  Can someone repent and be used by God? Absolutely!  However, considering the fact that the then girl friend of Todd was with him during the Lakeland revival, it's hard to see how he could have truly repented and have been clean in front of God.  

As for the Patricia King reference.  Sometime after Lakeland exploded, she proclaimed that it was the devil who exposed Todd because of the great success he was having with the revival.  Really Pat?  The devil who brought to light what was hidden in darkness... Hmmm, seems to me she's got that one a little backwards.  Scripture is pretty clear who brings things that are in darkness to light, and it ain't God's fallen angel...

A couple of months later, after the first of Rick's "Special Bulletins" concerning the restoration, I sought the chance to communicate with him once again.

Hello again Pastor Rick,

First I want to that you for the 'special bulletin' updates on Todd, I think these will be a better tool than the videos, as you can go back to make sure you are not repeating things, which happened quite frequently on the videos, and frankly which happen quite frequently in conversations, which the videos really were just that.  We can be much more precise with the written word than shooting from the hip any day.  

Of all the questions I asked in my last email to you, you did seem to cover one part, that of Todd not being an elder.  To which I agree; I don't believe I or anyone else who is against Todd being restored to ministry believes that the passages of Timothy and Titus referring to elders applies to Todd.  However, I DO believe that the references in Timothy and Titus visa vie OVERSEERS does apply to Todd.  Typically, overseers are seen as the priests, pastors, reverends, i.e. shepherds of the church (you for one, are an overseer in your role @ Morningstar).  When someone is in the position of leadership in ministry of any kind in the church, that person is an overseer.  Todd, being the head of FreshFire USA, would qualify him as an overseer.  The bible clearly disqualifies him for such a position in the church, and although FreshFire is not a church in the typical sense that we define church today, it is an assembly of God's people none the less.  Certainly any church as we do define church today that allows him a place at their table of overseers, is going against God's Word as well.  I have written two pieces on Todd's restoration on my blog, you are free to go and view them if you wish.  http://abondservantofjesuschrist.blogspot.com   The titles tell it all, and I back up what I say with Scripture. 

 Maybe once more is disclosed on your 'special bulletin' pages, you will be able to count me among those converted in the future, but for now I am firmly ensconced in the camp that believes that Todd's restoration to ministry goes against Scripture.  I pray for his restoration to the Body of Christ, as I do for all who are outside of the Body, and I believe he is in the capable hands of God's men to accomplish this glorious end, but as Clint Eastwood once famously said "A mans got to know his limitations", and as such, Todd being restored to ministry would be a disservice to the Church.

Your Brother-in-Christ

Michael T. Peabody

Stratford, CT

P.S.  A question I had for you in my first email did not get answered, and I believe it to be of the utmost importance in trusting that you and your ministry is capable of truly discerning what is of God, and what is not.  As I had said before, Patricia King got it wrong and I count her as one of the pretenders and not partakers of the Kingdom, much as I do any and all women heading ministries that are not solely dedicated to teaching other women (think of the titular head of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Shori for one).  The question, more simply put, was; Who exposed Todd in Lakeland?  Was it God, or was it the devil?

I think this go-round I was a bit more congenial, wouldn't you say?  The fact of the matter is Rick himself saw Todd as an overseer in the earlier videos (a point I go a little more in depth in the following email).  In some of those videos, they (Todd & Rick) give great importance to establishing a doctrine on divorce and re-marriage, saying that it would be a crucial step in the restoration process.  My hope was that when they looked at every nook and cranny in the Bible to establish this doctrine, they would come to the clear conclusion that Todd needed to "put away" his second wife for the sake of his salvation, never mind re-establishing his ministry.  But alas, to date, the doctrine has never surfaced and not only is Todd restored to local ministry, but to worldwide ministry as evidenced by his Fresh Fire USA website (more on that in a moment).  Oh and by the way, the last two emails were a bit less than congenial.  The first,,,

Hello Rick,

I emailed you a while back about the rush to restore Todd back into 'local' ministry (as if God sees a difference) without first being fully restored to the Body.  I am sure I rightly assumed that he was, and I shared with you my concern of him being restored back to ministry.  You have stated all along that you believe that to be fully restored means back to his former position, but I have disagreed with that assessment from the beginning.  Although we can be forgiven for any sin (except the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit), the consequences of that sin are not necessarily removed.  Hence, my emphasis placed on Todd not being restored to his ministry because he is no longer qualified to be an OVERSEER has been my biggest objection. An objection you do not agree with as he clearly has been re-established as the head of his own ministry,  Fresh Fire, USA.  Your response to questions like mine was that Todd was not an elder so those passages did not apply here, but you failed to see him as an overseer, which those passages would then clearly disqualify him.  But you yourself actually agreed with me in a previous video that indeed he was in leadership (ie. an overseer) ("Defining the Issues"; April 15, 2009).  So what prompted the change?

To refresh your memory, I decided to transcribe the relevant portion of the video. "We do have higher standards, much higher standards, Scripturally, for leaders.  ANY who are going to be in leadership, you've got a different standard in Timothy and Titus and we really need to look at these things."  You briefly mentioned confusion about being and elder and evangelist, then returned to the main point, "I believe in (the case of) leadership, if you're going to represent God, you are going to have to live by the highest standards, not the lowest, so we want to take a real hard look at this."  At this point your emphasis was clearly on Todd visa vie leadership and not eldership.  In your update letter however, you only mentioned that Todd was not an elder, so that those passages didn't apply to him, but even you saw that the passages on overseers DID apply to him.  So it seems, you have sacrificed God's clear word in order to restore Todd to his former position, which wasn't even necessary.  Now I am playing the devil's advocate here but, if Todd were to be brought under your leadership as an evangelist of Morning Star Ministries and not the head of his own ministry, Fresh Fire, USA, this could no longer be an issue to your detractors like myself.  However, you have chosen a different route for all the world to see, and for that, I will pray for your soul.

The second key point I have is the case of the missing doctrine.  As it has been nearly two years since the restoration process began, I went back to see when the doctrine of divorce and re-marriage was first mentioned, since this really has to be the defining 'line in the sand' as to how you came to the conclusion that Todd should or could be restored to ministry.  You have already put the cart before the horse in bringing Todd back into ministry at any level without first completing the doctrine, which you yourself put a lot of importance on in the same video I mentioned above. So you actually have been found in conflict with your own statements twice in moving forward with Todd's ministry restoration.

Case in point:  It was Todd who mentioned in the previous video to the one I mentioned above ('Overcoming Shame and Grief'; April 7, 2009)  that he had no position on divorce and re-marriage; "I don't have a doctrine on divorce and re-marriage.  You know, it's happened; 50% of the church has been divorced and re-married, doesn't make it right, I'm not going to say it makes it wrong, you know, but it is what it is."  To which you responded immediately to Todd that you were formulating a doctrine on divorce and re-marriage because it was important to do so.  In the April 15th video you stressed the importance of having such a doctrine and being sure it aligns with Scripture and God's will.  Some quotes from you; "God hates divorce"; on vows "God keeps His Word; and if we are going to represent Him, we have to keep our word, our word is our bond" (which you also mentioned in the March 18, 2009 video).  Also in the April 15th video it seemed that you had come under some criticism about being lazze faire about the whole issue, and when reading Todd's word for word response here, you can see clearly why people were upset.  But if it were so important, why would it not be completed before Todd was put back into ministry?  The only answer can be that it wasn't, that it was simply a ruse to quell the anger of the people at the time, and you were hoping that it would be swept under the rug given enough time before you put Todd back to his former position.  You have done so without regard to Biblical standards or even your own standards that you set for yourself in this process.

In that same video, you asked the question; "Did the flesh rule?...the flesh ruling instead of the spirit, that's a serious issue".  Ironically, you answered that question in a previous video (Rick Answers F.A.Q's #1, March 13, 2009) when you told of the time before Todd showed up at Morning Star to begin the process.  Speaking of Todd, you said "He didn't feel like he could stay pure, didn't feel like they could stay pure if they didn't get married, and it was a real issue, and I gave an ambiguous answer..."  What was the rush?  The flesh was clearly ruling over the spirit, a serious issue by your own words and the result was what?  Biblically, even if Todd had not started the relationship with Jessa before the divorce as had been rumored, he is still living in sin because he is married to her (Matthew 19.9).  It doesn't say 'sleeps with' another woman, but rather marries another.  Now we know that this decision to marry was a flesh-ruling decision, not a spirit-led one so the only way Todd can truly repent of this is sin is to annul the marriage.  Anything short of annulling is not true repentance.  Repentance means that you turn from your sin; so how can Todd truly repent while still being married to Jessa? 

So what have we learned?  We learned that you have restored Todd to the Body of Christ without truly repenting of his sin.  We learned that you have begun to restore him to ministry as an overseer of his own ministry against the clear Biblical standards that you yourself have said that those in leadership must be held to.  Finally, we learned that your doctrine on divorce and re-marriage is a farce because it still does not exist after two years and even if it would find the light of day in the near future it would still be a farce because it would have to justify your rush to put Todd back in ministry.  

I will be praying for you and Todd to see the light, but alas like homosexuals who flock to denominations like The Episcopal Church, in you Todd has found someone who condones his sin, so if he is told he has nothing more to do, why would he continue to seek?  It is you, more than Todd, who should fear the judgment to come over this.  You, by your own words, know better, but for some reason decided to take a different path.  It is you, Rick Joyner, that needs to get on his face before God and ask for forgiveness for what you have done and how you have handled this situation.  May God have mercy on your soul.

A Brother-in-Christ,

Michael

Yep, not very congenial. However, I said what needed to be said.  It may not have been the politest way possible, but Rick needed to be called out for his lapses in judgment and a stern warning for his own sake was necessary to awake him from his slumber.  That's all any of us outside of the walls of MorningStar can do.  I'm pretty sure if someone inside said what had to be said like I did, they would have ended up on the outside looking in as well.

Finally, back in the beginning of the process there was a third member of this restoration team.  Obviously Rick was one, Bill Johnson from Redding, CA was another, and Jack Deere, a noted Biblical scholar.  But Jack was not seen much after the early days of the restoration (I believe he only appeared in the first video).  To this point (when I sent the email below) Jack had not even been referenced for over two years!  The subject of the email read, "Todd's Restoration: what ever happened to Jack Deere?

Jack was supposed to be a part of this restoration but we have not seen hide nor hair of him here, why is that?  Did Jack, when he saw how this was going, knowing that he would be risking his reputation as a true Biblical scholar, back out and run for the hills?  Just wondering...

Rick has since posted a third "Special Bulletin" update on his site in which he says: 

"Because we know in part, see in part, and even prophesy in part, I would never claim to have the whole answer to something as significant as this terrible enemy that divorce is. I do claim to have some of the answers, and they may be some of the most important ones for stopping this terrible plague. Again, I cannot present them in one Bulletin, but I will attempt to present them systematically over the rest of this year. I’m also quite sure that some of these answers have never been considered by most Christians, and they may seem shocking at first, but they are soundly biblical. I think if you read them with openness, you will see the wisdom in them. 

     I am convinced that the most devastating mistake the church has made in regard to marriage has been to substitute the traditions of men for the commandments of God. Much of what is taught about Christian marriage is based more on human idealism than biblical truth, and though it may sound good and reasonable—its effect has been devastating. Some of God’s wisdom also seems foolish to men at first, but if we are teachable and humble before the Lord, I think He will open our eyes to
what actually works. This leads to a very important question I will address in the next Special Bulletin on Todd’s restoration."

Of course, follow up bulletins to this from over a year ago, have yet to see the light of day.  Conclusion; the light of day would not be very pleasing or kind to his attempts at twisting Scripture to the point of it being unrecognizable as anything from the Scriptures!

So as Todd's magical mystery tour goes global in the coming months ( see for yourselves @ www.freshfireusa.com ) and it seems as though there are miracles and signs and wonders abounding; think of this quote from Jesus himself in The Gospels and where we may be in world history...

From Mark 13:22-23 (as well as Matthew 24:24-25)

"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time."

The Case Against Todd Bentley, Part II

Now on to Todd's restoration into ministry.

I don't think we need to take as much time on this as we did on the previous item because the Bible gives us the standard that needs to be followed when it comes to leaders in the Church, and someone who leads an evangelistic ministry such as this, has to fall under the guidelines established in Timothy and Titus, specifically as it describes overseers.

I Timothy 3: 2-8, 12

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1: 6-8

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.

For brevities sake, lets just take a look at key points from what has been highlighted in bold letters from the above passages:

'must be above reproach'; one definition of the word applies well here: to be a cause of blame or discredit to. Was Todd the cause of blame or discredit to... the Body of Christ? We have to look no further than Lakeland circa 2008 to get that answer. Thousands upon thousands went to this so-called revival for a healing from God and came away from it the same way they arrived. Here are some video clips of Justin Peters, who went down to the revival when it was at it's peak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNc4_eQmedQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSNSmKKtMXA

'the husband of but one wife'; hard to understand how Todd qualifies to be back in ministry in the light of this.

'he must manage his own family well'; not sure how this gets accomplished when he is in the US and his family is in Canada.

'he must also have a good reputation with outsiders'; hard to see how he does based on just the Nightline piece that was done on him during the revival.

'not given to drunkenness'; now this one he may have overcome (though it was never discussed in the 'restoration' videos), and for Todd's eternal salvation, I pray that he has overcome the bottle, because the Bible is clear on the position of the drunkard visa vie the Kingdom. (I Corinthians 6: 9-10).

One constant from the videos was the talk of Todd's doctrine on marriage and divorce that has been forthcoming for many months now, but as of yet, has not seen the light of day. Many seem to put their decision on whether or not to follow Todd again on if this doctrine will hold up to Biblical scrutiny. You would think something so important would have to come before Todd were to re-enter the ministry, but somehow Rick Joyner believes that Todd can be released into local ministry while still being in the process of restoration.

http://morningstarministries.org/Groups/1000040651/MorningStar_Ministries/Media/VIDEO_Todd_Bentleys/VIDEO_Todd_Bentleys.aspx

To which I emailed Rick about this, as of this writing he has yet to respond:

Hello Rick,

So Todd has been restored to local ministry? Does the Bible make a distinction between local and national? I am assuming he has been restored to the Body of Christ, first and foremost, yet that has not been mentioned or addressed. Shouldn't one be FULLY restored to the Body before being allowed to minister to the Body?

Yes, we are to restore a brother who has fallen into sin (Galatians 6:1), but should he be restored to ministry? Restored to the Body and restored to ministry are two entirely different things. Are there not things that now disqualify Todd from ministry? If not, what to do with I Timothy 3 & Titus 1, or have you received revelation from God that contradicts what the Bible says?

I would be interested in hearing from you as there are those in my church family who believe they have been given direction from Todd's ministering at a recent conference at MorningStar, but I fail to see how it was from the LORD, when the Bible says that one such as Todd should not be leading any kind of ministry in the Body, which leads me to believe that it may not be GOD who is directing him, as was clearly the case in Lakeland.

If you disagree with my last statement, you have to ask yourself a question. If it was GOD through the Holy Spirit directing Todd in Lakeland, then who was it who exposed Todd? Your answer to this question is key to whether or not you are really of God as well. I will give you a hint; Patricia King got it wrong, and exposed herself as not being of the one true GOD. I will be looking forward to your answer.

Your Brother-in-Christ,

Michael T Peabody
Stratford, CT

No matter what the outcome to this is, the Bible makes it clear; Todd Bentley is no longer fit for ministry of any kind.

The Case Against Todd Bentley, Part I

No, not on him being restored to the Body of Christ, we should restore him, because Scripture tells us so.

Galatians 6:1

"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted."

The warning that comes in that second sentence should be heeded with all caution by those who are in the restoration process of Mr. Bentley. Tempted to fall into sin themselves while restoring someone is exactly what I fear is happening to those involved. While Rick Joyner may be talking the talk on Todd's restoration, he is not walking the walk.

(To see the entire catalog of the 'Todd Bentley Restoration Video Updates', click on the following link: http://www.morningstarministries.org/Group/Group.aspx?ID=1000040651 Go through these videos in order and see if you come to the same conclusion.)


While saying that there is no timetable on when Todd's restoration will be complete, and there is no hurry to get through this process on anything other than God's timetable, we see on the other hand the launching of a new Todd Bentley website: http://www.freshfireusa.com/ The subtitle of this website: "Welcome to Fresh Fire USA - The Ministry of Todd Bentley"


Wait... I am a bit confused. How can someone who is in the process of being restored to the Body of Christ, be heading a ministry in the Body of Christ? Furthermore, should Todd even be heading a ministry in the Body of Christ? What would be the criteria based on Scripture to say whether or not he should ever be restored to ministry?


But, first things first, Todd's restoration.


What would the criteria be for a successful restoration into the Body of Christ?


Truly repenting of the sin that led to him having to seek restoration in the first place would be a good start. Repairing what his sin has broken (righting the wrongs, so to speak) as best as could be done would be another good sign that he could be restored to the Church. Finally, showing signs of being someone who understands the Word of God, and lives his life accordingly would be the surest sign that he is indeed one who knows the voice of his Shepherd.


So, what was it exactly that had him removed from the Body of believers?


Todd Bentley announced his separation from his wife, Shonnah, in August 2008, and resigned from the Board of Fresh Fire. A statement released the same month by the remaining Board members said 'Todd Bentley has entered into an unhealthy relationship on an emotional level with a female member of his staff', and that he will 'refrain from all public ministry for a season to receive counsel in his personal life'.

Now Todd maintains that it was not a physical affair, that their relationship didn't blossom until after he filed for separation/divorce, and that it is just a case of 'bad timing' and 'premature' when it comes to his current relationship. But not everyone involved with Todd sees it this way. Former brethren from within his Canadian ministry as well as close associates within the NAR/ICA movements, have publically stated the facts to be a bit different than Todd's version.


Robert Ricciardelli, once a member of C. Peter Wagners International Coalition of Apostles, has indicated that this affair, whatever type it was, began in January of 2008, which would place it well before Mr. Bentley announced that he was separating from his wife Shonnah. Mr. Ricciardelli was one of the early critics of the Lakeland Outpouring, not only because he knew Todd was living in sin, but because of the lack of honesty in the meetings themselves.

"I am praying for Todd, because he really is an evangelist, and he is a gifted evangelist. But he cannot go on embellishing, speaking untruths, hyping, manipulating, shoving, kicking, slapping, leg dropping, and bamming his way on the pulpit without consequences.. God will not be mocked, and Todd and others must answer to Him for everyone led astray."
"The biggest thing about Lakeland is the lack of the fear of our Awesome God, lack of repentance and humility. Many have exchanged the truth for a lie and chosen experience over content. Angels, trances, and 3rd heaven focus has replaced the gospel as a focus... Lord do what only you can do to bring your divine alignment to all of us in Jesus name.."

And God did just that, by shinning the light of truth on Todd's life. I find it incredible that those who support Todd and the Lakeland Outpouring attempt to blame Todd's detractors and even the devil for Todd's demise. Really? What Bible are they preaching from? The devil was all too happy having Todd doing what he was doing because the devil knows that God does not use unclean vessels, and if Todd was living in unrepentant sin during those meetings it wasn't by the Holy Spirit that Todd's work was being accomplished. Just a few Bible verses for you to consider if you still believe that God was working through Todd. He may have been using Todd as God works all things for good, but these Bible verses clearly show He was wasn't working through him.

Proverbs 28:9; If anyone turns a deaf ear to the law,
even his prayers are detestable.

John 9:31; We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will.

Psalm 66:18; If I had cherished sin in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened

Isaiah 59:2; But your iniquities have separated you from your God;

your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.

I Peter 3:7; Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

So how could GOD have been using Todd in Lakeland if he wasn't listening to him? A teacher of the Gifts of the Spirit and Prophecy who has visited our congregation, Yan Nel has said is that you needed to minister with a clean heart, Todd's heart was harboring his ongoing iniquity of adultery, possibly during the ENTIRE Lakeland event. SO, was God using Todd? His Word says He wasn't, so to say HE was with certainty is to call God a LIAR!

Though roundly criticized while the Outpouring was on going, Mr. Ricciardelli was vindicated by the comments of both C. Peter Wagner and Dutch Sheets, albeit after Todd was exposed:

Dutch Sheets repents: http://pastorburt.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/42856.html

In this post, Dutch makes four points that goes beyond just the fiasco caused by Todd, to the deeper problems within the charismatic movement itself. Four points.

1)We, the leaders of the charismatic community, have operated in
an extremely low level of discernment. Frankly, we often don't even
try to discern.
2)We, the leaders of the charismatic church, spin our involvement
and fail to acknowledge our responsibility when other leaders fall-
all of which stems from our self-preservation and pride.
3)Our procedures and standards of accountability are incredibly
inadequate. We have provided camaraderie, not biblical
accountability.
4)We, the leaders of the charismatic church, have built on hype,
sensation, innovation, programs, personality and charisma. This
has produced: shallowness; false movements; novice leaders-
gifted but immature and untested; a deficient understanding of
God's word; the building of man-centered rather than kingdom-
centered churches and ministries; competition rather than
cooperation; humanistic, self-centered Christians who don't
understand sacrifice and commitment; Christians without
discernment; superstar leaders; a perverted and powerless gospel;
prayerless and anemic Christians; a replacement of the fear of the
Lord with the fear of man; and a young generation that is cynical
of it all. We are responsible, not the devil; he takes what we give
him.

OUCH!

C. Peter Wagner has pointed out that this recent affair was not his second in three years but a continuation of the original that put his marriage in jeopardy back then...

"Suffice it to say that there is more than I am going to mention. First of all, Todd has been removed from public ministry until further notice. He has resigned from the ministry he founded, Fresh Fire, so he is no longer a part of that board. It has become clear that he indulged in periodic drunkenness. He has no intention at the moment of reconciling with Shonna, nor does she with him. Their marriage has been torn for years by his emotional attachment with at least one other female whose physical contact went beyond hugging and kissing and holding hands. Enough said-maybe more details will be revealed later-but it was clearly immoral. All of this was skillfully concealed by lying and by swearing close associates who had observed his behavior to secrecy."

One of those 'close associates' broke their silence to all of this, again, only after this came to a head last August:

"here's some truth from behind the scenes in Abbotsford. Jessa first of all was an intern in the fall 07 cycle. She never applied for it Todd invited her into the internship. Even after a board member severly opposed it. Later Todd invited her and another intern to live in his house during the internship, and after the internship as a live in nanny. At the same time the Bellingham, Washington church was being established so fresh fire could get a legal foot hold in America. This is evident by the lack and the sheer refusal to work with the local churches. It was just for the papers not the church.
In January 2008 2 members of the board confronted Todd about Jessa, and that it was wrong and they couldn't stand by him about it. They were "relieved" of their position for doing so. This shouldn't be surprising as another member of FFM was faced with the same threat, after he caught Todd with another woman in England (this is what the dark night of the soul was actually about), the FFM member was forced to either work for FFM outside of North America or be fired. Jessa is woman number 4 that Todd has cheated on Shonnah with. Todd isn't 100% to blame just 80%, the rest of the blame falls on those board members and pastors that refused to confront Todd on his infidelities. One in particular had the mind set that if Todd does it, it's okay even if it isn't for others. Others refused to confront because they didn't want to loose their jobs (like many have over the years)
Even in Lakeland which I personally think was a two edged work of God, it was a blessing to the locals who have prayed for God to move. And the other edge was a judgement on Todd, in total over the top Todd style. During the highet of revival there was excessive drinking, slasher flicks, and other things I wont get into now with Todd and his inner circle (yes men). There was infighting with the leaders on stage, and the interns where just slaves with ministry badges. Or the fact that all the money collected for the orphans and for sudan never made it to them, it was instead used to pay for the buildings/land for the revival.
Even after Lakeland fell apart, and the news finally became public, Todd never returned home to Abbotsford. He remained in America (illegally) in California, then a breif stop in Reno for their quickie divorce rules. Then it was off to Rick Joyner and his marriage with Jessa These words are not made up, this is a summary of many conversations I have had with former FFM employees, board members and former interns. I just can't stand by and see Todd get away with this for a fourth time. A man who has turned his back on his wife and children once again. yet will be received by the masses as THE man of God."

One other item to ponder in discerning if Todd has truly repented; Todd filed for separation/divorce in July 2008, and then married his new wife in March 2009. Most pastors worth their salt (mine for one, thank goodness) would say that a period of two years before moving on from a death or divorce is appropriate, so most of the same would say the nine months between Todd's divorce filing and re-marriage was too short, but why nine months exactly? Here is an interesting tid-bit I found on divorce proceedures in Canada...

Under Canadian law, separation is a first step in divorce proceedings and takes nine months.

Todd was supposed to enter into a restoration process at that time (August), but did not which led his former ministry to issue an update on their website in November 2008, stating that Bentley was not currently submitting to this process, and was in their opinion, guilty of adultery. What caused Todd to delay his entering into the restoration process?

On the first video of the restoration series, Rick Joyner eludes to a visa issue with an office in California and that he told him to 'get that straight, and then we can deal with this'. The visa issue was only one of the issues Todd got straight, the other was marrying his mistress once his divorce was made final. I guess he felt that he would no longer be in adultery if he married her. I guess he didn't read what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage;

Matthew 19:9

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


Todd also speaks of his previous marriage's divorce as a failure of two people, and one that was years in the making, not just a result of the 'revival' at Lakeland. In fact, Bill Johnson was quoted in an article about the separation last year eluding to the previous troubles...

“They had problems a couple of years ago, and I got involved at that time to lend support and
give counsel to Todd and his staff. In talking with Todd I was led to believe those issues were
now in order. Obviously they weren't.”

What were some of those problems? How about an 'unhealthy emotional relationship' with the nanny of his children. From the former Fresh Fire Ministries (Now Transform International) site on this issue:

"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. She is understandably hurt by Todd’s infidelity, but is not asking or pressing for a divorce. The legal separation from Shonnah was initiated completely by Todd and he has not seen her or the children since the last week in July. To our knowledge, Todd’s relationship with the female staff-member, who was a former intern and also, at his initiative, a live-in nanny in his house for over a year, is still ongoing. We believe that there are currently no biblical grounds for Todd to leave his wife and children. While it has been maintained that no physical contact happened between Todd and the former female intern until after he filed for legal separation from Shonnah, in the Boards’ eyes, the nature of the present relationship between Todd and his former staff member is that of adultery."

Bentley is resolute in seeking a divorce from his wife, Shonnah, amid "his increased familiarity with a female staff member" during the revival in Lakeland, the letter states. "Todd admits to being 100 percent responsible for the divorce."
"With the development of more friction in his marriage relationship, Todd began to make irrational decisions," the letter states. "Alcohol, movies and leisure time spent with a few of the younger, more impressionable members of his staff and road-crew began to replace the hours of soaking in the presence of God in which Todd had engaged during the early days of the Outpouring."

Source: Special Prayer Request, Fresh Fire Ministries, Nov. 28, 2008


Stephen Strader, pastor of Ignited Church which hosted the Lakeland revival meetings unwittingly confirmed Todd's acknowledgment of the basis of his marital problems in an article in a Florida newspaper:

"The Rev. Stephen Strader, pastor of Ignited Church, where the Lakeland Outpouring revival began, said he talked to Bentley by phone Monday... Strader said Bentley defended himself against a couple of allegations contained in a letter from the board of directors of Fresh Fire Ministries, the British Columbia-based organization Bentley ran until August. The letter, released Friday on the ministry’s Web site, broke months of silence about Bentley’s status.

Strader said Bentley did not deny the relationship, and Strader said he agrees with the position of the board.
“I’m uncomfortable with (the relationship). I would probably stand with their letter at this point,” he said.

But Strader said Bentley told him he did not have a problem with alcohol as described by the board’s letter. He said Bentley admitted he had gotten drunk in the weeks he was in Lakeland, but the incidents were isolated and he has resolved not to drink again."

Source: Todd Bentley Controversy Continues, Cary McMullen, The Ledger (Florida, USA), Dec. 2, 2008.

Now, Todd fully admits the divorce was his fault, so any 'maritial unfaithfulness' exception would apply to his ex-wife, not to him, the one who was unfaithful. Therefore, Biblically, Shonnah can re-marry without being an adulteress and living outside of Christ's commands, but Todd, eventhough now married to Jessa, is STILL living in adultery. This is a large sticking point, not in his restoration to ministry, but rather to the Body of Christ. True repentance in this area, should be a nullification of his current marriage. Given the weight of evidence against Todd, we cannot even consider him a 'brother-in-Christ' until this is done.

But is this how his 'restorers' see it? NO. Rick Joyner in more than one video speaks of developing a 'doctrine of divorce and re-marriage', yet to date we have heard or seen nothing on the subject. I am sure it will include Paul's passage from I Corinthians...

1 Corinthians 7:9

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

But this would be taking this verse out of context, because the context is clearly established in the preceeding verse...

1 Corinthians 7:8

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

Unmarried means 'never have been', not divorced...

Furthermore, the Bible makes it perfectly clear what the 'doctrine of divorce and re-marriage' should be throughout the Old and New Testaments. Anything that strays from what Scripture says on the matter should be disregarded as not of God.

One thing that I have seen in the restoration videos is Todd's bravado has gone away. He seems truly contrite and repentant of what he has done, he has sought out all who he has hurt or even may have hurt and has apologized for his behavior. Jessa as well has been part of one of these videos and has asked for forgiveness for the role she has played in this fiasco. But to truly continue in the marriage they have made, and justify it using I Corinthians 7 would have to mean that they have to admit they weren't truly Christians before all this happened. Why? Because Paul was directing this to believers @ Corinth and closed the discussion with this verse:

1 Corinthians 7:27

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce.

I do not think that admission, even if it were true, will ever be forthcoming.

We can see examples of this in Jesus' ministry as he preached the 'Good News' to all who had not yet come to Him. The woman at the well (John 4) and the woman accused of adultery (John 8) are prime examples of the compassion Jesus had on the lost. Just as clear are His standards the he sets upon those who come to Him in regards to these issues (re-marriage and adultery) throughout the Gospels (Matthew 5:27-32; 19:1-12; Mark 10: 1-12; Luke 16:18).

What ever the outcome of all this, I would/will welcome Todd, as all believers should, back to the Body of Christ and celebrate with all the saints, another triumph over the already defeated Satan. Unfortunately, I don't believe that that can be accomplished without annulling his current marriage.

A Discussion on Tongues

A Biblical Study of the Gift of Tongues

*It is my sincere hope in publishing this study that I have undertaken does not cause further division and divisiveness, but rather that it would build bridges. Building bridges, especially in the area of tongues, between the camps that believe the gifts are for today (continuationalists) and those that believe the gifts have ceased (cecessionists). I am attempting to do so by not requiring that either side compromise their belief systems in order to come to this common ground necessarily, but rather for them to have the ability to look at the evidence through the eyes of Scripture and concede that this third option is more than plausible.

For the nearly 2,000 years Christianity has been in existence, there may have been just as many heresies over that same period of time. From the few heretical groups mentioned in the New Testament; The Judaizers (Galatians, I Timothy), Gnosticism (I Timothy) False Asceticism (I Timothy) and the practice of the Nicolaitans (Revelation) all the way to the Latter Rain and Word of Faith movements of the past century, true Christianity, unadulterated by man, has constantly been under attack by the schemes of the devil. One has to look no further than the Church in Rome to see a majority of these heresies that are still followed today.

How we go about determining true Christianity, true Christian doctrine, from it's false variants is to follow some simple guidelines for dividing the Word rightly as each of us are called to do. One guideline is that we are never to base our teachings or theology on a single verse or a single section of verses without examining it in the light of the rest of Scripture. One of the false tenants of Mormonism does this with the 'Baptism of the Dead' from a single verse of Scripture; I Corinthians 15:29 (Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?). What is Paul talking about here, really? I cannot say for certain, but when you start looking at other verses like Hebrews 9:27 (Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment ), or Paul's longing in II Corinthians 5: 6-8 (Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. ), which only happens after you have made a profession of faith while still alive on this earth as it says in Romans 10: 9-10 (That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.), or if that doesn't do it for you, Jesus' story of 'Lazarus and the Rich Man' (Luke 16: 19-31), it doesn't seem possible that he means you can help the dead in the afterlife.

This then leads us into another guideline, that being that it should always be paramount that we are to let Scripture interpret Scripture, being sure to see it in its proper context, both in the structure and application of the words. Finally, the guideline of the 'Primacy of First Mention', which is when something is mentioned in the Bible for the first time based on its position on a timeline (not where it appears in the order of the books), it then becomes the measure, the plumbline that all other related Scripture is judged.

As I mentioned earlier, of the plethora of heresies that have been around since the foundation of the Church, the majority of them come from Roman Catholicism, however a good portion of them have been spawned out of the Pentecostal/ Charismatic movement during the past century. Some so extreme that they believe that you must speak in tongues/pray in tongues in order to be SAVED as the United Pentecostals do. Do I believe that the issue that divides the cecessionists from the continuationalists is this extreme? No, I do not. However, cecessionists who believe that the gifts are not for today are going AGAINST the plain teachings of Scripture in I Corinthians 13 and can be put into the camp that Paul warns us against in II Timothy 3:5 (having a form of godliness but denying its power.) Likewise continuationalists who do not look at the history of paganism in Corinth (the context of Paul's writings) that do not see the 'other tongue' he is speaking of as that of ecstatic speech pagans were known to be using for over 200 years before the birth of Christ (call them immature in I Corinthians 14:20), as going against countless references in the Old Testament of God's fury being cast upon His people for mixing paganism into the worship in Israel, could be provoking God's wrath upon themselves in much the same way as one who denies His power.

Whereas the cecessionist must be a gold medalist in mental gymnastics to fit there theology into the text pertaining to the 'Gifts of the Holy Spirit', the tendency for the Pentecostal/Charismatic is just to pre-suppose their beliefs into the text that, in reality, just are not there.

A quote from a Classic Pentecostal on a discussion board I am a part of bears this out:

"I would have to say that for any congregation where the people already knew how to pray in their native tongue and to pray in the Spirit it would simply be restating the obvious.

The Corinthians and every other congregation that ever encountered Apostolic authority which includes those who were sent to them under the authority of an Apostle, would undoubtedly understand the things of the Spirit and praying in the Spirit would (should) be a normal every day experience; obviously this understanding would vary in its consistency as we have seen with Corinth and with many of the Galatian churches it seems that Paul had to correct their apparent slide into what we would now call cessationism."

You see, it's not in the text because it was common in all of the churches, because it just happened, even though it is not mentioned positively in Scripture anywhere!

Now in order to examine this subject I had to ask two main questions that would sufficiently address the issue at hand. First, Is there such a thing as a self-edifying 'gift' from the Holy Spirit?

Answer: NO.

How I came to this conclusion is completely based on the Word.

I Corinthians 12:7 (New International Version)

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

Ephesians 4:12 (New International Version)

to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

1 Corinthians 14:26c (Amplified Bible)

[But] let everything be constructive and edifying and for the good of all.

I have yet to find a verse of Scripture to support the position that goes contrary to the above verses, there just is no support for any of the 'Gifts of the Holy Spirit', when being used properly, that are self-edifying.

Secondly, is having a 'private prayer language' or 'praying in tongues'/'praying in the spirit' Biblical? To this I would say it is both yes and no. The first mistake we make is that we lump these phrases together as if they are one in the same, but based on Scripture, they are not. The second mistake we make is that we put the emphasis wrongly on whose 'private prayer language' it is, and who is really 'praying in tongues'. In short, the last two mentioned is actually what I like to call, 'Trinitarian Communication'!

To arrive at this conclusion I broke down the discussion into two categories, one on tongues and the other on the spirits, in which setting a 'Primacy of First Mention' verse or verses came to aid in establishing a proper plumbline to separate truth from error in both instances.

First we will examine the use of tongues. The most obvious verse to use at the 'first mention' is Acts 2:4; the speaking in other tongues at Pentecost. Jesus, like the prophet Joel before him, not only prophesied about the coming of the Holy Spirit (John 14: 16-17; 15:26; 16: 7-8; Luke 24:49; Acts 1: 4,5,8), but also what would happen when He did come to Jesus' disciples (Mark 16:17). In most English translations, this prophetic verse is cross-referenced with Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6, and I Corinthians 12:10, 28, and 30.

So let us look at the primacy verse; "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." We get three points from this plumbline verse:

1) The person speaking had to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

2) The 'other' tongues were real languages of the known world.

3) It was the Holy Spirit who gave the gift as He determined. (I Corinthians 12:11)

All other references to 'tongues' must be able to match this standard.

Automatically we can include the aforementioned cross-referenced verses from Jesus' prophecy in Mark 16:17. We then look to those verses for any further references and in the NIV with Acts 2:4, we come up with verse 11 as well. In the NKJV we also find I Corinthians 13:1 as a direct cross-reference, and from there it cross-references with I Corinthians 14:1, 39.

While the NIV did not cross-reference Acts 2:4 with I Corinthians 13:1, the NKJV did, and in doing so actually raised the bar by comparing it directly to the plumbline. With this we must interpret this verse as men and angels having the same language, and Scripture bears this out. Time and time again, from Abraham and Lot's conversations with angels (Genesis 18, 19) to the conversations the Apostle John had with angelic beings recorded in Revelation (more than 20 times!), ALL were conducted in the person's native tongue. So based on the plethora of verses that time and time again showing angels speaking with humans in the tongue of humans, there is no support for angels having a distinctly different language. Paul, being a learned man of the Scriptures knew this and if there was a distinction to be made he would have used 'or' instead of 'and' ("If I speak in the tongues of men OR angels..."), but alas, he did not.

There are, however, a couple of caveats to consider. First, if angels did have a different language, but yet could converse with humans in each every one's native tongue, their language would logically have to be a root language (like Latin is to Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc.) that ALL languages were based on. In I Corinthians 13:8, it speaks of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge all coming to an end, as verse 10 explains; "But when the perfect comes, the imperfect disappears". This does not mean we will not communicate, but rather in a more 'perfect' way; say, the same way it was in the 'perfect' Garden of Eden, it will be again when all is restored. What some call the 'Adamic' language that was spoken on earth up to the 'Tower of Babel' (Genesis 11) will be once more. There is no reason to think that if angels were speaking that language then, that they would have had any reason to cease from using it themselves. This also puts to rest the belief (if our private prayer language is an angelic language) that the devil and his minnons could not understand it, they ALL understood the 'Adamic' language, after all, his minnons were angels themselves once, and it was Satan who decieved Eve.

The second caveat to consider is that Paul may have been simply speaking in hyperbole and nothing more. On two other occassions in this same letter he does just that. Some would look to Paul's statement in I Corinthians 14:5; "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues..." as an indication of the importance of tongues to Paul, but to that tact on this verse you would also have to equally thin it as important that everyone remain single!

1 Corinthians 7:7a (New International Version)

I wish that all men were as I am.

So as the verse about angels is more than likely hyperbole, so too are these passages.

Likewise the passages in I Corinthians 14 that are indirectly cross-referenced with Acts 2:4 are held to the standard of the tongues being real languages, it is not surprising that most verses are not cross-referenced, because Paul is speaking of something different here. He uses two forms of the word in this chapter and nowhere else in his writings. He seems to be distinguishing between real (plural) and unknown languages (singular), giving credence to the likes of John MacCarthur who believe he is speaking of gibberish, a hold-over from the pagan days of the Corinthian believers lives; estatic speech that pre-date Christ by nearly 200 years or more. This is further bolstered by the sometimes overly descriptive Amplified Version using the word [strange] at times were most other translations us the singular.

Even if Paul was not referring to the historicity of the Corithian culture, he is consistently hammering the point home to the reader that this type of tongue is not edifying (vv. 2, 4-6, 13, 17, 19) and therefore is wrong or wrongly applied in the assembly because earlier in this letter he explained what the 'gifts' are to be used for, "for the common good." (I Corinthians 12:7) The Amplified Version's reading of Chapter 14, verse 26 gives further credence that he is being corrective with this portion of the letter; "What then brethren is [the right course]? He answers his own question in the final sentence of the verse; "[but] let EVERTHING be constructive and edifying and for the good of all." His most stinging rebuke of this practice in the Corinthian Church comes in verses 9 and 10.

I Corinthians 14:9-10 (New International Version)

So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.

Some would say that Paul practiced this himself, so how couold he then be speaking against it. All the more since Paul KNEW the 'right way', and if there were those who were doing it the 'right way' along with those who were stuck in their paganism, both were wrong for doing it in the assembly without interpretation! However the verses most often quoted as proof Paul had this 'private prayer language' comes from verses 14 and 15. But Paul in verse 14 is no acknowledging this, rather he is making a hypothetical statement. How can I be sure? Well, he follows this immediately with a question on what to do about it. If verse 14 was not problematical for him, why would he need to ask a question that seeks a remedy? (v. 15a) It is the second half of the verse that gives us his answer on how he would pray, not in a tongue, but in his spirit and his mind (v.15b), which is exactly opposite to the ecstatic speech of pagan worship, full of mindless chatter.

Let us not forget that Paul drives the point home that he speaks in tongues more than anyone (v.18), but would rather instruct others with intelligible words than do that (v.19), and immediately calls on his Corithinan brothers to stop acting like children! (v.20) If a 'private prayer language' is what is being referred to here, Paul is certainly not looking at it in a positive light by referring to those who use it as immature! Looking back to Paul's example of how he would do it ("I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind"), he gives us a perfect jumping off point to now look at the second part of this, 'praying in the spirit'.

...more to come, and here it is...

In New Testament times, the first mention of this concept seems to be rendered by Jesus in His conversation with the woman at the well (John 4: 1-26). Jesus tells the Samaritan;

John 4:23-24 (New International Version)

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Is this referring to a 'private prayer language'? In order to answer this question we must also look at what has to be considered the plumbline for prayer in the New Testament; how Jesus taught His disciples to pray.

Matthew 6:5-15 (New International Version)

Prayer

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

"This, then, is how you should pray: " 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Luke 11:1-13 (New International Version)

Jesus' Teaching on Prayer

One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."

He said to them, "When you pray, say: " 'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.' "

Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.'

"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Nothing here about using a different language. Bibles printed in Greek, use Greek words in these passages. English Bibles, English words, Spanish Bibles, Spanish words (I checked, I own all three!). So then what is worshiping or praying in spirit and truth? I believe Jesus answered this question in the very next verse.

"God is Spirit", said Jesus. Unlike the gods of the pagans that are idols that are prayed to; the One True God is spirit, so mwe must pray to Him in the same way. Not to statues that suppose His likeness, but to Him who is spirit and unseen by man (John 1:18; 6:46). Just as well you do not have to go to a particular place in a particular city to pray to Him (The Samaritan woman said, "You Jews claim we must worship in Jerusalem"), but rather in spirit it can be done anywhere, at anytime, in anyway, and Jesus' preference eas for us to be alone and in secret (Matthew 6:6).

Taking another look at I Corinthians 14:2, certainly sounds like it could be speaking of a 'private prayer language', but this is a bit problematical when compared to the plumbline established by Jesus. However the NIV gives us a clue to this mystery as it shows an alternate way of translating the second sentence of verse 2:

I Corinthians 14:2 (New International Version)

For anyone who speaks in a tongue^{a]" style="line-height: 0.5em; ">[a]} does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries ...^b]"

^{b.Or by the Spirit}

This alternate is also included in the Amplified Version;

I Corinthians 14:2 (Amplified Bible)

For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning, because in the [Holy] Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding].

Now we are getting somewhere!

This alternate translation causes this verse to be a better fit with already cross-referenced verses in Romans 8:23, 26-27, as well as I Corinthians 2: 10-16. Even closer to the plumbline of John 4: 23-24 is another cross-referenced verse to these;

Ephesians 6:17-18 (New International Version)

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

Praying in spirit and in truth could not be much clearer here.

So praying in the spirit is quite Biblical when understood in its proper context, yet that is still not quite what is going on in Chapter 14. As I mentioned earlier, I am sure there were believers in Corinth who were 'doing it the right way' compared with others that were still allowing themselves to be swept up in gibberish that was a hold over from their pre-Christian days, so yes a 'private prayer language' may be partially in view here, but it is not our own. It is when we try to make it ours that we (and the Corinth believers then) go wrong. How is that? The answer can best be explained by Scripture in Romans 8. From these verses it will become clear whose 'private prayer language' we are talking about.

First look to verse 11, it is God's Spirit that lives in us. Verse 16 tells us that God's Spirit communicates with our spirit. Verse 23 tells us that our spirit 'groans inwardly' as we wait for the fullness to come (and to whom does it groan inwardly?). Finally verse 26 shows us how the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness and intercedes for us with 'groans (to the Father) that words cannot express'.

So our spirit communicates to the Holy Spirit (groaning inwardly) so when we don't know what to pray for in our spirit ot God, the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father and Son with groans in a language we do not understand! This is best examplified in the Amplified Versions rendition of the second half of I Corinthians 14:2;

For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning, because in the [Holy] Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding].

Now apply this to those difficult verses of Chapter 14. Verse 2 properly understood is that sometimes these 'groans' are verbalized in an unintelligible language (I have heard this many, many times with my own ears from others, and I prefer to believe that it is sincere and not gibberish), it is an audible version of the 'private prayer language' within the Godhead; Trinitarian Communication!

Verse 4; when this happens, is it self-edifying? You bet! I remember the first time it happened to me, I felt like I was still in control of my body but yet something was coming out of me that I was not producing, and I was thinking, 'WOW! This is so cool!'

Paul says in verse 13 that you should pray for an interpretation because only the Godhead would know what is being said, and no man with the gift of interpretation (of real languages) would be able to do so. That is why Paul makes a hypothetical statement in verse 14, because he knows it is either the Holy Spirit who is communicating or is some pagan gibberish, so when he is praying he prays as he explains in verse 15.

With this, a word of caution comes from what can be drawn out of verse 17; "You may be giving thanks well enough..." The implication is that you may not be as well. If you feel in control of your body when this is happening, it will be the Holy Spirit, remembering that God is a God of order, not confusion (I Corinthians 14:33), and you can be assurred that this is positive communication. However, if you feel as if your body has been 'taken over', beware, it may not be of God and therefore could be cursing instead of blessing.

Finally, seeing this in the proper light of Trinitarian Communication, if it begins to happen in the assembly and no interpretation follows, you must keep quiet and speak to God in silence (I Corinthians 14:28). I am sure there were cases in Corinth as there are today where people attempt to manifest these things outwardly in their own effort, and this verse is designed to keep those in check. If it is truly the Holy Spirit, He would not communicate with the Father and Son in a manner that goes against His Word, because again as verse 33 states;

I Corinthians 14:33a (New International Version)

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

May the peace of the Lord be with you on this day,

Bondservant