Bill Johnson is the lead pastor at Bethel Church in Redding, California. I first heard of him in the documentary Finger of God. The movie is about the everyday occurrence of miracles. I imagine many people are familiar with Johnson through the worship music produced by Jesus Culture and Bethel Music; both of which come out of Bethel Church Redding. Bill Johnson is also known for his association with the New Apostolic Reformation movement and for endorsing the Lakeland Revival in 2008. In particular, he endorsed Todd Bentley, who was seen as the leader of the revival. As with any prominent pastor or church leader who puts sermons and teaching "out there" for everyone to peruse, Johnson has his detractors. I have read many things about Bill Johnson's teaching, both good and bad, but I have never, until now, actually engaged with his material first hand. That is why I set out to read one of his books. I wanted the source for much of the material I had been reading about secondhand. When Heaven Invades Earth is the book I saw quoted from most often and so, that is the one I purchased and read.
I will be completely upfront. I don't have many positive things to say about this book. I think the only real solidly positive item is that Johnson thinks Christians do not rely on the power of the Holy Spirit in their daily lives nearly enough. I agree with him in principle, but how he comes to that conclusion I cannot agree with at all. Stylistically, this book is short (189 pages), written in a staccato style with short, choppy sentences, and is sometimes very difficult to read and understand what exactly Johnson is trying to convey. There are two overarching themes in the book. The first is, as I mentioned above, that believers should be walking in the power of the Holy Spirit every day of their lives. This means not only sanctification, but the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as signs and wonders, miracles, and healings as we ask in faith and the Holy Spirit performs. The second major theme of the book is that man has lost dominion of the Earth to Satan in the fall. Jesus has reclaimed that dominion through the cross and now, we, as adopted Sons of God, can walk in that victory and renewed dominion of the Earth with the power of the Holy Spirit. In filling out the details of these teachings Johnson steps in every obstacle and error in his path. I am going to focus on three main issues I see with his teaching. They are: a pseudo-Gnostic doctrine that pits the "invisible" realm against the "visible" realm wherein the former is superior to the latter, an utter disdain for any of the conventions of Biblical interpretation that leads to absurd uses of scripture, and worst of all, a faulty kenoticism concerning the emptying that occurred at the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Johnson begins his discussion of the invisible realm by telling us that in order to see it, we must repent and have faith. He says: "Faith is the key to discovering the superior nature of the invisible realm" (pg. 42). This sentence comes at the end of chapter three as a set-up for chapter 4, which is titled "Faith-Anchored in the Unseen." I am going to quote a large portion of the beginning of that chapter for two reasons. The first is that I don't want anyone thinking I took him out of context and the second is that we can better analyze the entirety of this particular teaching, including his scripture references, to see what's wrong with it. The following is the first three paragraphs unedited from page 43.
"Faith has its anchor in the unseen realm. It lives from the invisible toward the visible. Faith actualizes what it realizes. The Scriptures contrast the life of faith with the limitations of natural sight. (2) Faith provides eyes for the heart."
"Jesus expects people to see from the heart. He once called a group of religious leaders hypocrites because they could discern the weather but couldn't discern the times. It's obvious why Jesus would prefer people to recognize the times (spiritual climate and seasons) over natural weather conditions, but it's not quite so apparent why He would consider them hypocrites if they didn't."
"Many of us have thought that the ability to see into the spiritual realm is more the result of a special gift than an unused potential of everyone. I remind you that Jesus addresses this charge to the Pharisees and Sadducees. The very fact that they, of all people, were required to see is evidence that everyone has been given this ability. They became blind to His dominion because of their own corrupted hearts and were judged for their unfulfilled potential."
There is a lot to dissect here. For starters, in general terms, there are no scripture references given to back any of this teaching up. I left in the only reference, the parenthetical 2, which I will discuss shortly. The first two sentences say faith is anchored in the unseen realm and lives from there toward here (the visible realm). Without scripture references I am unsure what he means. In the context of the rest of the book, which never specifies what the unseen realm consists of, I can only infer that the invisible realm is some kind of esoteric universe full of different spirit substances that can benefit us. The reason I think this is because Johnson calls many things substances, such as: faith and fear (pg. 50), peace (pg. 66), and anointing (pg. 75). So our faith should be anchored in this unseen realm that is full of substances. There is never any mention of Christ our cornerstone, the true object of our faith (Acts 4:11) or of the invisible God (1 Timothy 1:17). As for the second sentence, how can the invisible live toward the visible if we are supposed to have the "eyes for the heart" fixed toward the invisible realm? I don't know and Johnson never explains. The third sentence is flat out false and comes from a mixture of mind science teachings and Christianity as popularized by Kenneth Hagin. He taught that faith is a substance and our words can be containers of this faith-substance. By speaking these faith-filled words aloud we create our own reality and can have anything we want through faith. This is where the prosperity gospel comes from and is the root teaching of Hagin and his disciples. In Johnson's defense, he never discusses prosperity, but nonetheless, this idea that "faith actualizes what it realizes" is the very same teaching. By believing in faith for anything we desire (realizing it), we can make it happen (actualize it). There is never any mention of God's purposes or will in this discussion of actualizing things. Ultimately, God's purposes will be done no matter how we think, say words, or believe in faith (Isaiah 46:8-11). This doesn't mean God won't do things we ask for, but it is not a simple matter of speaking words in faith for them to happen. Faith-filled words don't create or do anything, God does.
Johnson's next sentence is correct if we stick to the context of the Biblical citation he provides; 2 Corinthians 5:7, which says "For we walk by faith, not by sight." In the context of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul is talking about the heavens (v. 1) and our wanting to be there (v. 2-3). Our being in heaven means our mortality has been "swallowed up by life" (v. 4). God has prepared us for this and sealed us with His Holy Spirit (v. 5) so we can walk in courage looking towards our redemption by walking in faith, not by sight (v. 6-7). This "good courage" (v. 8) drives us to please Him (v. 9) in anticipation of the final judgment (v. 10). This passage never says anything about seeing with the eyes of the heart through faith. Some may object that what Johnson means by invisible is the heavens, and this might be the case, but, again, as I stated above, he doesn't ever say that is what the invisible realm is. The context of the entire book leads me away from thinking that is what he intends.
I want to mention that there is a verse that says "eyes of the heart" in Ephesians, but this is not what Johnson references, so it's impossible to say if he has that in mind here. It is found in Ephesians 1:18-21 which says: "having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come." Even if Johnson is thinking about this verse concerning his sentence above, it is clear that "eyes of your hearts" has nothing to do with seeing into an invisible realm. It is about fixing our hearts on the hope of Jesus Christs' return.
The second paragraph opens with an assertion that we are expected by Jesus to see with our heart. I have already established that faith does not provide eyes for the heart to see into the invisible realm. Since that is the case, Jesus couldn't have expected us to see that way. It is an unbiblical concept. The passage in question, which Johnson does not cite, is Luke 12:54-57 (with a similar, but not the same, narrative in Matthew 16:1-4). Jesus does call people hypocrites for being able to discern the weather but not the "present time" (v. 56). The Matthew passage has the Pharisees and Sadducees, not Luke. Johnson is apparently conflating two different passages with a similar rebuke from Jesus. Luke says in 12:1 that "so many thousands of the people had gathered together" and in 12:54 "He [Jesus] also said to the crowds." This is the kind of careless Bible handling that I will discuss later on. Craig Keener, in his background commentary on the New Testament says that the signs for the weather (v. 54-55) were obvious and so was the truth of Jesus' message. They should be able to judge rightly about him (v. 56-57) (Keener, pg. 215). The Bible Exposition Commentary on these verses makes it more clear why they were called hypocrites:
"If people were as discerning about spiritual things as they are about the weather, they would be better off! The crowd could predict a storm, but it could not foresee the coming judgment. It knew that the temperature was about to change, but it could not interpret the “signs of the times.” The Jewish nation had the prophetic Scriptures for centuries and should have known what God was doing, but their religious leaders led them astray." (Wiersbe, pg. 223)
The issue was not some misinterpreted eyes for the heart that should be used. It was the fact that the Jewish religious leaders didn't recognize or refused to recognize Jesus as the Messiah and as a result, led the Israelites away from their and the world's Savior.
The last paragraph in this section has more of the same stuff about seeing with the eyes of the heart. I am not going to comment on that anymore. What I will comment on is, in my view, the pseudo-Gnostic language Johnson uses in the paragraph. Just to make sure we are all on the same page; Gnosticism taught that flesh is evil and spirit is good, and through secret and/or special knowledge (Gnosis) the elite (those who show interest) have access to it and are superior to "regular" believers (Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies, pg. 44). While Johnson doesn't quite say the same thing as the original Gnostics, hence my use of the term pseudo, he is saying that there is knowledge he has that gives us access to a superior realm, the invisible one, that can make us better Christians. He says that we have "unused potential" to do this. How do we have the "unused potential" to do this? Because we can all become divine, just like Jesus according to Johnson. On page 79 he says: "The anointing [Holy Spirit] is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil. These miraculous ways helped to set something in motion that mankind could inherit once we were redeemed." The implication is that we all have the potential to become divine. This sounds like New Age divine potential teaching which you can read about here. This is clearly wrong. Many biblical passages discuss God's uniqueness (Deut 4:35,39; 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 46:9; Psalm 18:31). Also, Jesus, being fully God (Col 1:19) and fully man (Heb 2:14-18), is utterly unique among humanity. We can be conformed or transformed into the image of Christ as Paul says and partake of the divine nature as Peter says, (Romans 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; Phil 3:21; Col 3:10; 2 Peter 1:4) but does this mean we can be just like Jesus and somehow a part of God? Hardly. This means we have God living inside of us and by His power we can live holy lives. The Bible Knowledge Commentary comments on 2 Peter 1:4: "These promises enable Christians to participate in the divine nature. “Participate” is literally “become partners” (genēsthe … koinōnoi). Because they are “partakers” (KJV) of God’s nature, Christians can share in His moral victory over sin in this life and share in His glorious victory over death in eternal life" (Walvoord and Zuck, pg. 865, Vol. 2).
This discussion of the partaking of the divine nature leads us right into the next main idea in Johnson's book that I want to address. It is his view of the incarnation of Jesus Christ wherein he professes kenoticism, that being an emptying of the divine nature while on Earth. It is this error that leads Johnson to conclude that we can be exactly like Jesus Christ.
Concerning Christs' incarnation, Johnson presents three conflicting statements. The first is as follows:
"Jesus lived His earthly life with human limitations. He laid his divinity aside (3) as He sought to fulfill the assignment given to Him by the Father: to live life as a man without sin, and then die in the place of mankind for sin." (pg. 79)
The reference he gives is Philippians 2:5-7, where indeed, it does say that Christ "emptied himself". Jesus did live His life with all of our limitations except sin. The problem is when he says that Jesus laid His divinity aside. What exactly does he mean by this? On the same page, we find the second statement:
"The anointing Jesus received was the equipment necessary, given by the Father to make it possible for Him to live beyond human limitations...That would include doing supernatural things...The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine, enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil. These miraculous ways helped to set something in motion that mankind could inherit once we were redeemed." (pg. 79)
First of all, the anointing, which Johnson explains is the Holy Spirit as he opens the chapter being quoted from, is not a substance as he says on page 75. God is spirit; the Holy Spirit is God; so the Holy Spirit is an immaterial spirit, not something physical. He says that this is what linked Jesus to the divine. In other words, Jesus while on earth was not divine until the Holy Spirit rested on Him. Jesus could not perform supernatural acts before His baptism and the dove's (Holy Spirit) coming down. By implication given the next sentence, we also can be divine once we are saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Is this a correct understanding of Jesus' emptying during the incarnation? I don't think so. While the original kenotic theologians said that Christ gave up some of His divine attributes (omnipresence, for instance) in order to be human, Johnson is teaching something very similar, perhaps even taking a further step, by saying Jesus laid His divinity aside and thus, all of His divine attributes rather than just some. Theologian Wayne Grudem addresses kenosis:
"But does Philippians 2:7 teach that Christ emptied himself of some of his divine attributes, and does the rest of the New Testament confirm this? The evidence of Scripture points to a negative answer to both questions. We must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes. Second, we must recognize that the text does not say that Christ "emptied himself of some powers" or "emptied himself of divine attributes" or anything like that. Third, the text does describe what Jesus did in this "emptying": he did not do it by giving up any of his attributes but rather by "taking the form of a servant," that is, by coming to live as a man, and "being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this "emptying" as equivalent to "humbling himself" and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, "He emptied himself," translates it, "but made himself nothing" (Phil 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature. A fourth reason for this interpretation is seen in Paul's purpose in this context. His purpose has been to persuade the Philippians that they should "do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves" (Phil 2:3), and he continues by telling them, "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil 2:4). To persuade them to be humble and to put the interests of others first, he then holds up the example of Christ: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant..." (Phil 2:5-7). Now in holding up Christ as an example, he wants the Philippians to imitate Christ. But certainly he is not asking the Philippian Christians to "give up" or "lay aside" any of their essential attributes or abilities! He is not asking them to "give up" their intelligence or strength or skill and become a diminished version of what they were. Rather, he is asking them to put the interests of others first: "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:4). And because that is his goal, it fits the context to understand that he is using Christ as the supreme example of one who did just that: he put the interests of others first and was willing to give up some of the privilege and status that was his as God. Therefore, the best understanding of this passage is that it talks about Jesus giving up the status and privilege that was his in heaven: he "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (or "clung to for his own advantage"), but "emptied himself" or "humbled himself" for our sake, and came to live as a man. Jesus speaks elsewhere of the "glory" he had with the Father "before the world was made" (John 17:5), a glory that he had given up and was going to receive again when he returned to heaven. And Paul could speak of Christ who, "though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor" (2 Cor. 8:9), once again speaking of the privilege and honor that he deserved but temporarily gave up for us. The fifth and final reason why the "kenosis" view of Philippians 2:7 must be rejected is the larger context of the teaching of the New Testament and the doctrinal teaching of the entire Bible. If it were true that such a momentous event as this happened, that the eternal Son of God ceased for a time to have all the attributes of God-ceased, for a time, to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, for example-then we would expect that such an incredible event would be taught clearly and repeatedly in the New Testament, not found in the very doubtful interpretation of one word in one epistle. But we find the opposite of that: we do not find it stated anywhere else that the Son of God ceased to have some of the attributes of God that he had possessed from eternity. In fact, if the kenosis theory were true (and this is a foundational objection against it), then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while he was here on earth. The kenosis theory ultimately denies the full deity of Jesus Christ and makes him something less than fully God. S. M. Smith admits, "All forms of classical orthodoxy either explicitly reject or reject in principle kenotic theology."
(Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg. 550-551)
The "emptying" of Jesus at the incarnation is a very difficult topic, hence the long quote from Grudem, and I do not pretend to know everything about it or even propose a model for how he was truly man and truly God at the same time. What I hope is evident at this point however, is that Johnson teaches a faulty and dangerous version of kenosis that strips the uniqueness of Jesus and ultimately takes away his ability to be a truly redeeming sacrifice for all mankind because he is not God while on earth. He is only some sort of semi-divine human possessed with the power of God. In the third conflicting passage to be highlighted concerning Jesus' emptying, Johnson says: "Jesus Christ said of Himself, "The Son can do nothing."...He had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever! While He is 100 percent God, He chose to live with the same limitations that man would face once He was redeemed." (pg. 29)
This doesn't agree with what Johnson says later in the book (pg. 79) that I covered above. If Jesus laid aside His divinity He isn't God. If He is 100 percent God, He can't have laid aside His divinity while on earth. It has to be one or the other. Jesus' supernatural abilities (or the lack of them) is also a difficult issue. Based on many passages from both the Old and New Testament (Isa. 11:2-3, 42:1, 61:1 cf. Luke 4:18-19; Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; Luke 4:1, 14, 36, 40-41; Acts 10:38) it appears that Jesus operated by the power of the Holy Spirit during His ministry. According to Johnson, without the Holy Spirit, Jesus "had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever!" Is this the case? I don't think so. Luke 2:41-52 relates a story about the 12 year old Jesus giving and asking amazing answers and questions in the temple. Jesus was also sinless for 30 years (or so) before being empowered by the Holy Spirit. How did He do that if He had no supernatural capabilities? There is yet another problem with this line of thinking as well. If Jesus is truly God while on earth (as well as truly man), how did He not have supernatural abilities? If He didn't have those powers, then He isn't God.
The final point of contention I have with Johnson's book is that of his use of the Bible. Based on the scripture citations and my analysis of them, Johnson uses the Bible in a very helter-skelter and slipshod manner. He reads into the Bible what he wants to get out of it and he doesn't hesitate to partial quote verses out of context. Since I have already dealt with his use of scripture somewhat, I will just give one big, clear example of his poor usage.
The example concerns the typology of the Israelites crossing the Jordan river into the Promised Land. After relating the exodus from Egypt story Johnson says:
"When the Jews finally entered the Promised Land, they entered through a river-another baptism. This baptism was not a departure from sin. Such was illustrated when they left Egypt. This new baptism would take them into a different way of life. For example: they fought wars on the wilderness side of the river and won. But once they crossed the Jordan River, wars would be fought differently. Now they would march around a city in silence for days, finally raising up a shout and watching the walls fall (6). Later they would experience the challenge of sending a choir into battle first (7). And then there was the time God intentionally sent over 30,000 soldiers back home so He could fight a war with 300 torch wielding trumpet blowers. He makes the Promised Land possible, and we pay the price to live there. He'll give us His baptism of fire if we'll give Him something worth burning. This baptism in the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment of the Old Testament picture of entering the Promised Land." (pg. 71-72)
Again, I quoted a full passage in context with no omissions or chopped sentences including the parenthetical references, 6 and 7, which are the scriptures Joshua 6 and 2 Chronicles 20:21 respectively. His last sentence where he declares that the Israelites entrance into the Promised Land is the picture of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is what I want to address here. The reason I want to consider this interpretation is, 1) maybe you don't agree with my corrections of Johnson's interpretations up to this point and 2) it is the Biblical text itself that will correct him all on its own. The passage that will make this evident is found in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 and deals with both the Israelites who, by unbelief, were allowed to perish in the desert, and the obedient Israelites who entered the Promised Land. What did the author of Hebrews say the entry into the Promised Land could be compared to?
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.' As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'" Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 3:7-4:13)
There isn't anything in there that discusses the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The answer to my lead-in question is that entering the Promised Land was a picture of entering God's rest. No commentary from me or commentaries from professionals needed. The Bible refutes Johnson's interpretation all by itself. If he is willing to interpret the Bible in this way, with careless disregard for what the text itself says, then I think that any other interpretation he gives of any section of scripture should be closely scrutinized before being internalized as proper teaching.
In conclusion, Bill Johnson of Bethel Church-Redding has written a book that teaches: a pseudo-Gnosticism wherein the "invisible" realm of esoteric substances is what our focus should be on, an error-filled kenosis that makes Jesus out to be just a man with some divine power during ministry, not actually God, and that you can interpret the Bible any way you like as long as it fits your own personal theology and doctrine, notwithstanding what the Bible really says. Without exaggeration, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the poor interpretations and arguments made in this book. I would not recommend this book to anyone because I would be inviting them to read incorrect theology. I also am going to be very wary of anything that comes out of Bethel Church-Redding, including their music, because I don't know exactly what the sermons, conference talks, and lyrics of songs mean and I will not pollute my mind with a blatantly mistaken view of both the focus of the Christian life and God, specifically in the person of Jesus Christ.
References
Scripture quotations taken from the ESV unless otherwise noted. Crossway. 2008.
When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles by Bill Johnson. Destiny Image Publishers, Inc. 2003.
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Craig S. Keener. InterVarsity Press. 2014.
The Bible Exposition Commentary by Warren W. Wiersbe. Victor Books. 1996.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Victor Books. 1985.
Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present by Harold O. J. Brown. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1984.
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem. Zondervan. 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment