I’ve never attended Bethel Church or their school of ministry, and I’ve only listened to a handful of sermons by Bill Johnson.
However, as a lifelong Pentecostal/Charismatic, I’m aware that Bethel’s influence has saturated charismatic culture for decades.
One concept Bethel promotes is creating and maintaining a “culture of honor.” This sounds like a beautiful and biblical idea, since human beings should honor one another as the image of God—but what does it really mean?
In Bethel’s view, current forms of church leadership should be discarded and five-fold ministers should be placed in charge.
One supposed benefit of this type of leadership is that it puts people in power in a position to empower those around them, thus making it possible for God’s kingdom to come and his will to be done.
The blurb on the back of Culture of Honor by Danny Silk makes exactly this claim, and quotes Matthew 20:25-26 in that context:
“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.”
Yet note Jesus doesn’t say we should seek positions of honor in order to empower others. He explicitly says we are not to exercise authority over others—we are to serve them.
Which begs the question,
How has honor culture worked out in real time?
Recently, Bethel leaders offered an apology for failing to protect and prioritize victims of abuse in the case of Shawn Bolz. Since then, another abuse survivor has stepped forward, this time about Bethel’s prophetic ministry overseer Ben Armstrong.
If we pan out to look at the charismatic church in general, one celebrity leader after another is tumbling off their pedestal as more and more abuse victims speak out.
I’m afraid we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. The problem is systemic. And honor culture is part of the issue.
The idea of people in power using their position to empower those around them sounds nice—but the actual practice doesn’t work.
Instead, the people who receive honor in a “culture of honor” aren’t the ordinary folks. Honor is reserved for leaders.
Leaders are elevated, revered, cherished and protected. Just watch what happens when a celebrity pastor commits clergy SA.
What is seen as tragic in that scenario?
Not the unfathomable damage to the soul of the victim(s). Not the fact that a leader used his position of power to selfishly use and abuse someone in his spiritual care.
No, the great tragedy, apparently, is that a minister’s reputation might be tarnished and he might lose his position.
In videos of leaders making apologies to their congregations, either for their own sin or for their complicity in another’s, the typical respond is applause and cheer for the leader.
I’m appalled by the adulation of the crowds for a mere apology.
A public apology is the very smallest first step in the direction of real repentance—and that’s only if the apology is sincere, which will take time to prove.
Why praise that first tiny step, as if it fixes everything? As if there’s no chance the one making the apology is doing so mostly for the sake of image management and brand protection?
Why not respond to the news of egregious shepherding failure with grieved silence, letting the Holy Spirit do his work?
Shouldn’t we be more concerned about the sheep who’ve been wounded than we are about the shepherds who let the wolves in—or worse, who are wolves themselves?
It appears by “culture of honor,” what we really mean is every leader has so much potential good in them they can never be held accountable or face any significant consequences for sin, no matter how reprehensible.
Which in turn means we push for the “restoration” of our cherished celebrity leaders—and revictimize the wounded in the process.
But Jesus’ heart is for the marginalized, the spurned, the rejected. We do well to pay attention to his harsh words for those who harm the vulnerable,
“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to fall away—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.” –Matthew 18:6
Victims are traumatized by the abominable behavior of abusive, predatory spiritual leaders. The combination of spiritual abuse and SA is especially soul-shattering.
It’s no wonder many victims have left the faith.
So, how has honor culture worked out in real time?
Has it demonstrated value for every image-bearer, not just for those at the top? Does it prioritize justice, righteousness, protection, peace, and well-being for all? Have those in power empowered everyone else?
No.
Instead, “culture of honor” is code for, “Don’t ever make your leaders look bad, no matter how badly they behave.”
In other words, leaders matter, but the people they hurt do not.
Turns out, honor culture is not honorable at all.
It’s just a prettier name for “culture of idols.”
