Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

This past weekend was the 26th anniversary of Jimmy Swaggart's summoning to Springfield, Missouri to give an account to AoG officials. Two days later Jimmy's infamous "I have sinned" speech was broadcast around the globe.


I'd like to consider a question...


Is not true repentance accompanied by restitution when possible? If you lied about someone and destroyed their reputation and ministry, would not true repentance over such a deed include setting the record straight in the public arena to help restore the reputation you helped to destroy?

On a related subject, has anyone ever heard Jimmy Swaggart even acknowledge his sin against Marvin Gorman, much less apologize for it?

This video tells the story. It was made before Jimmy's second scandal of 1991. it explains the Gorman situation fairly well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BeWPkoxi98


Secondly, I found something interesting in the archives. It is a letter that a JSBC professor wrote to Jimmy Swaggart at the height of the scandal. As a result of this letter, this professor was yanked as a Summer Missions leader. You do NOT question the Swag.





[quote]

Dear Brother Swaggart,

I came to JSBC some 3 1/2 years ago and I felt then, and still do, that it was of God. Your message and philosophy have always borne witness with my spirit. For the first time in my religious life, I had found a company of like minded people with whom I could identify. When I came here, I felt that I had entered the New Jerusalem and, after being here for some time. I had no reason to change my mind. This has without doubt been the highlight of my Christian life. I have loved every minute of it, and have no desire or inclination to leave now. However, the events of the past few weeks have completely pulled the rug from under my feet. And the reason, Brother Swaggart, is not your sin, which is now under the blood of Jesus and forgiven, but events that have been unfolding for some time, but only now are apparent; events that I have tried to overlook, to wink at as though I were not seeing what I was seeing, or hearing what I was hearing. Yet, it was true. You were changing, and not for the good, as I saw it. Let me explain in more detail.

But first, let me preface this by saying that if you really believe that this ministry is of God, then submit to the decision of Springfield. I do not say this as your enemy, but only that I might "speak the truth in love." Solzhenitsyn once said that " ...truth is seldom pleasant, it is almost invariably bitter. " I believe this is true; but I am not telling you this as an enemy, rather I am saying this as a friend.Solzhenitsyn quotes a Russian proverb: "The yes man is your enemy; but your friend will argue with you." Please listen to my argument.

Brother Swaggart, God is the One that has set this ministry back, and He has done it for a reason. I think Paul gives us the best clue when he talks of a thorn in his flesh:

"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelation, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I SHOULD BE EXALTED ABOVE MEASURE. " (2COR. 12:7)

God has been behind this whole sordid mess because you were be- coming too proud (Is it possible God would bring down a ministry to save a man?) . You had become so popular world wide that you had virtually taken the position of infallibility and were speaking ex cathedra. For example:

"...As the great Paul was called to take the gospel to the Gentile world, I have been called to reach the masses with the gospel of Jesus Christ as well. If you think there are many others out there--or even one other person--who can do it, you are so sadly mistaken. I would to God it were so. I wish there were thousands who could do it, but I know they aren't there. So if I do not do it, it will not be done. I know that to be the truth." (Evangelist, March, 1988, p.33)

This statement expresses the ultimate in self-confidence and pre- sumption. Not even Paul, who you compared yourself with made such statements, even though at times he boasted of his suffering for Christ (2COR, chapters 10-12, PHIL 3). Certainly, Peter's state- ment would not apply in your situation:

"For what glory is it, if, when you are buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently. " (lPETER 2:20)

You have not endured you "buffeting" patiently. Rather you have ignored what God is trying to do in your life and ministry, and you are planning to move full speed ahead to do what you imagine that God has given to you, and to you alone. You are going to remove the thorn, yourself. In the past few months you have been "hearing" from God continuously. Yet, it has not been a year since you were warning about those preachers who continually use the phrase "God told me. " Only this past week, you indicated that it was not easy to differentiate between thoughts in your mind that were a product of your own thinking and that which was from God. I do not believe there is any Biblical precedent for such rationale. Paul speaks of " ...bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2COR 10:5).

Thinking is a product of the human mind. And every thought should not be sorted out as either from God or the devil. Rather, each thought should be considered as either in line with obedience to Christ, or just a product of selfish or carnal thinking. To be sure, you are prefacing everything you say with a form of humility, yet your actions are not bearing this out.

The attitude that you are the only one that can reach the world for Christ started back a year or so ago when you received a vision of the "harvest." You made the statement then that God told you that if you did not do it there was no one else that could. Now, whatever you meant by that statement then has been confirmed in the recent statement quoted above. Yet, in the past few years, I have heard no less than 3 different evangelists state that God had given them a mandate to take the gospel into all the world. Are these "missing" God if you are the only one that can do it? In the past, you have always sounded the alarm when a brother was getting carried away with this "thus saith the lord" mania. This kind of talk will be perceived by others as presumptuous and arrogant .




One other area of pride that I might mention is in the area of the staff and the congregation. Due to the fact that the church has been bought and paid for by ministry money, there is little or no real commitment on the part of the people. Just one example is to inquire into the "great" numbers that turn out for all night prayer meetings to undergird your crusades. This is but one reaction on the part of the congregation, but is it any wonder when they are treated as dumb sheep? For instance, when a much loved, and very popular singer on the crusade team suddenly disap..pears, there is no explanation whatsoever to the congregation. Again, "the greatest campmeeting preacher in America," and the man that, "I had rather hear preach than eat," is no longer with us. Again, no explanation to the congregation. It is left up to the sheep to speculate and gossip as to what happened to them.* No one has a voice in the affairs of the church, no annual financial re..port, no vote, no input whatsoever. There is no accountability whatever on the part of the ministry. We are treated as children that are just supposed to be obedient and not ask questions. Isn't this somewhat like our Catholic friends?

In chapel last week, we were told that the school would grow bigger and bigger, and that the "best" professors and "best" students would stay here. What kind of statement is this that comes from the lips of a broken man? When a young professor challenges past statements which contradict present actions, is it humility to revert to at.. tacking him rather than the issue at hand, and then asking him what he is teaching the students in his classroom? I realize that these are trying times for you and the ministry. But, they are also trying times for us as well. Brother Swaggart, let me repeat here that it is not forgiveness that is questioned; rather, it is subsequent actions that do not represent "fruit meet for repentance," nor is there any sign of restitution.

Another area of concern is that of theology. Obviously statements that are now being made are indicative of a theological change in your thinking. I refer once again to the discussion with the young professor who queried you on your change of theol..ogy from recent articles on the Bakker case. You completely reversed yourself on the traditional teaching of Timothy and Titus in regard to qualifications for bishops and elders (Evangelist. September, 1987). You then defended your position by referring to Jesus' statement to Peter: "When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren"(Luke 22:32). This is a weak argument to say the least. Peter's sin(s) here was that of pride and arrogance which was a result of lack of faith (v. 32). Jesus had anticipated Peter's presumptuous spirit and had replied to Peter even before Peter spoke. Listen to Peter's presumptive remarks: "I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and into death"(Luke 22:33). Matthew records two more in the same context:"Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended" (Matt. 26:33). And again, " ...though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (Matt. 26:35). Obviously these were pre.. sumptuous statements with little or no forethought. Certainly, they were not inspired by God. Also, the Greek word here for "converted" means to "turn again" (epistrepho), and is different from the word "repent" (Gr. metanoeo) which means to "change one's mind. " The subject of the context in Luke is that of faith. Jesus knew that Peter's faith was about to be tried as never be.. fore, and that Peter's presumptuous boasting was nothing more than self-righteous rhetoric. Faith that will not stand under pressure is not true faith. Therefore, after Peter's fall , he would see his sin of presumption and subsequent fall, and "turn back" from self-confidence to true faith in Christ . Jesus said as much to Peter: "Your vain glorious confidence will cause you to back.. slide, but when you are turned back recovered, your special mission will be to strengthen the brethren, and help them to keep from backsliding." Brother Swaggart, would it not be better to stick by your original statement that "I have sinned," rather than reverting to a theology of "situation ethics"; i.e. , applying the scripture to fit the situation?

Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary Pt 2
 

Let us now consider one area that I believe represents a double standard. An area that you either honestly do not see or that you do not know exists. This is the area of music. The past few years, in article after article, you have attacked so-called rock and roll music in the church. Yet student after student has told me, and I agree, that they cannot see any difference in the type of music that is played at Crossfire and so-called rock and roll. Pick up any tape of Crossfire and listen to the beat, it all comes out the same. It boils down to a matter of definitions. Stryper and others are defined as "rock," but ours is defined as "gospel." Why can't we get back to basic honesty? If we are
going to use the flesh and music to win them, we are going to have to keep it up to keep them. When Steve Fatter is told to fire it up, or some such language, in a Sunday evening service, and all of a sudden guitars begin to make the same beat as "rock," and the song is sung six times over in order to work up a "dead" (as you categorized them) congregation into some kind of emotional frenzy, or to induce them to dancing, even to the extreme of bringing out a young black student to teach us how to "dance in the spirit," isn't this carrying a double standard a little too far? What would those who believe and practice "interpretive dancing" and rock and rollers think if they had been here?

Our worship is no longer spontaneous, rather it is mostly induced and manipulative. The last few weeks should have been a time of sorrow, repentance, and mourning. Rather, when a "mighty man" has fallen, we are given over to shouting the victory. What victory? What are we shouting about anyway? The devil has kicked our teeth down our throats, and has virtually taken over the visible church, and the last great bastion of defense has been greatly weakened, and we are shouting.

One final area I wish to cover is that of stewardship. A good steward is one who is accountable. It seems that there is little accountability here in regard to the outlandish spending that has been so apparent. Much of the rationale for the extrav..agant spending is that people with money will give when they see their money spent qualitatively; i.e., extravagantly. Is this not pursuing carnal means to reach the purse of carnal people? Have we come to the place where the end justifies the means? Should not a race track owner be struck with fear of God and conviction of sin, rather than feeling such a pity for the "fallen" man of God that he gives him a million dollars? Should not Johnny Camp's special a little over a year ago at least have called for a self.. examination? It is an old adage that when someone lives in a glass house, they should not throw stones. I know it bothers you and makes you feel guilty when you see and hear so much criticism over your lavish lifestyle, while at the same time, you are asking others to give sacrificially. This has to be true, else you would not apologize so often and play down your home, watches, cars, etc. Why do you do it? You are too much a man of God, and know the word of God too well, not to know this is true. Wesley once said that if a man can afford, in essence, a $300 suit, then he can afford to buy a $100 suit and give the other $200 to the poor and needy. Did not Jesus teach this: "..take no thought for your life...what you shall put on .. ," "where your treasure is there is your heart also," and John's statement to "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." Are the many warnings of Jesus and Paul that the riches of the world will cor..rupt the man of God no longer relevant in this materialistic and secularized world? Can we really condemn the prosperity message when we are living it? Brother Swaggart, I know that in your heart you see these things. I believe that one of the greatest causes of the present situation has stemmed from riches and fame, which engenders pride and leads to self-confidence, which is a result of inbred sin, and in turn, is one characteristic of the unsanctified Christian. This was exactly the cause of the demise of the Bakkers.


Brother Swaggart, if you really believe that this ministry is of God, then submit to the brethren in Springfield. Don't compromise everything that you have preached and stood for over the years. No man is expendable.You have to know this. There are hundreds of people who will stand by you. True, the ministry will decline, maybe go bankrupt. But who built it, you or God? If God built it, He will raise it up out of the rubble and make it greater than it ever was. Pride will be destroyed and true humility will reign. I mentioned earlier that when I came here, I came to spend the rest of my days here, if that was God's will. I still feel that way. Others on this faculty feel the same. However, under
the present circumstances, I cannot do so with conviction. I feel that to do so is to compromise everything that I have stood for. Just as I feel that you will be doing (compromising all you have preached) . But, whatever your decision, Brother Swaggart, I want you to know that I love you as a brother, and have spent 3 1/2 of the happiest years of my life here on this campus. I will be eternally grateful. Whatever your decision will be, my attitude will remain the same. Thank you so much for indulging yourself to this harsh criticism.

In his service,

XXXXXXXXX

Phil. 1:3-6 "I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making re..quest with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now; Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"[/quote]


(* a reference to Don Brankel who preached a message at FWC about a week after Jimmy's "I have sinned" sermon. In this message, Brankel's text was Proverbs 28:13....He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy..

We all noticed Donnie seathing and turning red, though the message was not aimed at Jimmy. After the service Donnie slipped Brankel a note telling him that "if he didn't like it at JSM he should leave".
brankel did just that. Jimmy, realizing that Brankel was one of the few draws he had left that would keep people interested in his ministry, asked Brankel to stay. Brankel refused. Jimmy replied, "Wait. You don't know how much I'm going to pay you yet!" Brankel responded, "I'm not for sale" and walked out the door.)

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

One of the things that made the Jimmy Swagart debacle so interesting at the time was the aspect of it in relation to his response to Jim Bakker's fall a short time before (he made a public statement that being AOG Bakker had a process to go through that meant submitting to AOG officials. Something a short time later JS refused to do himself) and also that his undoing was by Marvin Gorman whose ministry he had destroyed by revealing Gorman's sexual sin.

I can't remember what it was that made Gorman suspicious that JS was sinning himself but as I recall he either was following JS himself or had hired a private detective to do so when the photo's were taken of JS with that street hooker in that run down hotel.

Several years after all of it I read an exhaustive investigational article that detailed it all. Pretty amazing. Then after all of the puppy dog tears just a few years later JS was pulled over for speeding in CA and the officier found a bunch of pornographic magazines in the rental car. Yet people still blindly follow him. Not as many as before but enough to keep him living well.

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

Will there be a Terry Black anniversary also? I doubt it.

There's a passage in the bible about throwing the first stone, you know. And to gloat over the failure of a weak Christian isn't pretty either.

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

Who is gloating? I asked a simple question, has Jimmy repented and apologized to Gorman? Swaggart lovers always like to build this strawman of 'throwing stones at poor Jimmy over his sexual sins". That is exactly what you are doing. I never mentioned his lust problem. Get over it.

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

No, you're gloating over the failure of a weak Christian who isn't part of the oneness movement.

I ask again, are you going to have a Terry Black anniversary? Are you going to keep posting Terry Black's sins, his failures, his weaknesses year after year.
Of course you aren't. You're going to keep picking on non-oneness folks who fail.

26 years later you're bringing it up. Makes me to wonder what spirit you're of.

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

It's amazing how someone can look at the camera and talk about the sexual sins of others and not bat an eye when they themselves were living in the middle of what he was preaching against..

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

Number one I do not know who Terry Black is.

Number two, I could not care less if someone is oneness or trinity when it comes to matters of failure and restoration. You obviously do not know me well. I do not "glory" in being Oneness. Rather, i glory in the cross of Jesus Christ. Your snide remark only proves you have some sort of chip on your shoulder against Oneness folk. The point of this thread is not Jimmy's sexual sin. Rather, the point of this thread is "what constitutes true repentance". Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard and others are humble and openly talk about how they fell and try to help others from doing the same. Plus, they take full responsibility. Have we seen this same fruit in Jimmy?

Number three, I am a former employee of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries and am the only one on this forum who ever sat across from Jimmy Swaggart in his office and pleaded with him to step down to get help.

You really should know your facts before speaking presumptuously.

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

That was my takeaway at the time. Here was a preacher who commented quite a bit on Jim Bakker's sexual sin including outlining the pathway to restoration within their org. (AOG). In addition he orchestrated a rival Louisiana AOG preacher's downfall by publicizing his sexual sin. All the while he himself was engaging in adultery! Pretty astounding to me.

As far as the poster who whined that this thread was Oneness folks trying to highlight the sin of non Oneness ones that his hogwash. JS was one of the most famous religious personalities in America at the time and to act like the whole situation was not news and did not have huge implications on the perception of Pentecostal / Evangelical Christians in this country is absurd.

My biggest gripe with Pastors who fall into adultery both in and out of Oneness Pentecostalism is that I have yet to personally know of a single one who came forward on their own and showed repentance and remorse. It is only when they are caught and their livelihood is threatened that they show remorse and repentance.

Re: Swaggart implosion 26th anniversary
 

Terry Black was a prominent UPC minister who fell because of various sins. Just curious if his sins will be remembered year after year. Some sort of special anniversary posting as you've done with Jimmy Swaggart.

Nope, that charge is a false charge about me. My issue is that you, 26 years later, made a special anniversary post once again detailing the sins of Jimmy Swaggart. Would this occur with oneness ministers who also fell? There are many of them you know. Why not have an anniversary posting detailing their past sins and questioning their relationship with God?

I too could not care less if the minister is oneness or trinity. If you have a need to post past sins, be consistent. Have anniversary postings for everyone who has sinned in the past.

Jimmy Swaggart must have hurt you very very deeply in the past. A hurt, a disappointment you can't let go. You're demanding personal satisfaction from him, you wish for him to prove to YOU that he's truly repented, truly gone to God and performed as you would deem properly. The thing is, Jimmy Swaggart doesn't have to please you concerning his repentence or relationship with God.

Let it go. The root of bitterness you've been carrying for 26 years now doesn't have to be there. Forgive him.

That's commendable of you. You were right, he was wrong. You were righteous, he was unrighteous. You win, he loses. Honestly, what are you seeking from him? What does he need to do to you personally so that his sins doesn't own you?

The fact is, after 26 years you still bring up his sin. After 26 years, he still owns you by his failure.

You need to be free of that bondage, brother. Forgive him. God has.