Why the ‘God’s Generals’ model is dangerous

Many debates have been had over the origins of revival. Prominent Second Great Awakening revivalist Charles Finney contended that revival “consists in the return of the church from her backslidings, and in the conversion of sinners.” While other revivalists like Jonathan Edwards would agree, the means for achieving this phenomenon is hotly contested. In the same paper, Finney argued that revival was merely the product of employing the appropriate means but Jonathan Edwards argued that revival was entirely up to the will of God.

In the charismatic world, there is still another position on revival’s origins.

Many charismatics believe that revival often coalesces around gifted vessels of God. A popular book series by Roberts Liardon entitled God’s Generals seems to further this narrative. When charismatics think of revival, they often think of a man or woman of God; those “generals” who were specially chosen (or who attained a high enough level of spirituality) to bring the thing we so dearly treasure. According to the “God’s General” view of revival, a man or woman who has sought God will have the ability to bring revival to a church or region, provided the church or region is prepared and will accept them.

Get Our Latest News for FREE

Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

The Hebrides Revival had Duncan Campbell, the Brownsville Revival had evangelist Steve Hill, the Toronto Blessing had Randy Clark, the Argentine revival had Carlos Annacondia, and the Lakeland Revival had Todd Bentley. Many charismatics, rightly or wrongly, have discerned a pattern: revival seems to follow a “general.”

Why the ‘God’s Generals’ model is dangerous

While it’s certainly true that God uses people, even deeply flawed people (just ask Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, and Paul), Scripture demands a high standard of moral character for those in leadership in God’s Church.

For most charismatics and Pentecostals this is not news. While many may be unfamiliar with the depth of sin in the lives of many of these men, they are probably generally aware that many of these “generals” failed in many ways. “But God uses broken people,” or so goes the common rejoinder. The net result is that we lower the standard of leadership in the church to make room for these “gifted but broken vessels.”

We Pentecostals desire revival so much that we will let anyone have influence as long as there’s “revival.”

Never has this phenomenon been more evident than in the case of Todd Bentley. Bentley led the Lakeland Revival in 2008 and has since been accused of rather heinous sins, including allegedly sexually preying upon his interns.  In fact, the Lakeland Outpouring ended in response to the implosion of Bentley’s marriage and subsequent remarriage to an intern with whom he had an inappropriate relationship. Subsequently, Bentley was judged to be disqualified from public ministry according to a panel of charismatic leaders assembled for the purpose of adjudicating the matter.

All of these events have made me ask the question: “What wouldn’t the charismatic world put up with for the sake of revival?”

The danger of general-centric revival

As much as I long for true revival, it seems that there is a large and growing trail of bodies behind many of these revivalist movements primarily because they give grace and mercy to the “general” at the expense of their prey. The predictable result is that genuine sins are covered up in order to protect the movement and safeguard the revival. The victims and their pesky advocates are considered to be the “accusers of the brethren.” This perverse system has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God.

Contrast this with the Asbury Revival or the numerous revivals sweeping across college campuses right now. Who is the “general” leading these moves of God’s Spirit? Whose gross sin and sexual predation needed to be swept under the rug for this move of God to continue apace? As far as I know, there is no “broken but gifted vessel” at the center of these revivals because they aren’t centered around generals, they’re centered around Jesus. Sure, there are leaders — there must be. But you have to do some digging to find out who they are. The revivals aren’t centered around these charismatic personalities, and that is key.

This isn’t to say revivals led by an evangelist are wrong. Ephesus had a revival that was largely centered around Paul’s preaching, after all. The point is that when we believe that we need revival so badly and only special kinds of people can bring it for us, we will be tempted to lower the standard of leadership in order to accommodate the gifted celebrity at the expense of the faith of countless people.

Revival as distraction

Finally, I believe the preoccupation with revival has caused some Pentecostals and charismatics to neglect the foundational teachings of Christ. Loving your neighbor, caring for the orphan and widow, sharing the Gospel with the guy in the grocery store, and loving your family well seem utterly pedestrian compared to the allure of changing history by being part of the next great awakening.

As a leader in my life often says, “greatness is just goodness done daily.” This means that sometimes the Kingdom of God advancing is pedestrian. After all, if revival leaves devastated families in their wake because those involved in them are too exhausted to be emotionally available for their spouses and children, is it really the Kingdom of God at work?

If Finney is right that revival “consists in the return of the Church from her backslidings, and in the conversion of sinners[,]” then it is antithetical to the spirit of revival to lower the standard of righteousness for our leaders and to allow the pursuit of revival to keep God’s people from leading whole and godly lives of sweet devotion to the Lord and each other.