The Swaggart Affair
. The comments I wish to make about the Swaggart affair, and about Swaggart’s actions, especially vis-a-vis the disciplinary decisions of the Assemblies of God, are two-fold.
.
. Many have argued that it is not the man nor the ministry nor even the church that is important here, but rather the preaching of the Word of God which is of central importance. Frankly, this is not what I have heard from Swaggart, who claims that his primary concern is with the continuance of his ministry, but assuming for the sake of argument that this is Swaggart’s position, the implications of such an argument are a bit frightening, at least. What an argument of this sort does is elevate the preaching of the Word above even the church itself, declaring the church null and void in those instances where it is perceived to be interfering with the preaching. .
. The argument errs in at least two important ways. First, it demonstrates one of the weaknesses of modern evangelical theology – a lack of a proper understanding of the nature and role of the church. I will discuss this further below. Secondly, it fails to recognize that the church itself is the tool created by Christ for the preaching of the Word. Without the church, there would be no preaching; in fact it is one of the pillars of a Protestant understanding of the church that it is that place in which the Word is preached.
.
. Swaggart himself has said many times that it is not he, but his ministry – or God’s ministry, as he insists – which is important. Swaggart Ministries is not a monument to a man, but a testimony to Christ, and it must not fail. Yet, he then contradicts himself when he argues that he must return to the pulpit or his ministry will fail. And insofar as this is true – and I think it probable that, just as with PTL and the Bakkers, without Swaggart the ministry would collapse – it only serves to demonstrate that it IS the man and not the ministry which is important. It is not the ministry to which followers give over $100 million dollars a year, it is a man. This is one of the ministry’s greatest weaknesses.
.
. The Assemblies of God, in handing down its 1-year ban on Swaggart’s preaching, treated him precisely as it would have any preacher in such a situation, in complete accord with its own guidelines and rules for such matters. But Swaggart, desiring to avoid this disiplinary action, decided rather to resign from the Assemblies than comply with its decision. He and his followers argue that Swaggart has repented, has turned from his sin, and has thereby fulfilled all that God requires of him. Therefore, he is fit to be, and should be, allowed back in the pulpit. While I do not doubt the sincerity of Swaggart’s repentance, and I admire his courage in going public with his confession, again this argument betrays a lack of ecclesiological understanding on the part of both Swaggart and his followers. .
. This argument – that Swaggart has confessed, that he has repented, that he has been forgiven by God, and that no more is required in the affair – is perhaps the no-more-than-logical conclusion of an evangelical theology which has seen over the last hundred years an increasing privatization of the religious experience. During the great revivals of the last century, typified by such revivalist preachers as Charles Grandison Finney, great emphasis was placed on the relationship of the individual to God. Matters of conscience and religion became issues between the sinner and God alone; the church came to play an increasingly irrelevant role in matters of redemption and salvation. Repentance was a matter between the sinner and God; the church was of little concern.
.
. This, indeed, seems to be the position that Swaggart and his followers have taken. Yet such a position in reality bears more resemblence to the encroaching individualistic world view of Western civilization than it does to a truly biblical picture of the church. Traditional, orthodox Christian thought has long declared that it is through the church – the body of Christ – that God mediates salvation. Far from being a mere collection of individuals who gather for a time of worship on Sunday mornings, the church is a living, organismic being. When theologians declare that there is no salvation outside the church, they mean that it is through the entity and mediation of the church that salvation is bestowed; it is not bestowed individually in the privacy of one’s prayer closet, but rather as that individual is brought into, and joined with, Christ’s body.
.
.The same is true of forgiveness. Forgiveness, like salvation, is mediated by God through the church. This is in direct contrast to Swaggart’s claims that God has declared him forgiven, and therefore the church should as well. It is only through the church that God forgives. .
. And there is the additional problem of authority in the church. When he was ordained a minister of the Assemblies of God, Swaggart, in the name of Christ, placed himself under the authority of the church to which he was joined. It was his pledge to submit to that authority and to the decisions of the ruling body of the AOG in all matters which they might decide. In quitting the AOG Swaggart has abrogated those vows, thumbing his nose at that church to which he had sworn himself, and saying, in effect, that he would not submit to church discipline simply because it was not convenient for him to do so. He has defied the very authority he had pledged to obey, thereby undermining the authority of the church at large, and creating division in the body of Christ. Sin and repentance are not, as Swaggart would have it, matters left to the individual conscience and to God. Discipline within the church is of utmost concern to the authority of the church, and most especially when a member of the clergy is involved. God has ordained those in authority over us, not so that we may thumb our noses at them when it becomes convenient to do so, but that there might be a structure to which we are held accountable. .
. Yes, we are, every one of us, weak; we all sin and fall far short of God’s glory and holiness, even ministers of the Gospel. And it is precisely because ministers are no more than human that such structures of authority exist. Swaggart is not accountable to God alone. He is also accountable to the church. By separating himself from that church he has isolated himself from the only medium through which God can administer his forgiveness, and has done harm to the body of Christ. Thus, it seems to this writer, is the last sin greater than the first.
.
. Calvin Culver