Damage control: Bethel Church's statement about the 'Christian Tarot card' controversy leaves many questions unanswered

Bethel Church in Redding, California, last week, responded to the "Christian Tarot card" controversy that has created a buzz in the Christian media.

Apparently, church leaders could no longer ignore reports that people closely associated with the church -- including students from their school -- have used the controversial decks of cards known as Destiny Cards. And members of their pastoral staff have defended the use of the cards. One, Theresa Dedmon, even developed her own set of Destiny Cards. These reports seem to have damaged Bethel's reputation given the fact that they felt the need to respond with a formal statement -- something they don't do often though the church is no stranger to controversial news.

Here's the statement they posted on their website on January 5. It's fairly lengthy. In short, it states that Bethel has no formal affiliation with Christalignment, the organization at the center of the controversy. Yet it goes on to defend Christalignment's use of the cards as a legitimate form of evangelistic outreach to New Agers. In contrast, critics of the cards, including myself, have argued that the cards are being used, essentially, like Tarot cards -- i.e., as a tool for divination. Divination is condemned in Scripture.

Bethel's statement about Christalignment is clearly intended to put to bed concerns about the cards. Ironically, it raises more questions than it answers.

Questions raised by the 'Bethel Statement Regarding Christalignment'

1.) If these Destiny Cards don't cross a line, what would?

Bethel leaders suggest Christians are narrow-minded if they oppose creative means of evangelism. This, of course, assumes that using Destiny Cards is no problem. So, in defending Christalignment's controversial method, Bethel apparently knows something that critics do not know -- their own (extrabiblical?) criteria for making that decision. What practices would Bethel be willing to repudiate? For example, if a group put together a Christian version of a Ouija board -- but called it a Destiny Board and said they were using it through the power of the Holy Spirit so that people could have an encounter with God -- how would this be any different? Where would Bethel draw the line and why there?

2.) How does Bethel teach its people discernment?

What guidelines do they provide? What biblical support for them? Is their flock expected to trust all discernment to Bethel leaders? If not, how are they being equipped to exercise mature discernment?

3). Why not simply deny affiliation with Christalignment and leave it at that?

 This looks like a defense of the practices of Christalignment.

4). If some Christians take exception to what the group is doing, then they must (notice the imperative) go directly to the group with their concerns, according to the statement. Why?

My guess is that they might appeal to Matthew 18:15-17. But this passage does not address how to deal with false teachings and false practices in the church. Rather, it addresses how individuals in the church should deal with private sins that other individuals have committed against them. Unfortunately, Matthew 18:15-17 is often misused by church leaders to silence criticism of their teachings, as I wrote about in my post titled Naming Names.

5). Does Bethel know that legal action has been threatened against site owners, including myself, who have shared photos of the Christalignment cards and photos of their teams doing "readings" with the cards -- despite the fact that this sharing of the photos falls under the fair use rule in copyright law? The Hodges have also tried to silence their critics by demanding retractions of their articles and apologies. What do the Bethel people think about that?

6). Why would the Bethel people include the letter from Jenny Hodge in their statement?

Her description of how the Destiny Cards are being used is alarming and it's rather remarkable that Bethel would include it. The cards are being used for revelatory purposes, if not for telling the future. They presume to know a lot about a person through the use of these cards.

7). How, again, are Destiny Cards different from Tarot cards?

The only real difference, it seems, is what they are being called. The cards are clearly meant to resemble Tarot cards. They may also function as Tarot cards, even if they have different images. Difference in their appearance makes no difference to their (intended) function. Putting a picture of Jesus on some of the cards does not magically sanctify them. Bethel and Christalignment have yet to explain how the Destiny Cards are not being used like Tarot cards.

8). How do the Bethel people explain Christalignment's own description of their cards as being similar to Tarot cards?

Bethel never acknowledges that the Christalignment website actually used the word "tarot" in the description of their Destiny Cards. After the controversy broke, the Christalignment people altered the site, removing the word "tarot" along with other concerning statements about their cards. See the original statements, with screen captures of the website before it was altered, in my post here.

So what does Bethel make of the original descriptions? And, in light of those descriptions, how do they explain Jenny Hodge's claim that the cards "are not tarot nor remotely similar to tarot"?

9). How, exactly, does Bethel define "evangelism"? 

The Bethel statement makes it sound as if the Christalignment cards are being used as a tool to lead to a presentation of the gospel. Yet Jenny Hodge said, in a video posted to her Facebook page, that her teams do not present the gospel when they do card "readings," but rather lead people to an "encounter" with Jesus. Take note, in the video, the type of encounters she says people have had when using the cards, including one young man who saw his future family.

10). How does Bethel teach its people to properly interpret Scripture?

The exposition of Acts 17, in defense of Christalignment, is appalling. The apostle Paul's reference to an unknown God, in Acts 17:23, was part of his argumentation for the veracity of the gospel. His argumentation included biblical truths, sound reasoning, and the evidence of Jesus' resurrection. He was presenting the gospel using logical persuasion, not leading people to a spiritual encounter through a tool used for revelatory purposes.