Costi Hinn, nephew of Benny Hinn, has been called a “progressive” to “mark and avoid” for more than two years by Michael O’Fallon—founder of the Christian Nationalist group Sovereign Nations and a board member with G3 Ministries. Hinn, an author, pastor, and critic of prosperity preachers, has denied the allegations time and again.
Last Thursday, Hinn said publicly that he had asked G3—a Reformed theology ministry headed by Josh Buice—to hold O’Fallon accountable for “slander” and alliances with false teachers.
It was far from the first time Hinn has publicly criticized another Christian leader. But on Friday, Hinn walked back his comments. At the same time, he deleted his public criticism of Doug Wilson, a controversial Idaho pastor who has been linked to multiple sex abuse scandals and claims empathy is a sin.
Now fellow pastors and critics of Doug Wilson are asking if Hinn was manipulated into withdrawing his criticism through misapplication of Matthew 18.
“The wolves will have you apologizing for not serving the sheep to them on a platter, if you’re not careful,” former Baptist elder Josiah Hawthorne tweeted.
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Hurt and Healed by the Church” by Ryan George. To donate, click here.
The wolves will have you apologizing for not serving the sheep to them on a platter, if you're not careful. pic.twitter.com/wUjHWKP1s5
— Josiah Hawthorne (@JosiahHawthorne) September 30, 2022
Hinn began a four-part podcast series last week “to address hypocrisy within our camp as the culture war continues,” according to the podcast summary.
The summary indicated much of it was going to be about Wilson. In a now-deleted tweet, Hinn said some of his church’s members had formerly been part of Wilson’s church.
But the September 29 episode focused on O’Fallon.
Hinn stated that the podcast material would “lead to me likely being canceled by my own and called certain things that are not true.”
On the podcast, he called out O’Fallon for the alleged “slander” about Hinn’s political leanings. He also criticized O’Fallon’s alliances with two preachers Hinn said were heretics: Paula White, a thrice-married prosperity preacher, and Rodney Howard-Browne, a controversial Florida pastor who was criminally charged for defying local COVID-19 restrictions.
O’Fallon acknowledged in 2021 that he has “profound theological disagreements” with White and Browne, “just like I have profound theological disagreements with” James Lindsay.
Lindsay, an atheist, has partnered with O’Fallon for numerous podcast episodes since 2019, and spoke at a conference O’Fallon hosted this summer.
Hinn also said he had urged G3’s leadership to kick O’Fallon off its board, but they declined.
“I was told by G3 to work it out with Michael and that is not their concern, even though I told them it’s their job to confront a man who’s on their board and being platformed across evangelicalism now,” Hinn said on the now-deleted podcast. “And yet, he actively slanders behind the scenes, and he partners with the enemies of God, who are false teachers.”
In their statements published jointly on Friday, Hinn and G3 called Hinn’s comments sinful.
“Slanderous gossip such as this is beneath the dignity of a gospel minister,” G3’s statement read in part.“G3 Ministries has always stood firm on the truth of Scripture, calling out false teachers, and exercising careful diligence in who we platform and partner with in gospel ministry.”
The Roys Report (TRR) reached out to G3 asking what part of Hinn’s statements was slanderous, but did not immediately receive a reply.
Hinn said he had apologized to G3 and its president, Josh Buice, “for the sin of presumption and the sin of false accusation.”
In addition, Hinn said he was “wrong to involve G3 Ministries in accusations and inflammatory statements that center on a personal conflict.” He added he should have followed “the biblical pattern” with O’Fallon, and pledged “to pursue private course of action should further conflict arise.”
“I was blinded by personal frustrations and conflict, and thus, pursued justice rather than following the biblical pattern given to preserve unity, which is sinful,” Hinn wrote in his apology.
TRR asked Hinn why he described his interactions with O’Fallon as a private grievance, given O’Fallon’s leadership position and their public interactions. We also asked whether he believed justice and unity were incompatible, as the statement implied. Hinn did not comment.
Hawthorne and others noticed Hinn’s criticism of Wilson had been deleted along with the podcast episode, which promised further episodes criticizing Wilson directly.
I have no idea of the motive behind deleting the tweet. But it was a truth that needed to be said that showed Christ is to be prioritized in his church above partisan affiliations or pressure. Why not stand on that rock? https://t.co/6TJb4ahbgB
— Lisa Spencer (@theochick) September 30, 2022
“I don’t get it,” theologian Lisa Spencer tweeted. “If you’re driving a stake in the ground for the priority of Christ’s kingdom then let it stand even if it means losing friends.”
Another Baptist pastor, Ben Marsh, skeptically called on G3’s Buice to hold another Christian leader to the same standard he held Hinn to.
Hinn also reportedly met with Wilson via video call on Monday.
TRR asked Hinn whether he would go through with the planned podcasts regarding Wilson, but did not hear back. Wilson wrote on Twitter that “everything is good between us now.”
Rebecca Davis, author of the book series “Untwisting Scriptures” exposing how Bible passages have been misused to abuse, has noted that the Bible shows preachers like Peter and Paul confronting each other publicly, not privately.
“The account in Galatians 2 in which Paul described confronting Peter about his hypocrisy shows us that the Matthew 18 process is not a hard and fast rule for dealing with all sin in the church,” Davis told TRR by email.
“Paul did not confront Peter privately before rebuking him publicly—and then writing about him for all of us to see,” Davis added. “Taking all of Scripture together, we see that situations need to be considered on an individual basis, and with this confrontation as an example, we would consider the public nature of the sin and/or the wide-reaching damage of the sin as signals that a particular sin is not one to be dealt with through the Matthew 18 process.”
*Correction: Josiah Hawthorne is a former elder of a Baptist church, not a pastor as originally stated.
Sarah Einselen is an award-winning writer and editor based in Texas.
English 
Spanish
13 Responses
First – Jesus speaks in Matthew 18. Paul speaks in Galatians 2.
I’m going with Jesus.
Second – Rebecca Davis, author of the book series “Untwisting Scriptures” seems to twist Galatians 2:
“13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
Paul confronted a group that was all doing the same thing, not an individual in front of an innocent group.
The other Jews joined him
their hypocrisy
they were not acting
in front of them all
Just like reading the very bronze age culture of Joshuaand his gang’s genocide of the Canaanites in order to steal their land – all in the name of their deity – just like the other gangs of the day, I see nothing but human flesh railing around, confusion, love of status and authority and human ideas….
I really wonder where Jesus is…????????
Greg am I reading your comment correctly. Are you being critical of Joshua obeying God by killing off the Canaanites and taking possession of the land God promised to the children of Israel? If so I respect your right to have your opinion but I will side with Joshua and the Lord.
Bill, you refer to complex matters. I see two aspects always likely to turn out interrelated. Firstly, the killing of a population and the taking of their land does thereby characterise a God being appealed to. Secondly, that this God is always likely to be a projection out of the nature and interests of the population authoring and cleaving to that God; this rather corroborated by the claim that this God promised this land to the children of Israel.
The really crucial question is whether the God of the New Testament can be separated from the history and legacy of this Old Testament God. This not a question arising for Judaism and Jews, as the purpose of their cleaving to their God is fulfilled in the tribes fielding a military force able to take land.
However, following Jesus and the beginning of the Christian impulse and project, we have an intention to go beyond Jewish blood to something universal and applicable to all humans. Where here there appears to be a tension between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.
Hello Bill. I don’t know Greg’s religious leanings but I’m agnostic / practical atheist. When I read the accounts of genocide in the OT supposedly ordered by God, I ask myself this question:
Does this action sound like something a god powerful enough to create an entire universe would order; or does it sound exactly like what we would expect of bronze age warlords who then used religion to justify their atrocities?
It’s amazing to me how much the god of the OT reflects the character and attributes of the men in power at the time…
If the infinite is to have any relationship to the finite, some accommodation is to be expected :) Also, did bronze age warlords need to justify their atrocities? I’m not sure they shared our modern sensibilities.
As I look at all this I can’t help but think, how someone outside the church world would look at this situation. Is this the “witness” a leader in the church should be known for?
I’ll throw rocks at my own glass house all day long!
Twitter attacks, angry podcasts, name calling, slandering, then deleting tweets, taking down podcasts…silly pettiness! Grown men acting like teenage boys. Arguing about wether or not Matthew 18 was properly followed or not.
Fellas, I think there are a lot of things Jesus said you might want to pay attention to and follow before y’all start talking about Matthew 18.
Liturgical these last three days have been a celebration and remembrance of Saint Francis. One of the things I admire most about him is that he didn’t criticize openly about others or the church he went and did what was better. He knew what needed to be changed, what was going wrong in the church. In response to God’s promptings he went outside the city and started new healthy churches.
Today, it seems like the trend is to go to social media and complain, criticize or call people out. Cancel culture…more like vulture culture!
Glenn I followed this as it unfolded.
There is a story here. Costi Hinn flipped almost overnight. This does not follow a healthy pattern of correction and reconciliation. Something rattled him.
Anybody should feel free to criticize Doug Wilson. He has said and taught things about women that would make Mark Driscoll blush.
Hey Mark,
I’m sure there is and the situation does seem rather shady.
I’ve watched Costi link up with some overly vocal guy’s, almost a shock-jock type of the Uber reformed world who trash anyone that isn’t as “reformed” as they are. It’s the hyper-beyond Paul Washer type.
It’s why I do question him at times. He has done good work but, he brings the heat on himself.
Its ironic that the article mentions to “untwisting the Scriptures” while drawing equivalence to Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Paul confronting Peter is not an equivalent to this situation. Paul didn’t confront Peter by writing and talking about him in one of his letters to another church or a third party.. He confronted Peter directly face to face. In public but face to face. Doing a podcast is not in anyway the equivalent to confronting face to face.
This is not an abuse situation so it should not be treated as such. The problem in this situation was lack of mutual understanding.
There was a direct attack. There needed for clarification. Reaching out in person was a good option and it seems like it has been worked out between both the parties.
Just because everybody’s curiosity wasn’t satisfied with all the juicy details doesn’t mean something sinister is happening.
Sometimes the need to gossip can rear its ugly head even among seasoned believers and try to take a pious form.
I think you’re missing that Paul didn’t just confront Peter to his face. Paul then wrote about his confrontation with Peter in a letter to the Galatians.
…and Paul was not sinless, so we need to run his actions through the filter of the rest of God’s Word, including Matthew 18.
There is the possibility that the ground of Costi Hinn’s walking back earlier statements by him, came from his own faith-fulcrummed reflecting.
The relationship between Christian journalism (as exemplified by TRR) and the culture which sustains Christian Churches is complex. That journalism purporting to provide news about what everyone in those Churches should know about, that darkness be cleansed by light. That culture purporting to sustain the Church as the body of Christ, in ways cleaving to and manifesting God in all moments. How those two worthy imperatives interface and interact, exercising the Christian of integrity immeasurably.
I had those thoughts when reading JR’s open letter to JM. I took her courage there to lie in her being aware of the potential for getting it wrong (in Christian faith terms) in what she was being driven to do. I would imagine that Costi Hinn shares those standards of integrity with JR.
I can’t begin to imagine what moment of self-reflection might see him walking back, but I can imagine that the greater the integrity of a person the greater the possibility for seeing the need so to do.