Listen to the Podcast!
Up until this point, we have analyzed the timeframe of the Paul Cain debacle, as well as Rick Joyner’s initial remarks less than a week after Paul had died.
While the die-hard disciple of the prophetic movement will latch onto the emotional appeal and aberrant reasoning of the prior and subsequent videos, a different story is unfolding for those who have retained a little bit of common sense.
Let us continue.
The day after posting his original video (February 19, 2019), Rick Joyner continues his appeal in a second video.
Apparently, the Paul Cain camp was keeping tabs on Rick Joyner and listening to what he was saying, because what he said in video #1 was enough to get him disinvited from speaking at the memorial service.
It took them 24 hours to decide that Rick Joyner, a longtime friend of the deceased, had said enough.
When you watch this, you may want to skip to around the 1:30 mark because there are camera adjustments and a long pause in the video.
When the Truth is Unavoidable
In this video, Rick elaborates on the constant reports (2:10) coming forward about Paul and his carousing and “threatening,” homosexual behavior. He even goes so far as to say that he had 3 more cases that came to light just in the 24 hour period since his first video and these cases “stretched” what Rick experienced himself. (7:30)
Now, I don’t know the details of these reports, but think about this. If they were a “stretch” for Rick, then these situation(s) had to be worse than the incident where Paul Cain became so dangerous that they had to have someone guard his room to keep him from harming others (see previous post).
Rick attempts to come across as innocent and uninvolved, stating that he only wants to relay this information and lay these things out in a “redemptive manner,” so that his listeners can process this situation biblically.
But why now? Why didn’t he inform us 15 years ago, when he had a chance?
Where was Rick Joyner when Paul Cain was ministering to the masses and a “threat” to younger men?
One cannot ignore the convenience in Rick’s timing.
Since 2004, Rick had 15 years to reveal the true nature of Paul Cain’s sin and what was going on behind the scenes, but chose to stay silent, therefore any claims of innocence are dubious at best.
It’s almost as if Rick knows he has to say something to account for this failure because (in his own words), “I know things are going to come out anyway,” (9:30) “this story isn’t over by a LONG WAYS,” (2:00) and “a lot more stuff is going to surface.” (13:50)
Basically, the truth that was once hidden can no longer be hidden about Paul Cain, and the only thing Rick can do to save face in this situation is to come forward and teach you his version of the truth about Paul, hope that you will continue to check your logic at the door and wait for him to give you the details about the Paul Cain debacle . . . and most of his followers will do just that.
Yes, according to Rick Joyner, this “story needs to be told” (3:50) just in “a redemptive way,” which Mr. Joyner is all too happy to teach you.
Through teaching you this “redemptive way,” you can be sure that Rick will ensure that Paul remains a hero, you remain brainwashed and Morningstar comes out squeaky clean.
Paul Cain’s Threats
In this video, Rick Joyner also speaks of the terrible threats that Paul Cain would use to strong-arm people into submission.
Rick himself was subject to this abuse. (17:30) He even went so far as to claim that what he heard coming out of Paul was “the worst evil I have ever witnessed coming from anyone. I don’t even know how the human mind could go there.” (18:42)
This is the same “prophet of God” that Rick Joyner insists you need to respect as a “father.”
Rick claims that he “did not know there were so many” (5:40) who experienced Paul’s evil. These victims “lived under the dark cloud of what Paul would do to them if they breathed a word . . .” (18:30)
One has to ask, what did he expect from a predator?
Predators never settle for one, or even a few.
Imagine the lives destroyed by this man. Yet most will be willing to turn a blind eye to, or at least “minimize” these offenses and remain silent, continuing to idolize Paul Cain in their hearts.
How can anyone who is a drunkard, sodomizes young men and threatens people with the “worst evil” ever spoken be considered a legitimate prophet of God?
This goes against all sound judgment, regardless of your religious beliefs.
Yet the expectation is that you respect him as “a father” and “a prophet.”
People – not just in the prophetic movement, but the church at large – swallow this manipulation whole, conned into thinking that if someone is in a position of authority or has a “gift,” then respect and honor are due, regardless of behavior.
And this deception is almost guaranteed if the leader has a reputation.
If it were anyone else . . . any “unknown” with a minor congregation . . . who committed the atrocities that Paul Cain was said to have committed, they would be kicked out of ministry so fast it would make your head spin. The “unknown” would never be “restored” and could likely face prison time.
But not Paul Cain . . . he’s a “prophet” . . . a “father.”
In fact, according to Rick Joyner, you are not “healed” unless you accept that the prophet Paul Cain was “God’s man” and only remember him for good. We will talk more about this soon.
Rick Joyner states in this video:
And I was blind to all this. Why? Because I refused to let my mind go somewhere, even though the signs were so blatant – so in your face – it was like I could not let my mind go there. No, that’s not possible. I’m not going to see that. (12:30)
Ignoring the blatant signs when you have a responsibility to guard and shepherd your sheep is tantamount to abuse.
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;
What responsible shepherd would not sound an alarm when his sheep were in danger of attack?
One who is more concerned with his own hide than theirs.
Striving to Understand the Obvious
Throughout this pseudo-confessional, one gets the sense that Rick Joyner is grasping at straws to maintain the prophetic paradigm and save his reputation, but he adamantly claims that such is not the case. (12:20)
So let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment and believe what he wants us to believe. Let’s pretend that the reason for these videos is because he has his flock’s best interests at heart.
If you’re a shepherd and you see a wolf that may look like a sheep (Matt. 7:15), quite literally molesting the flock, what should you do?
You warn the flock and use your staff (of authority) to drive that animal away from the flock!
Do you wait for the flock to tell you about the predator?
Do you wait for the reports to become so numerous that you are forced to take action?
Do you wait for the wolf to die before you come forward and say that the wolf was “threatening” to the young male sheep?
I’m sorry, I just can’t buy that Rick honestly wants to all-of-a-sudden bring things forth “in a redemptive way.”
Even Francis will call his own clergy “tools of Satan” when they are sexually abusive;  why can’t Rick come to terms with this and do the same?
One possibility is that he is letting his relationship with Paul Cain form a mental block against the truth. Remember, he did say:
And, y’know, I can’t believe some of the things that have happened by people in my ministry, people I have given platforms to in my ministry. I would have never done that, I would have never had them in my ministry if I had known (indecipherable) (15:10)
. . . and yet he did just that with Paul Cain, when HE SAID he was aware that Paul was a threat to young men.
The next possibility is that Rick is doing “damage control.”
As I mentioned in the last post, this is a common tactic among politicians and other leaders.
When they see that the truth of their misdeeds (or their cohorts’ misdeeds) is no longer able to stay hidden from view, they will come forth and confess, yet they add their own little slant to get the public (especially their followers) to perceive the situation in a certain way.
They know that the truth is going to come out whether they like it or not, so it’s best to prepare for the fallout and manipulate the situation, building a favorable narrative ahead of time.
This is what I believe Rick is doing. His “damage control” is to influence you to accept Paul as a “spiritual father” and give this whole cluster a “redemptive” slant . . . a slant in his favor.
The end game is that the prophetic paradigm is preserved, you will “shelve” and forget that this ever happened and the prophetic juggernaut can move ahead unhindered.
As you can probably guess, I believe the second scenario is more believable. Rick had 15 years to come forward with the WHOLE truth and chose to remain silent.
Where was his concern for the flock then?
Proper Restoration vs. No Restoration
In the middle of all of this mess is the debate as to the validity of Paul Cain’s restoration.
There should be absolutely no debate at all.
Paul’s epistle to the Galatians reads:
Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
The Greek word for “overtaken” in the verse is “prolambano,”  which, by its definition, implies that this “man” was “overtaken” by surprise. To support this definition, the Greek word for “trespass” in the same verse is “paraptoma”  which is defined as “a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness.”
The person to be restored in Galatians 6:1 was not in the habit of committing whatever sin was committed. It was a momentary “lapse” in his otherwise righteous walk.
Paul Cain made a lifestyle choice to be an alcoholic and homosexual right up until the time he was hospitalized. It was a conscious decision, not a momentary “stumble.”
What’s more, Paul and his cohorts chose to keep that truth from you so that you would continue to revere him as a “father in the faith.”
Paul did not commit a “paraptoma” but a “hamartema,”  which is a deliberate sin and is directly connected to sexual sins, including homosexuality.
Flee fornication (porneia). Every sin (hamartema) that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
The Greek word for fornication is “porneia,”  which pretty much means any sort of sexual sin there is. Paul says to FLEE these kinds of sin because they defile your actual physical body.
The same man who spoke of “restoration” in Galatians 6:1 said this about sexual sin.
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people (pornos).
When it comes to sexual sin, especially a lifestyle choice of sexual sin, there is no talk of “restoration” anywhere.
In fact, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, it says that if they profess to be a “brother” or “sister” and yet willfully choose to lead a deviant lifestyle, you are not to keep company with them.
This did not happen with Paul Cain.
Sure, Mike Bickle, Rick Joyner and Jack Deere may have threatened to excommunicate Paul Cain, but those threats ended up being just empty words. They hid behind Paul Cain’s “apology,” knowing full well what was going on behind the scenes.
They and their prophetic partners embraced a sodomite, brought him into your congregations and expected you to revere him as a “prophet of God” for 15 years.
Judas and David
In the last video, Rick attempted to salvage Paul’s reputation and ministry by comparing him to Samson and I debunked his reasoning using the Word of God and basic common sense.
In this video, Rick Joyner once again tries to convince us of Paul Cain’s legitimacy as a “man of God” by using David (20:00) and Judas (15:35) as examples.
- David committed adultery with Bathsheba and God still used him.
- Jesus called Judas knowing that he would betray him.
Certainly, if God would use David and Judas, then he would use a sodomite, right?
But the question is not whether or not God used Judas or David; the question is whether or not they are they to be honored as a benefit to the Kingdom or regarded as a detriment.
How is Paul Cain to be remembered, in light of what we know about David and Judas?
David was a Benefit to the Kingdom.
David’s illicit affair was forgiven because he immediately and genuinely repented after being confronted by a real prophet.
So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.”
David’s genuine, heartfelt repentance secured God’s promises toward and protection over him. As a result, we revere and honor King David as “a mighty giant killer” who loved God with all his heart, mind and soul.
The Bathsheba affair is only a minor “blip” in the storyline.
Rest assured, if David had become “aggressive” when the prophet Nathan confronted him, this story would have had an entirely different ending.
If David had half-heartedly confessed and even submitted to a “restoration process,” yet continued to have affairs with married women (and killing their husbands), David would not be viewed the same.
Likewise, if a leader genuinely repents, meaning he/she turns from sin and never goes back, then that leader should be honored if they are worthy of it.
But Paul Cain never truly repented during his years of ministry.
Ipso facto, Paul Cain was no David.
In the story of David and Bathsheba, we should note that, even after genuinely repenting, since David was in a position of authority and had “given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme” there was a huge punishment for this transgression.
David would forever have warfare in his house, his wives would be publicly violated by his son and Bathsheba’s innocent baby would die.
Again, this hardcore punishment came after genuine repentance. Make no mistake about it – David definitely paid for this sin.
Somehow, Paul Cain’s 3-year “restoration period” just doesn’t compare.
Judas was a Detriment to the Kingdom.
There are some parallels, however, between Paul Cain and Judas.
Like Paul Cain, Judas was endowed (at least for a time) with supernatural power. In Matthew 10, Yeshua sent out the 12 disciples with power to cast out devils and perform all sorts of miraculous deeds. It’s pretty safe to say that Judas participated in those deeds.
But there is no record of Judas committing abominable sin while he was hiking across the countryside with Yeshua.
There is no record of any kind of sexual deviancy . . . no record of Judas being a “threat” to young men.
If there had been, do you actually think Yeshua would have kept company with Judas?
Would he have used Judas, even if there were homosexual trysts going on behind the scenes?
Would there be even an ounce of tolerance?
What’s more, does the Bible – in any place – try to cast the story of Judas “in a redemptive way?”
Come on, folks. Let’s think clearly about this.
Judas will forever be known as “the disciple who betrayed Jesus.” You never read ANYWHERE in the New Testament that we should focus on all the “positive things” that Judas did.
And he did do “positive things!” He was part of the 12 who received power in In Matthew 10, so he obviously did the “positive things” successfully!
But he is not honored as a “great man of God” or a man who “walked with Jesus.”
Judas did a terrible thing by betraying Yeshua and is disgraced for doing so.
How would people view Judas if he were considered a “threat” to young men?
Rick Joyner’s efforts to get us to honor Paul Cain by using David and Judas as examples fall flat.
God may have used Judas and David to further His plans, but that does not mean we apply the same criteria in determining whether or not they are deserving of honor.
The Hope of a Last Minute Confession
In a last-ditch effort, fans of Paul Cain who have come to terms with his behavior still manage to grasp at the last possible straw.
They express hope that somehow Paul repented at the VERY LAST SECOND before he exited this world.
Rick even pines, “I pray he made it home a hero.” (13:15)
Maybe . . . just maybe . . . after spending a major portion of his life carousing, threatening and sodomizing young men, Paul had a change of heart and said, “I’m sorry . . . I repent,” and we’ll see him “dancing with the angels” after we die.
While I’m not going to say that a last minute repentance is out of the realm of possibility, anyone who is not completely deluded by charismatic doctrine knows that this is highly unlikely.
In fact, from my experience, people tend to become more “grounded” and stubborn in their sins, the closer they come to death’s door. But I’m willing to cede that this is just “my experience.”
Nonetheless, sinful seeds planted throughout one’s lifetime bear fruit before death . . . count on it.
Rick said that he was getting reports of Paul’s behavior “right up until the last couple months” (video 1 – 5:45), and we would be foolish to ignore what the Bible says about this.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
This is New Testament doctrine, not “Old Testament Legalism” (don’t get me started).
But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds.”
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
Again, this is New Testament doctrine and hoping that the Father will somehow make an exception for Paul Cain is short-sighted, at best.
If we’re just using New Testament doctrine, this is far more likely to happen.
Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?”And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”
Come on, people! Think about this!
Those who said “Lord, Lord” obviously had the “gift” of prophecy but it had NO BEARING on whether or not they entered the Kingdom!
We have to think soberly about these situations and not allow our emotions and “wishes” to cloud our perception of the Word of God!
I’m not saying that it is impossible for a man to repent minutes, even seconds, before death.
But if that man spent his life harming, deceiving and threatening others, living a sinful life while putting up a “righteous” facade . . . that man’s life is a tragedy and not a triumph, and we need to be honest about it.
Being truthful about a dead man’s life is not sliming and ridiculing him when he has no chance to defend himself.
It’s being honest with ourselves about the situation and refusing to let the lies continue.
The Truth About Fathers and Mothers
Making sure that you accept Paul Cain as a spiritual “father” is a main thrust behind both of these videos.
According to Rick Joyner, Paul is worthy of your honor and respect because he happened to have the ability to prophesy (as well as other “gifts”) and was one of the key movers and shakers behind the prophetic movement.
This assumption is so fraught with error that I am amazed that people fall for it – but they do.
Let’s break it down, shall we?
The Word of God is very clear regarding how we treat our natural, blood-related parents.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
Those of us who know who our natural parents are have no doubt that they are our actual “mothers” and “fathers.” It’s just a fact.
Because they are our REAL parents, a certain amount of respect is accorded to them, no matter how terrible they were to us, growing up.
And believe me, I know how complicated this can be. I know people very close to me whose parents sexually molested them, growing up. In those situations, it is very difficult to know exactly where to set up boundaries.
Nonetheless, we are commanded to love and honor our parents. How that healing takes place and how that honor is shown is between God and the individual.
“Spiritual” parenting is another matter.
The word “father” can also be used in a figurative (some would say “spiritual”) sense, as well. When someone perceives a person in a position of authority (spiritual or natural), they might address them as “father” (or “mother”).
Elisha called out to Elijah as he was being taken up:
My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen!
Naaman’s servants said to him:
My father, if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it?
And the king of Israel said to Elisha:
My father, shall I kill them? Shall I kill them?
So it is evident that “father” can be used to address those who are blood-related or figurative/spiritual fathers.
This may be obvious to most, but I needed to delineate this concept, so that we can build upon it.
The prophets of the prophetic movement have been successful in twisting so much regarding the relationship between the prophet and the people, that it is very easy to get lost in the haze of doublespeak and perversion.
A “natural” father is just that . . . natural.
A “spiritual” father is someone to whom we look for “spiritual” guidance, to draw us closer to the Father.
The modern-day prophets want to make sure that they are regarded as “fathers” in this movement, just like the “church fathers” were regarded “fathers” when they started Christianity. 
Just like the pope expects to be regarded as “father.”
Are we to honor abusive, perverted “spiritual fathers”?
So let’s ask the questions:
- Does the Father intend for us to follow teachers and prophets (“spiritual fathers”) who would abuse us?
- Does the Father intend for us to follow teachers and prophets (“spiritual fathers”) who would lead us after the imaginations of their own hearts?
- For that matter, does the Father intend for us to follow teachers and prophets (“spiritual fathers”) who are closet sodomites?
The Father says, in no uncertain terms, in the Tanakh:
Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD:
Look at this. It’s really interesting.
The Father says that there “was no shepherd” that would feed and guard His flock against “every beast of the field” and yet he is “against the shepherds.”
So it’s not that there weren’t any shepherds out there, it’s that they were not doing their job in teaching and guarding the flock, therefore the Father was “against the shepherds.”
Any claim to be a shepherd falls flat when the “shepherd” is not guarding the flock.
And nowhere does it say that an unfed and unguarded flock is obligated to follow or honor a shepherd who fails at his job.
If God Himself is against them, why should you be for them?
The flock may feel like they have to no other choice but to follow the negligent, greedy shepherd because he is the only one standing there with a rod (of authority) in his hand, but it will not be for the betterment of the sheep.
“Behold, I am against the prophets,” says the LORD, “who use their tongues and say, ‘He says.’“Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” says the LORD, “and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all,” says the LORD.
Notice that it doesn’t say, “I will use those ‘imperfect’ prophets for My Glory and draw my people closer to me.” It says that He is against them.
Therefore, it is not His will for us to revere those whom He is against.
And Yeshua dying on the cross did not all-of-a-sudden reset the sin spectrum and make the abominable sin now a light, permissible sin.
Even in the New Testament, there are standards for those in authority in 1 Timothy 3, among which are “husband to one wife (implying heterosexuality) sober minded, good behavior, not given to wine, not quarrelsome.”
Paul Cain was in violation of all of these standards and Rick Joyner (along with Jack Deere and Mike Bickle) had knowledge of Paul’s violations and failed to guard the flock.
Honoring Paul Cain does not equal your healing.
As if to add insult to injury, Rick Joyner claims that, unless you accept Paul Cain as God’s prophet and only focus on remembering him for good, you are not to be considered “healed.”
“Y’know, I think that if anyone is healed they will remember – come to the place of remembering the best about Paul – being thankful for him” (11:20)
In my opinion, this is the probably most offensive line of thinking in this whole mess. I really have to fight my carnal nature on this one, and not lose my cool.
Following this logic, imagine having to go to Jewish Holocaust survivors to inform them that they are not truly healed of their past experiences unless they remember Adolph Hitler for the good he did.
Can you imagine how that claim would devastate the survivors?
Some would reason that Adolph was the “devil incarnate,” and incapable of any good, and I would be inclined to agree with that statement.
But the truth is, Hitler claimed to be a Christian (at least in his early years) and used Martin Luther’s writings as justification for his anti-Jewish policies.
As far as showing kindness goes, everyone does a good deed at least once in their life, whether it be hugging their mother or feeding the dog.
Can you imagine telling the Jew, “You must forget what Hitler did to your family and friends. Just remember the good things that he did! Be thankful for those good things! Who knows, maybe on his deathbed, he asked God to forgive him of all the atrocities and repented. Look, you cannot be considered ‘healed’ until you do so!”
Can you imagine the outrage involved if someone were to make such an ignorant, offensive claim?
I know that I took this last line of reasoning to the extreme, but this is the logic that Paul Cain’s victims are being told they must take, in order for Rick Joyner (as well as all the prophetic leaders that line up with him) to consider you “healed.”
Tell the victims whose fathers molested them growing up that they must only remember the “good things” their fathers did for them.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t forgive people for their sins. Woe to us if we do not.
But like it or not, a man will be remembered by his actions. He will be remembered by what controlled him and how others were affected by those forces.
To ask those who were adversely affected by Paul’s abuse to only remember how he operated according to the “gifts” he had is to inflict even further damage.
And you, Rick Joyner and company, will have to give an account for that.
So how do you get healed, then?
You get healed by learning the truth about these imposters from the Word.
You are not crazy.
These men were not “imperfect vessels” sent by the Father to damage and confuse you. They were (and are) predators who were (and are) out for themselves, using you and their platform for personal gain, spreading a deceptive ideology that just happens to agree with their bank accounts.
Be healed by knowing that this doesn’t have to happen again, but you need to protect yourself with biblical and experiential knowledge.
Never again allow yourself to be taken advantage of . . . mentally, emotionally, spiritually or physically.
The Father was there when it happened. Why didn’t He stop it from happening?
I’m sorry, I don’t know . . . but He brought you out.
Go through the process for however long you must, but you don’t have to accept or revere these abominable people.
Time may heal all wounds . . . but the scars remain. Learn from them, and bring others out.
-  Pope Calls Abusive Clergy ‘tools Of Satan’
Daniel Burke – https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/24/europe/pope-abuse-summit-intl/index.html
-  G4301 – pro-läm-bä’-nō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (NKJV)
-  G3900 – pä-rä’p-tō-mä – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (NKJV)
-  G265 – hä-mä’r-tā-mä – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (NKJV)
-  G4202 – por-nā’-ä – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (NKJV)
-  No, Yeshua and his disciples did not start “Christianity,” Ignatius of Antioch did. Check out:
-  Hitler, Adolf (1999). Mein Kampf. Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, pp. 65, 119, 152, 161, 214, 375, 383, 403, 436, 562, 565, 622, 632–633.
-  Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19–20, Oxford University Press, 1942
-  Lucy Dawidowicz. The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945. First published 1975; this Bantam edition 1986, p.23. ISBN 0-553-34532-X