Pachydermal Post-Mortem

So.

A few weeks ago there was a conference. Way back when the participants were announced, concerns were voiced about one of them being a modalistic heretic and word-of-faith shill. Those who expressed this concern were dismissed as haters who never want to listen to a man before they decide what he believes. They were told that it was wrong to oppose his being called a “brother” because, after all, he’s an American. Nevertheless, they insisted that since everyone knows what “brother” means in a Christian context this was still something of a problem. The purpose statement was adjusted accordingly; the invitation list was not.

The conference went on as scheduled. Twenty-six minutes were set aside to discuss the Trinity, which is twenty-six more than were reserved to address the prosperity gospel. Most of those minutes were spent mocking the very idea of theological clarity. The heretic answered “yes” to a list of easy questions - all the while reserving the right to clarify his answers with the old heretical terminology - and then his two purportedly orthodox questioners declared his answers sufficient and proceeded to explain that what the church needs now is love sweet love.

As bad as the conference was, it proved tame in comparison to the defense offered after the fact. When Christendom failed to confirm the proclamation of orthodoxy which had been made, the host of the conference, together with a few of his friends, said: Hey, you’re all racists - except those of you who happen to be black, you’re sell-outs.

While you let that sink in, contemplate this: we’re the haters!  Continue at Tom Chantry

IMAGE

Herding the Elephants

With all the digital ink that’s been spilled surrounding The Elephant Room 2, it’s been difficult (and a bit wearisome!) trying to keep up with everything. I thought that I would give it my best shot to corral some of the most helpful, and some of the most telling, commentary on the whole situation into a single spot.

Because of the scope of the event, this post will be quite lengthy. Nevertheless, I hope it will be a benefit to those interested in the issues.

In Anticipation

• Pretty soon after MacDonald came out endorsing “manifestations” as classical Trinitarian language (which comments have since been revised), Carl Trueman got the ball rolling by asking, “Is Nicene Christianity Important?” Surely not a sign of good things to come.

• A few days later The Cripplegate’s own Nathan Busenitz wrote about the history of the modalist heresy and the history of Jakes’ involvement with modalism.

• Challies followed up the next day with a round-up of where the issues stood at that point. He asked poignant questions that unfortunately would have to be answered in the negative: “Will these men be willing to ask him very difficult, very nuanced, very penetrating questions? … And I don’t mean for the other participants to ask a question that essentially says, ‘You’re not a modalist, right?’ but an honest, searching, penetrating series of questions that will address this concern head-on and will not stop until it is settled. Jakes has given us legitimate cause to be concerned, cause enough to go no further until answers are given. Until that question is settled, nothing else really matters.”  Continue at Mike Riccardi

T. D. Jakes

 

Elephantiasis - Phil Johnson

An Open Letter to Matt Chandler (Some thought on ER2) - Byron Yawn

  

Grace and Truth Beyond the Elephant Room - Trevin Wax

  

Seven Thoughts on the Elephant Room and T.D. Jakes - Kevin DeYoung

  

Gnosticism, Nicea and Celebrity - Carl Trueman

The Elephant Room: What Really Happened, and How Things Could Have Been Different - Justin Taylor

10 Reflections on the Elephant Room - Mark Driscoll

The Discernment Gap: Showing a Lack of Passion for God's Honor and Glory

Reading the commentary on the Elephant Room 2 events, and in particular, the alleged rehabilitation (repentance?) of TD Jakes has truly been brought me sadness. Sure, I know that very few Evangelicals, even scholars, have much experience with modalists and Oneness advocates, but still, the general ease with which many have been taken in by such a shallow and brief discussion does not speak well of the depth of understanding of many today. It also speaks loudly to the fact that many in Evangelicalism disconnect the honor and glory of God from the truth He has revealed about Himself. That is, they do not see that to worship and honor God demands from us our utmost effort to accurately hear and to follow what He has revealed about Himself, primarily in Jesus Christ, and the holy Scriptures. To take lightly God's self-revelation is an affront to the divine majesty, and would not be the action of a heart that is consumed with passion for its Lord. The true source of a passion for sound doctrine comes first and foremost from a heart that has singular attention to the glory and honor of the object of its passion. Those who "argue doctrine" simply for the sake of ego or self-gratification do so to their own destruction. Sound doctrine isn't about personalities or men, it is about truth that transcends our brief time on earth.

Let's remember some of Jakes' words from ER2. Keeping in mind his statement of faith, which continues to use the modalistic language of "manifestations," and keeping in mind that Jakes does not baptize in the Trinitarian formula (he baptizes in Jesus name only---something oddly ignored by the tribunal who seemed to grant to themselves the ability to proclaim Trinitarian orthodoxy at ER2), let's consider his words. When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that "neither one of them totally get it for me." Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it. Please, why are so many quick to pass over this direct statement that the historic profession of faith just doesn't quite "totally get it" for Bishop Jakes? Does that really sound like someone who has seen the error of their ways and is ready to abjure error for a sound profession of faith in the truth? Or does it sound like someone who really thinks he is in a position to pick and choose what is comfortable for him given his goals and aims? Continue at James White

See Also: Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room

AND -  Voddie Baucham and Shepherd’s Conference

 

The Elephant in the Room

This past week a firestorm erupted over the recent “Elephant Room 2.”  The controversy centers around the decision to invite Bishop T.D. Jakes to participate in the event.  The central questions in the debate are 1) whether or not Bishop Jakes holds to the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, 2) whether it was appropriate to invite (and feature) him without first having clarified his position on this cardinal doctrine, and 3) whether he cleared up the matter. 

I was scheduled to speak at Harvest Bible Chapel on the weekend following ER2 which raised significant questions about my stance on the matter.  While I do not consider it my responsibility to comment on every controversy, I do recognize my duty to clarify matters with which I am involved directly, and/or those that impact the congregation I am called to shepherd.  Hence, my explanation now.

My Invitation to ER2

In October of 2011, I was invited to participate in The Elephant Room 2.  The invitation followed Mark Dever’s decision to pull out.  James MacDonald called me and asked me to take his place.  He also informed me of the controversy at that time surrounding the invitation to Jakes and Dever’s decision to pull out, and that Crawford Loritts had agreed to fill in.  I knew James MacDonald only indirectly, and I had only recently heard of the Elephant Room. 

Initially, it sounded like a very good idea to “pin Jakes down” on the Trinity.  My area of emphasis in my theological training is Evangelism/Apologetics.  Moreover, I addressed Jakes’s modalism in my first book in 2004, so I am well aware of the issues in question, and believed I could make a contribution.  Also,  to my delight, James indicated that Jakes had abandoned Oneness Pentecostalism, rejected Modalism, and, he believed, Jakes would make that clear at ER2. Continue at Voddie Baucham

IMAGE

 

 See Also: Book Review: T.D. Jakes: Various Works

 

AND -  A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

T. D. Jakes and the Elephant Room

 

Questions After the Elephant Room

A Special “Elephant Room 2” Edition of Five to Live By

After the Circus Parade

T.D. Jakes Not Modalist? An Update from the Elephant Room

Comments Open and Closed

My Observations from The Elephant Room 2

Final Thoughts: The Elephant Room 2

Bishop TD Jakes on Oneness

T.D. Jakes, the Trinity, and Truth

ELEPHANT ROOM 2: MAY WE NOW REGARD T.D. JAKES AS TRINITARIAN AND ORTHODOX?

NO COMPROMISE RADIO: CARL TRUEMAN ON THE ELEPHANT ROOM

Coupla-Five Additional Thoughts on the Events of the Week

On asking better questions...

Do You Beat Your Wife?

Report from The Elephant Room Round 2

Attention, Elephant Room Security Personnel...

ER2 and the Ugly Details

On Heretics and Helpfulness: Relating to Those Outside of Orthodoxy

Modalist Heretic T.D. Jakes at Elephant Room- Does Jakes now Affirm the Trinity?

DR. JAMES WHITE TWITTER MINI-COMMENTARY ON T.D. JAKES IN ELEPHANT ROOM2

Quick-Hit Thoughts on ER2 

Trevin Wax Offers a Fair Critique of ER2

If only T. D. Jakes was asked…

 

 IMAGE: Mike Corley

James MacDonald, Modalist and Word-Faith Preacher T. D. Jakes

Today's sally is brought to you courtesy of James MacDonald. You'll forgive me for letting you do your own research for links and specifics; we at Pyro (but not we alone) have been pretty much on top of the situation, and sometimes ahead of the curve. Two of my favorite Tree Falling in the Forest posts were on the topic (this and this).

But anyway, James MacDonald decided to feature well-known modalist and word-faith preacher T. D. Jakes as a "Christian leader" on his Elephant Room show. A firestorm of very appropriate concern and criticism arose. MacDonald responded alternately by chest-thumping, backtracking, then more chest-thumping. Many wondered how this guy could be associated with The Gospel Coalition while seeming to be relatively unconcerned about, you know, the gospel.

As usual, Phil Johnson put it best: "The collective leadership of TGC are going to have to decide which is more important: the Gospel, or the Coalition."

Well no, it turns out, they won't.

In a solution that solves nothing, James MacDonald has resigned from TGC leadership, as that leadership has acknowledged.  In making this acknowledgement, however, they only compliment the departing brother, and make no direct reference to his hosting a heretic as a Christian leader. So that problem is unsolved.

What does MacDonald himself say? Oh, this and that, about what you might expect. He's making his priorities pretty clear to everyone, I daresay, and I hope the effect is salutary.

My focus is this bit from MacDonald's post:  Read the rest at Dan Phillips

IMAGE

The Driscolls and Real Marriage

Mark Driscoll will be all over the news in the new year. Not only is he set to be a participant at the controversial Elephant Room conference on January 25, but January 3 will also mark the release of his newest book—the one that is bound to become his most controversial yet: Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship & Life Together. Co-authored with his wife Grace, the book is being marketed as a down-to-earth and no-holds-barred look at marriage and sex. 

Especially sex.

Though Real Marriage weighs in at over 200 pages and 11 chapters, there is one chapter that is going to generate the vast majority of the buzz. I plan to write a review of the whole book closer to the release date. For now, though, I want to reflect on that one chapter.

Before I go any farther I need to warn you that the contents of this blog post and any that follow are going to deal with topics that are uncomfortable for many people (myself included!)—particularly in the older generation. They have to. What the Driscolls deal with in this chapter, and what they deem biblical, are not only sex acts, but acts considered sexually deviant by many. If you are young or if you simply do not want to read a discussion of such matters, please just stop reading now; there is no shame in doing so. I would prefer not to write about this at all, but now that the questions are being asked and answered, I believe there needs to be some kind of further response and discussion. Having said that, I will try to be as discreet as I can without sacrificing clarity.

Chapter 10 is titled simply “Can We________?”  Continue Reading >>>

The F Word

I'm a fundamentalist born and bred. I grew up in independent fundamental baptist churches from the time I can remember up until I graduated from college. Then I left. My departure from Fundamentalism had a lot to do with my own study of Scripture:

• My growing belief that reformed theology was really biblical theology (you're average IFB pastor is not gonna be very reformed friendly)
• My experience that separation was not being practiced biblically (Fundamentalism has often lobbed not-so-friendly fire at other Christians).
• My disillusionment with personality driven churches, institutions, camps, and the like.
• My disdain for the underhanded tactics when soul-winning.

Now these are my experience and therefore do not mean all fundamentalist do these things. Truly, I've found some churches that don't. I gladly attend Geneva Reformed Seminary which is part of the Free Presbyterian denomination. The Free Pres are in Fundamentalism and they do a great job of avoiding a lot of the pit falls mentioned above. Initially, on my departure from the movement at large I harbored a lot of ill will towards Fundamentalism. Now not so much. I'm grateful for the family, foundation, and, yes even for Fundamentalism. All I can say is God works in mysterious ways!

One thing I appreciate about Fundamentalism is that they practice separation at all. A lot of time they are hyper-separationist but they see the command to keep the Gospel pure and they take it seriously. You'd never find someone who doesn't believe in the trinity, atonement, or the exclusivity of Jesus teaching in their church (although you might find some KVO people who aren't strong on Bibliogoly, that's entirely different subject). On the other hand, the reformed evangelicals get grace, doctrine, and the lot right but some of them don't know what do when a heretic walks in the room if he's wearing a wool jacket. We need a return to Scripture so that we faithfully defend the bride of Christ from false teachers while not shriveling the body down to haggard old man like Fundamentalism tends to do. John MacArthur's lot seem to balance the two well. He's strongly biblical, fiercely protective over the gospel, and boldly defends the body against false teachers. Now I don't agree with every thing John MacArthur says but we could do for more MacArthurs.   Keep Reading >>>

James MacDonald and T. D. Jakes - the Elephant Room

There's a distinct change in volume, tone, and attitude between James MacDonald's "Humble Pie" blogpost and yesterday's "Not for the Faint of Heart" addendum.

In the earlier post, MacDonald acknowledged his own inconsistency: he knew he should not have "used strong language" to scold others for being harsh in their criticism of the Elephant Room strategy. But in yesterday's post and video, MacDonald casts off restraint and reverts to angry-sounding rhetoric.

Despite their starkly contrasting styles, both statements have one thing in common: MacDonald wishes those with concerns about what he is doing would just shut up. He says it euphemistically: "We are asking that those interested in what we are doing allow the conversations to take place before making final conclusions about their wisdom or helpfulness." But clearly, that plea applies to critics, not to MacDonald himself or to those who support his strategy.

 There are multiple layers of irony in that. MacDonald purports to be championing fearless dialogue with people he says he doesn't necessarily agree with. But there's a distinct and clearly discernible direction to the drift of the "dialogue." It is painfully obvious that MacDonald is not so keen to listen and learn when someone more conservative than he wants to share a perspective.   Keep Reading  >>>

The Elephant in the Elephant Room

One of the more recent entries to the conservative Christian conference line-up is the Elephant Room, the brainchild of James MacDonald. The idea was to bring Christian leaders together for some brotherly sparing over “elephant-in-the-room” issues. Pleased with the results of the first conference in March 2011, they’re prepared for the second in January 2012. This Elephant Room “Round 2” is being promoted like a prize fight: “Your ringside seat awaits,” and “You know the rules…No wavering. No Sidestepping. No excuses.”

MacDonald recently lit up the blogosphere when he invited T.D. Jakes to join ER2. Does he really intend to extend the boundaries of Christian brotherhood to a well-known anti-Trinitarian modalist, prosperity preacher? MacDonald received a fair bit of well-deserved criticism and, rather than rethinking his decision, he dug in his heels and defended it. He doesn’t think Jakes is still a modalist. Jakes is still a’ comin’ to ER2.

(Stir up a little controversy, you get instant publicity and free promotion. You gotta admit, it’s kinda clever.)

I’ve very much appreciated the thoughtful criticisms posted by Thabiti Anyabwile, Carl Trueman, and Phil Johnson. At some point, you should read those posts; they are instructive on many levels.

But I’d like to go back to Round 1 of the Elephant Room and the video Mark Driscoll posted on his website. That particular session was about the place of culture in the church, specifically asking whether or not it was a good idea for Perry Noble to open his 2010 Easter service with AC/DC’s blasphemous song, “Highway to Hell.” (No, I’m not kidding.) Evidently, that’s how Perry and his peeps “engage the culture.”    Keep Reading >>>

IMAGE

Open Letter to D.A. Carson & Tim Keller

Dear Dr. Carson & Dr. Keller --

As I begin to write this, I do so with a personal sense of indebtedness to both of you.  I am not merely grateful for your books and lectures and sermons which have taught me so much: I am grateful for the spirit with which you have done it all.  That is to say: while I am well-known through a reputation of being quite a pill for the sake of the Gospel, you both are known as fatherly men who have a graciousness I am certain I lack, and it is that spirit from which I learn much all the time.

Recently, you have both penned a detailed statement about the nature of the Gospel Coalition, and about its duties or relationship to its readers and also its council members.  I found this essay instructive, and useful, and clarifying in the context it was coming from, but in my view, it misses the point of the concerns of almost all the critics of the dust-up over the Elephant Room.  I wanted to offer to you an outsider's perspective on what just happened and why it is not enough merely to say what you have said so far.    Keep Reading >>>

Open Letter to James MacDonald

Dear Pastor MacDonald,

First, allow me to greet you in the name of our common Master, the Lord Jesus.

I am writing to you as a fellow pastor - the pastor of a smaller church.  While I hope that you do not consider me a lesser brother because of the smallness of my church, what I ought rather to say is that I do not consider you an unworthy brother because of the largeness of yours.  I am not one of the small-church critics who holds the opinion that large churches are universally evil.  Rather, I believe that if it is God’s will a church like yours can do much good for the cause of the gospel.

Some mega-church pastors care little for the gospel.  That sort of man would probably stop reading my letter as soon as he read that my church is small.  In such a man’s eyes the great gospel can only be served by great men with great vision and wisdom and great results - meaning great turn-out each Sunday.   Keep Reading...

Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room

In 2007, the Lord granted me the privilege of publishing The Decline of African-American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity (IVP).  The book was a labor of sorrow and love–sorrow because of how sharp and deep theological decline has been since the first writing African Americans of the late 1700s and early 1800s, and love because I ache to see my kinsmen according to the flesh brought into the gracious realms of God’s salvation.  For me, the book was an attempt to (a) accurately trace the history of African-American theology using available primary source material, and (b) fulfill a pastoral obligation to advance the gospel and refute error (Titus 1:9).

Because the book “breaks rank” and “the party line,” I expected to be alone against an avalanche of criticism and angry protest.  But the Lord has a people who have not bowed the knee to the baals of theological heresy, a people who want to know the truth and who instinctively if not explicitly knew something had gone wrong in the African-American church.  Jesus’ sheep hear and know His voice, and they follow Him.  Instead of an avalanche of criticism, I’ve pretty much heard a chorus of “Finally” and “It’s about time!”

When theologically conservative, Evangelical or Reformed African Americans call for reform in the African-American church, they feel like midgets facing the titans and juggernauts of a word-faith, charismatic pantheon.  The task can seem so daunting and isolating.  Internally, there’s the constant fight with unbelief and resignation.  There’s wrestling with questions like “Can the African-American church be reformed?”  ”Is the church essentially apostate?”  Sometimes these questions have more to do with us than they have to do with the church.  But the questions illustrate how intense and serious a battle this is.   Keep Reading...