Vertical Church

Harvest Bible Fellowship is a network of churches on the move. It seems as if every week brings a report of a new church plant somewhere in the world. From what I have observed locally, these are solid churches whose pastors love God’s Word and where people are being transformed by the gospel. James MacDonald is the founder of this movement and he refers to them as “vertical” churches. What MacDonald wants is for every local church to be a place where people have “a weekly experience with the manifest glory of God.” The local church is to be the one place where people experience what they can experience nowhere else.

Vertical Church is part manifesto and part instructional guide and is one of those unusual and unfortunate books that combines genuine strengths with disappointing weaknesses. The first half of the book is strong and provides a biblical basis for a vertical model of the local church; the second half is far weaker in explaining how to create one.

The Strengths of Vertical Church

 

Vertical Church has many notable strengths. The discussion of verticality is very helpful and provoked the pastor in me to think carefully about the worship services at my church and the role of church leaders in providing an experience of God’s glory and majesty. Our role is not simply to check off a list of boxes—singing, Bible-reading, preaching, prayer—but to lead people in an encounter with the living God. MacDonald’s desire to glorify God in every facet of the church’s life is laudable and challenging. He shares a great deal of wisdom earned through many years of ministry while critiquing both the church growth movement and those traditional churches that don’t care to grow at all.  Continue at Tim Challies

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

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 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 >>>

The Sin of Counting

I’ll admit to being weary, to the point of irritation, whenever I hear ministers of the gospel reporting their statistics as external evidences of success. And I know I’m not the only one. (The first minute-and-a-half of this video makes the point.)

Enough already.

I’m not saying I’m less tempted than the next guy to hope for big numbers and stats, the apparent signs of God’s blessing on my ministry. I am. But I’ve seen the focus on numbers as a temptation to be resisted, not something to be embraced. And when preachers find a way to mention the numbers in public, and often, it comes across as bragging; it’s worldly and unbecoming of Christians who are to be characterized by humility and meekness.

One of the worst plagues to hit Israel came about when David numbered his troops, taking pride in his military might. For all the external, visible signs of success David could see and count on a human level, only God could knew the true condition of Israel. Widespread spiritual decay would soon divide David’s kingdom and eventually expel the people of Israel and Judah from the land of promise.

Counting isn’t always pride, right? God commanded Moses to take a census of the people (Num. 1, 26), and for very practical reasons (e.g., to register the fighting men, to determine per-tribe ransom for servicing the temple). Here at Grace to You, we have to keep track of certain numbers to make sure we’re good stewards of the resources God entrusts to us.    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...

Playing Nice With Heretics

Today Tim Challies has an item about James MacDonald's decision to invite T. D. Jakes to participate at Elephant Room 2. Some of Tim's commenters think it's a fine idea for MacDonald to extend a cordial welcome to someone whose teaching is highly suspect so that he can define and defend himself.

Mark Driscoll expressed a similar opinion in his blogpost yesterday. He sees the Jakes invitation as an opportunity for men who differ on fundamental doctrines to "speak to one another face-to-face rather than about one another blog-to-blog and tweet-to-tweet."

That all sounds very nice and cordial, and it appeals to values that are highly prized nowadays, but is it a biblical way to respond to heresy? Can you imagine Paul proposing a friendly sharing of the platform with the heretics who were troubling the Galatian churches? How different would the apostle John's advice in his second epistle have been (not to mention his legendary encounter with Cerinthus) if he had embraced the values of our more "enlightened" age.

Anyway, here are my thoughts, as posted in the combox over at Challies:   Read it HERE

Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil

Okay, that title is homage to James MacDonald, who says congregationalism is from Satan and whom I had the privilege of spending a couple days with at the recent 9marks @ Southeastern Conference.  During the Baptist21 Panel, our moderator stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest by asking me what I thought about multi-site churches.  Why me? I thought.  Mark Dever is sitting right there.  He loves talking about this stuff.  Aww… man.  Ask me about basketball.

So, after I finished my pity party, I answered my brother’s question, stated something like: “Thabiti, what arguments for multi-site have you found persuasive?”  My articulate response: “Uh, none.”

Okay, this should be the end of the post.  But because I’m in the Miami airport and the people-watching has become a bit weird, I think I’d rather invite you all to my misery and discovery.

Idolatry

At bottom, I think the kind of multi-site churches (realizing there are a few different approaches) that feature one pastor being beamed into several sites around a region—and in some cases around the country or world—is simply idolatry.  It’s certainly cult of personality multiplied and digitized for a consumer audience.  As a brilliant young man remarked to me this morning, “The pastor now becomes the new icon in the midst of the Protestant worship service.”  I think that’s well said.  Video multi-site tends to idolatry, pride, and self-promotion—even where the ambition of spreading the gospel is genuine.  In other words, the ends do not justify the means because some of the ends produced will undoubtedly be odious in God’s sight.   Keep Reading...

Congregationalism Is Used by Satan...Like He Uses Everything Else

Did you catch James MacDonald's critique of congregationalism yesterday morning? It’s not clear to me if he was referring to hyper-congregationalism or congregationalism in general, but since most of us at 9Marks hail from a congregational tradition, we thought it provided us with a good opportunity to think about congregationalism in general. It may surprise him and others that, in some circles in the SBC, 9Marks is seen (and critiqued!) as being advocates for having a plurality of elders and even giving those elders leadership in the congregation.

MacDonald offers five critiques of congregationalism, which I think we can see quite readily are indeed Satanic abuses of congregationalism:

1) Congregational Meetings Can Be Forums for Division: Satan will often employ many God-given gifts and institutions--from biblical marriage to civil government to biblical congregationalism--for diabolical ends. You name it, and he'll use it to undermine leadership, to divide friends, even to present a poor witness for the gospel. With congregationalism, for instance, Satan will use things like unregenerate church members, decades of failing to practice church discipline, and man-fearing pastors in order to make a congregation ornery.

I think of John Dagg who wrote, "We concede that the independent form of church government is not adapted to ungodly pastors, and unconverted church-members" (Manual of Church Order, 278). Of course, that's true of any church order. Still, you can feel it more quickly in a congregational members’ meeting. Keep Reading...