Search Results for: jakes

 

Feb

03

2012

Justin Taylor|3:53 pm CT

Carson and Keller on Jakes and the Elephant Room

Don Carson and Tim Keller write:

Controversy customarily generates its share of purple prose. It is very easy to read everything an opponent says as negatively as possible. . . . Such debate tends to generate polarities—and God knows that sometimes what we most need are clear-sighted polarities. Some of these polarities, however, quickly take on the flavor of party spirit and predictable responses, without any powerful effort to encourage a meeting of minds, even where we end up in disagreement.

But controversy can also provide a teaching moment, not least because the interest of many people is focused on the disputed issues. It is hard to deny that such a moment has arrived. We would like to offer some theological reflections on six conceptual pairings. We have learned over the past few decades that clear thought about the six pairings we are about to comment on is not easy. Others may be able to improve upon our musings, or even correct them. Still, we hope that the following theological reflections will clarify at least a few issues for some people.

The six pairings of reflections are as follows:

1. Persons and Manifestations
2. Biblicism One and Biblicism Two
3. Prosperity Gospel and Empowerment
4. Love and Truth
5. Racism and Playing the Race Card
6. Private and Public

They conclude:

The purpose of this post is not to provide a re-hash of recent events, still less to assign blame. It is to provide some theological and pastoral reflection on the interlocking issues with which we have been wrestling.

Read the whole thing here.

 
 

Mar

18

2014

Justin Taylor|7:09 am CT

Thoughts on Celebrity Pastors, Repentance, Silence, Criticism, and New Calvinism

I always appreciate when Kevin DeYoung weighs in on a subject, because it is invariably thoughtful and careful and biblically grounded. His latest post, 9 Thoughts on Celebrity Pastors, Controversy, the New Calvinism, Etc., is no exception.

I am going to highlight just a few of his nine points, but I encourage you to read the whole thing.

5. When we criticize others for their faults (real or perceived) let us broadcast the news just as widely when they repent of their faults and correct them. The same is even more true when it turns out we were wrong in our information or accusations. Of all people, Christians should not put the bad news in bold face and the good news in a footnote.

6. Discernment is hard work. On the one hand, journalists or bloggers have every right to dig into the facts of some brewing controversy. When the smoke leads you to a fire, let’s not be afraid to sound the alarm. Done in the right spirit, public accountability for public figures is good and right. On the other hand, let’s not fall foul of 1 Corinthians 13 by believing nothing, overlooking nothing, bearing nothing, and hoping for nothing except to find more dirt. How sad it is when a love for the truth becomes a love for exposing thy neighbor.

8. There are many possible reasons for silence in the midst of controversy. Some of them are cowardly. Some are wise. It’s not always easy to know when to speak and when to shut your mouth, especially when the former can get you accused of acting too churchly and the latter can land you in hot water for enabling the problem. Along these lines, it may be worth pointing out that TGC blogs commented on the Elephant Room hereherehere, and here; on plagiarism, ghost writing, and buying your way on to the best sellers list hereherehere, and here. And this is simply what I found after searching for 15 minutes, and excluding articles linked to on Twitter and commentary from other TGC council members (e.g., Piper’s strong denunciations of ghostwriting here and here).

9. Is the New Calvinism dead or dying? In a couple ways yes. In most ways no. “Yes” in so far as we are seeing that some of the networks in the movement probably don’t actually belong in the same movement and some of the popular voices in the movement may not really be singing from the same sheet of music. But a resounding “no” in so far as the commitment to and interest in these twelve features seems to me to be growing rather than receding. Where the New Calvinism is about propping up our puny empires and making pastors rich and famous let it die a thousand deaths and die quickly. Where the New Calvinism leads people to the Bible, points to good books, produces good resources, promotes a winsome evangelical Calvinism, strengthens the local church, exults in Christ, proclaims the gospel, and  magnifies the glory of God, let it grow ten thousand fold. And if it grows and in some quarters becomes potent and popular, let us not have a whiff of triumphalism for its success, nor a hint of rooting for its demise.

You can read the rest here.

 
 

Feb

06

2012

Justin Taylor|9:01 am CT

11 Lessons from the Elephant Room

I don’t want to beat a dead elephant here, but I wholeheartedly agree with Don Carson and Tim Keller’s comment that “controversy can . . .  provide a teaching moment, not least because the interest of many people is focused on the disputed issues. It is hard to deny that such a moment has arrived.” Toward that end, I think Thabiti Anyabwile’s most recent post, on 11 lessons he’s learned from the Elephant Room controversy, are well worth reading. The more I read Thabiti’s work and interact with him, the more I appreciate him. (I would highly recommend his very readable and practical and instructive new book, Finding Faithful Elders and Deacons, which is a great read not only for finding such folks, but also helpful for being such people.)

Here’s an outline of his 11 points—followed at the end by an extended excerpt of one of them:

1.  Nothing has changed with Jakes.

2.  Something may have changed with us.

3.  Theological depth is critical.

4.  We need a practical understanding of repentance.

5.  Divisions come swiftly and easily.

6.  A lot of reconciliation and brotherly affection gets shared privately, but it’s sometimes not useful to be insisted upon publicly.

7.  Our cooperation needs to be principled rather than pragmatic.

8.  Our cooperation can have a liberalizing tendency.

9.  There are descriptive and prescriptive ways of using “race.”

10.  “Race” is not only powerful, it’s also about power.

11.  My assumptions about my usefulness need chastening.

Here is #6—an important point for both those who think every private corrective conversation should instead be public and those who think every public corrective conversation should instead be private.

A lot of people have taken it upon themselves to be the “private conversation police.”  They want to enforce a new rule for public discourse: Talk privately with those with whom you disagree before you disagree publicly.  I think that’s well intended, but it’s quite problematic.  Again, Carson and Keller handle this very well.  I just want to add that this desire to require private conversations before public redress has two unintended and negative consequences.

First, it means that the first persons to speak have the controlling leverage in the conversation.  That’s not much of a problem unless the first one to speak speaks heresy or some false teaching.  In that case, everyone who would act to counter the falsehood is held hostage by the purveyor of falsehood!  That’s a very bad outcome.

Second, the vocal insistence on private conversation, or rather the suggestion that no such conversation is happening, can actually frustrate and undermine very real private efforts at unity, restoration, and correction.  It’s surprising how public comments (ironically, without first making private contact!) about perceived private failings actually complicate the very private efforts being called for.  It’s also interesting to note how many unrelated parties feel entitled to know what’s happening in private sessions.  They don’t seem to realize that asking for private matters to be disclosed publicly might actually hinder trust and communication.  As it is, these things don’t always work out.  So, it’s probably prudent to use that few moments of keyboarding to instead offer a few words of prayer and intercession.

Here’s a rule of thumb: If you have to speculate about whether this or that conversation is happening, you’re probably not close enough to the situation to be useful.  If you can’t pick up the phone and ask one of the parties, “What’s going on?” then you’re probably not positioned to help or insist on private communication.

Speculative and sometimes accusatory writing in public forums, in my opinion, actually do very little to help situations while doing a fair amount to complicate matters and frustrate people.  I’ve become a fan of the old rules of engagement: If a person speaks or publishes something for public consumption, that speech or publication is automatically fair game for public critique and correction.  It can be useful, courteous, and sometimes necessary to contact a person to be sure you’ve understood them correctly.  But public addresses are fair game for public redress.  This in no way releases us from all the biblical requirements for charity, grace, and the like.  But it does free us to respond where situations warrant.

On Matthew 18 with respect to blog conversations, see this editorial by D.A. Carson.

 
 

Feb

01

2012

Justin Taylor|10:52 am CT

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

This is going to be a long post.

If you’re a critic of the Gospel Coalition’s response—or seeming lack of response—to the Elephant Room controversy, or if you’re a critic of the Elephant Room and its repercussions, I hope you’ll slow down and read the whole thing. I am under no illusions that it will answer all the questions or satisfy everyone—I’m sure it won’t—but perhaps it will clarify at least a few things.

(For other points and complementary analysis, see also this post from Kevin DeYoung.)

Two Preliminary Points

Before I try to highlight a few of the key things that happened (and didn’t happen), I think it’s important to put two points front and center.

1. Leaders don’t just pontificate and discuss and analyze, but eventually have to make a choice between two imperfect options.

I have seen these countless times in the context of the gloriously messy world of church life. Two options are before a leader: A and B. Both have pros and cons. Both could produce benefits, and both could have unintended consequences. The decision is complicated by competing principles at play, and in light of the fact that some of the consequences have to do with how people will act and react in light of them—which cannot be known with certainty in advance. And so a leader must weigh the options in light of God’s word, in light of the gift of wisdom and discernment, and in light of wise counsel. Then choose. Criticism is often inevitable, especially if those negative consequences result from choosing one path over another. And often times the criticism is valid, so far as it goes—but just as often, the critic doesn’t consider the alternatives. Millard Erickson makes this point in his Christian Theology:

In criticism it is not sufficient to find flaws in a given view. One must always ask, “What is the alternative?” and, “Does the alternative have fewer difficulties?” John Baillie tells of writing a paper in which he severely criticized a particular view. His professor commented, “Every theory has its difficulties, but you have not considered whether any other theory has less difficulties than the one you have criticized.” (p. 61)

Thus far I am simply identifying a principle at play in virtually all criticisms of major decisions. I think it has some relevance here, for both those who criticized the Elephant Room and its defense—and for those who criticized the Gospel Coalition’s relative lack of public response.

2. The new version of the question, “If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” is “If a conversation happens in private and there’s no one there to blog or tweet it, does it still count?”

All of us—me included—want the inside scoop, the down low on who said what to whom in what tone and where. Sometimes the impulse is busybody gossip; but sometimes knowing this can chasten our conclusions, provide context, nuance, correction, etc. Socrates was expressing the humility that comes from common grace when he repeatedly said, “I do not think that I know what I do not know.” Most of us do not know all that was said to T.D. Jakes before and after the event. Most of us do not know all of the conversations between the Gospel Coalition and James MacDonald prior to the event—or how he responded. But some critics have assumed that since they haven’t read a public statement on the web about X, then there are not hours of conversations—some winsome and careful, and some neither of those—happening behind the scenes.

Let’s understand that the world clamors for the simultaneous strength and weakness of this medium: insta-responses. Sometimes people go the extra mile to have behind-the-scenes private conversations, waiting to see how things turn out. Sometimes they get burned for doing so. Sometimes patience will be interpreted as cowardice. Sometimes taking a risk for a relationship will be seen only as recklessness. It’s not always easy to get the balance right. TGC was criticized for saying too much too soon about Rob Bell, and criticized for saying too little too late about T.D. Jakes. Perhaps both sets of critics have a point.

Elephant Room Timeline

I cannot attempt an exhaustive timeline, but with multiple issues on the table, sometimes it’s important to review where we’ve been. Let me try to highlight some key events, with key points.

The initial participants for the Elephant Room: Round 2 were announced in late September, 2011. The event was planned for late January, 2012.

Bishop Jakes, of course, stood out on the list—not because he was the best known of the group (he was), but because of what he was known for.

The two most controversial aspects of inviting Bishop Jakes have to do with modalism with regard to the Godhead, and prosperity teaching with regard to the gospel.

Jakes on Modalism and Trinitarianism

Bishop Jakes, who was spiritually nurtured in the Oneness Pentecostal tradition, had never given a clear affirmation of Trinitarian orthodoxy, even though he had been pressed on this from Christian apologists (most notably 12 years ago in the year 2000). The issue is important because modalism—the idea that there is one God, not in three eternal persons, but in three manifestations or forms—is historically considered to be a heretical teaching in the church. This issue is intimately tied to the gospel, for the god of modalism is incompatible with propitiation (among other aspects of salvation). In other words, modalism can save no one.

If you read Bishop Jakes response to criticism in 2000, you’ll note several themes, which are very important to note for when we later turn to the question of whether or not he has changed his mind or is saying something new.

First, he wants to distance himself (though not deny his historical association with) Onenness Pentecostalism. “My association with Oneness people does not constitute assimilation into their ranks any more than my association with the homeless in our city makes me one of them.”

Second, he wants to distance himself from modalism while maintaining the language of “manifestations.” Specifically, he says that the use of “manifestations” in his church’s doctrinal statement “does not derive from modalism.”

Third, he believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have “distinct and separate functions . . . each has individual attributes.”

Fourth, he appeals to mystery, referring to this discussion as “splitting hairs” and “semantics” and saying that no one is dying in the world for “lack of theology,” but for “lack of love.”

Jakes on the Prosperity Gospel

With respect to the prosperity gospel, the idea is an over-realized eschatology—over-promising the end-time blessings in the here and now, with the implication that God wants you to be healthy, wealthy, and happy, as evidenced by material prosperity. (For a recent description and critique, see Health, Wealth & Happiness: Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ? by David Jones and Russell Woodbridge.)

Whereas the old-school health-and-wealthers spent their time guaranteeing all of these benefits if you just had enough faith and shilling for donations, the newer generation of such teachers (represented by Jakes and Osteen and Myers) still focus inordinately on the earthly benefits ostensibly promised by God. This can be seen in many YouTube clips of Jakes preaching, but also as a theme in his writings.

Two Types of Onenness Preachers

It’s important to pause at this point to observe that not all Onenness Pentecostals are created equal. An interview with a former Onenness pastor (now turned evangelical) draws a distinction between the hardcore and the seeker-sensitive:

There are two types of Oneness Pentecostals. There are the hardcore, doctrinally dogmatic types who care nothing for popularity or mega-church growth. These openly assert Oneness theology and declare the doctrine of the Trinity as heresy (from their viewpoint) and an aberration of the apostles’ doctrine. They are not out to make friends but win people over to what they see as the true gospel. They are genuine and sincere though totally wrong and if ever converted they would make great Trinitarians.

The other type (like Jakes) have adopted the seeker-sensitive approach which really guides all that they do. They are out to be successful, sell books, buy TBN time slots, and gain a national following. They see success as the end-game which justifies any and all means. That model is above all things, including truth or doctrinal purity. They see their small Oneness church pastor colleagues and know that it is precisely Oneness doctrine that keeps their congregations from growing and decide to abandon theology altogether. Anything that divides people they avoid no matter how central a tenet of Christian doctrine it is. They become de facto prosperity preachers because weak Christians enjoy hearing man-centered sermons that speak to their itching ears.

If you want to see an example of the hardcore kind, see this piece by a Onenness pastor in reaction to Jakes and the Elephant Room.

The Elephant Room Pre-Game

In late September of 2011, after announcing the ER2 participants, James MacDonald wrote a blog post seeking to address a number of questions that were being raised about the issues of association, endorsement, and separation.

Although MacDonald has been a strong critic of the “health-and-wealth gospel” from his pulpit, he seemed eager for us to hear Jakes’s perspective. He wrote, “I am also excited to hear him state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world.” (The latter was a reference to those like David Platt, Francis Chan, John Piper, and Randy Alcorn’s arguments for a “wartime lifestyle.”)

MacDonald addressed the issue of modalism. He later updated his post with new wording, but originally he wrote:

I do not agree that T.D. Jakes is a Modalist.

I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to creedal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His [Jakes's] website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations.

This comment was very surprising, in a number of ways. MacDonald indicated he did not believe Jakes was a modalist, but to prove that he quotes Jakes’s statement that uses the classical modalistic language of “manifestations!” (As Driscoll put it in a subsequent blog post on this, “In its simplest form, this is the language of Modalism.”) Further, MacDonald seemed to denigrate the purpose and function of creedal statements as trying to be more clear than the Bible. Finally, he stress the intentional opaqueness of the biblical doctrine, and discouraged people from insisting on defining the details of Trinitarianism.

The damage had been done: What could have been a call for a discussion between a trinitarian and a modalist became a pre-announcement that Jakes is not a modalist and that it doesn’t really matter that much anyway.

(For a thoughtful response on MacDonald’s original version of this post, see Carl Trueman’s thoughts here. You can read MacDonald’s attempt to walk-back some of the implications from his post here.)

A couple of days later Driscoll followed this up with a post defining modalism and the Trinity, and giving a historical and biblical sketch of the doctrine. He affirmed that as a staunch Trinitarian he regards the Trinity as “a closed-handed issue that is necessary for Christian orthodoxy.”  With regard to Jakes, his main point was that we should listen to what he has to say:

Regarding Bishop Jakes, my preference is to simply let the man speak for himself and see what he says. As moderator, I assure you, I don’t want to do anything but let the men speak for themselves without being disrespected, set-up, or pushed into an unfair position—and I know this is MacDonald’s stance too. The Bible is clear about loving people and truth telling. Our plan is to have both.

He warned against pre-judging how this would turn out:

I want to encourage folks to wait until the event before making any final judgments about anyone or anything.

Is This a Conversation among Gospel-Loving Brothers?

It’s important to note that the Elephant Room’s purpose/vision page were changed at least three times during the course of the controversy. When the Elephant Room: Round 1 took place in the spring of 2011, the whole purpose was to unite brothers in the gospel who agreed on the essentials (gospel, Trinity, authority of Scripture) but disagreed on the non-essentials (ministry philosophy, methodology, music, etc.). To use Driscoll’s helpful analogy, there are “national” and “state” borders. You fight wars over the national borders, not state borders. State borders provide distinctions and even separation, but we’ll all a part of the same country.

But note very carefully the original purpose for the Elephant Room: Room 2:

Getting brothers together who believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone but normally don’t interact, is what the Elephant Room is all about. (my emphasis)

In other words, the clear message was that everyone of the participants is united in the gospel as brothers—despite the fact that one of the participants has historically held to modalism, which is inherently incompatible with the gospel as presented in the Bible. Also despite the fact of health-and-wealth themes, incompatible with a theology of the cross. In other words, this became not just  a conversation with someone from a different “tribe,” but a public conversation under the banner of “We Are United in the Gospel.”

Unless you understand this, you won’t get a sense of why this was so controversial. The issue simply was not whether or not we should talk face to face with those who have different theological convictions than we do. Let me say that again: it was not about whether or not you should love, respect, listen to, and interact with those outside of our so-called tribe. The problem was in how the entire thing was set up, and the assurances that were offered.

(MacDonald at some point in the controversy removed this statement from the purpose statement and sought to broaden the purpose statement to include conversations among anyone—though it still says that they want to be “a tribe that holds the essential tenets of the faith with a ferocious intensity and is open handed with everything else.”)

Pre-Game Predictions: What Would Bishop Jakes Say? What Would Be the Result?

Virtually everyone I talked to prior to the event had the same prediction: Bishop Jakes would not be asked difficult questions, but would vaguely affirm Trinitarianism, say something against modalism, and also be careful not to say that modalism was unorthodox—and that in the end, the Elephant Room would feel vindicated against the mounting criticism and encouraged that their forum allowed for Bishop Jakes to come out as a Trinitarian once and for all.

Anthony Carter, writing three months before the event, put it like this:

Jakes is no dummy.  He will be careful not to say anything that would indict him as a false teacher. He is a smart man. You don’t get to his position being stupid.  Therefore, I fear that by the end of the discussion, when all the rounds have been fired, and the dust has settled, the elephant in the room will be Mr. Jakes himself.  He will be standing tall shaking everyone’s hand and thanking them for giving him another platform on which to promote himself. No matter what is said, unless Jakes denounces his previous teachings or is exposed as a false teacher, it’s a win for team Jakes and a loss for those of us left to clean up after the elephant has done his business.

Thabiti Anyabwile predicted something similar:

If Jakes could be won over and would publicly teach orthodox Trinitarian views, that could be huge.  If the discussion turns warm and fuzzy, “aren’t we all brothers in the end,” the damage could be irreparable—to everyone.

So What Did Bishop Jakes Say?

You can read here the full transcript of the conversation between MacDonald, Jakes, and Driscoll.

It is encouraging on one level, and and discouraging on another.

It seems that Bishop Jakes now prefers the language of Trinitarianism, though he doesn’t want to functionally abandon the language of modalism (in particular, “manifestations” over “persons”). Furthermore, if you go back to the response he wrote 12 years ago (linked and summarized above), you will find the exact same points reiterated at the Elephant Room.

Now some critics of Bishop Jakes would be satisfied no matter what he did. He could have revealed a tattoo of the Nicene Creed in Latin while holding a dog-earred copy of Robert Letham’s The Holy Trinity in one hand and Fred Sanders’s The Deep Things of God: Why the Trinity Changes Everything in the other—and some people would still say that he doesn’t mean it.

But here’s the problem, as I see it: at the end of the day, we just don’t know precisely what he believes. This should chasten both sides. For those who say “he’s still a full-fledged modalist”—I’m not sure. For those who are convinced “he has come out as an orthodox Trinitarian”—I’m not sure. As Trevin Wax points out, the proof will not be in whether Jakes can check a certain number of boxes, but in what he will teach his people.

Questions such as the following would have been more illuminating: Did God the Son preexist before the incarnation? How do you define Modalism? Is it false teaching?  Can someone preach the biblical gospel if they affirm Modalism? When it comes to the doctrine of God, what would be some false teachings that you need to protect your flock from?

Without questions like these, the discussion did not genuinely advance beyond what Bishop Jakes wrote 12 years ago. And as many have pointed out, the issue of the prosperity gospel did not come up, so we do not have a better sense of his stance on that crucial issue, either.

Elephant Room: The Post-Game

The event is now over. James MacDonald voluntarily resigned from the council of the Gospel Coalition, after several private conversations. The race issue has been played against African American critics of the Elephant Room, in deeply disturbing ways. And it’s easy in the blogosphere for “both sides” to assume the worst about one another.

But I think the whole thing could have been better if conceived in a different way.

The Elephant Room could have achieved virtually of the same results, perhaps better ones, without any of the negative relational repercussions and doctrinal confusion.

How? By holding the conversations offline.

Very few would have objected if a couple of brothers arranged a day or two to spend with Bishop Jakes, getting to know one other, listening to each other, searching the Scriptures together. Outside of a controlled environment with limited time-frames and an event-setup and public pressure, who knows what the results might have been? On one level, the Elephant Room might encourage local pastors to get together and talk through some differences, so the public event may inspire some people to do that. But why not instead choose a more efficient and effective route without the confusion to the church and the relational fallout?

The criticism of the critics has largely been framed in binary terms: courage vs. cowardliness; truth vs. love; talking vs. shouting. The missing item from the discussion? Wisdom.

What’s Next?

My final thought (for an already long post): We should not assume that these discussions are over. Perhaps the public-event conversation—whether it should have happened or not—will lead to private conversations, where theology can be explored, where questions can be asked, and where answers can be given.

Let’s pray toward this end. Who knows what God might do?

 
 

Oct

05

2011

Justin Taylor|10:44 am CT

The Elephant Wins

The most controversial part of the Elephant Room inviting T.D. Jakes to participate is not whether or not it’s permissible or advisable to have a conversation with someone who cannot affirm Trinitarian orthodoxy and who preaches a prosperity gospel.

Rather, the bigger problem (as I see it) is that James MacDonald defended the decision under the idea that the Elephant Room is all about “Getting brothers together who believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone but normally don’t interact.” Further, their site explains that the motivation behind the Elephant Room is “a dual desire to challenge and unite this generation’s pastors.” (My emphasis in both quotes.)

For me, the most sobering and painful commentary on this controversy has been penned by Thabiti Anyabwile and Anthony Carter, who have both labored winsomely and heroically for a reformation in the black church and see this invitation as a tremendous setback for the cause of grace and truth. I’d encourage you to consider their perspective on something like this.

 
 

Sep

29

2011

Justin Taylor|4:13 pm CT

Trinity 101

Mark Driscoll provides a helpful overview of the biblical teaching on the Trinity.

 
0 Comments Off
 

| PRINTABLE VERSION

 
 
 

Sep

28

2011

Justin Taylor|1:56 pm CT

Not Your Grandpa’s Anti-Trinitarianism: An Analysis of Oneness Pentecostalism

Fred Sanders re-posts an excellent article introducing and critiquing the anti-Trinitarianism of Oneness Pentecostalism:

It is a disturbing fact that the most vigorous form of anti-trinitarianism currently on the market is to be found within the sphere of conservative evangelicalism. In the nineteenth century, the dominant variety of anti-trinitarianism was the old-world Unitarianism which found fertile soil in America. . . . For evangelical Christians of a conservative temperament, Unitarianism as a theological movement was as easy to ignore as any version of liberal theology. It offered a pervasively non-supernatural interpretation of Christianity, and thereby rendered itself irrelevant to churches which were committed to a range of traditional doctrines such as incarnation, atonement, miracle, revelation, the inspiration of scripture, and heaven and hell.

Today, however, there is an altogether different kind of anti-trinitarian teaching putting itself forward, one which bears no relation to the old liberal Unitarianism, and requires a completely different response from either Unitarianism or the more obviously non-Christian Jehovah’s Witnesses movement. In this brief analysis, I would like to describe the movement known as Oneness Pentecostalism, identify its theological core, and explain what is at stake in arguments over Oneness doctrine. I will not cite Oneness authors at length nor interact with their arguments directly. Instead, speaking as an evangelical trinitarian to other evangelical trinitarians, I would like to recommend the strategic direction that evangelical engagement with Oneness groups should follow.

I’d encourage you to read the whole thing.

For a judicious response to James MacDonald’s defense of inviting T.D. Jakes to the next edition of The Elephant Room, I would recommend Carl Trueman’s blog post, Is Nicene Christianity that Important? An Historical-Ecumenical Note. An excerpt:

. . . To place Nicene orthodoxy in the category of over-scrupulous doctrinal precisianism is, in effect, to declare the entire church (except for strands of American evangelicalism, apparently) from 381 to the present day to be wrong-headed. True catholic Christianity has always regarded Nicene orthodoxy as vital. An evangelicalism which argues for the basic irrelevance of such is simply not part of that catholic tradition; rather than being generously connected to other believers, it effectively isolates itself from the mainstream Christian tradition. Maybe there are consciences here bound to scripture. I would certainly never demand that a man subscribe to something which he does not see in scripture; but for myself, I need more than a few brief blog comments to understand why I should abandon Nicaea as crucial to salvation, revelation and my doctrine of who God is and what he has done. I want to know how and why Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Owen, to name just eight representatives of Trinitarianism, considered this to be more than a matter of over-scrupulousness. A humble listening to the past is important for the church in any circumstance; in the context of the creeds, such listening is absolutely non-negotiable.

 
 

May

28

2010

Justin Taylor|10:10 pm CT

Not a Guardian Angel, but a Guardian Father with a Legion of Angels at His Disposal

Greg Lucas blogs about loving his son with severe disabilities. It is a blog stained with tears and filled with hope. I want to be more like Greg.

Here’s a post about God’s care for his son Jake. (The context is that Jake was recently enrolled in a a special needs program to help transition him to living as an adult.) An excerpt:

I do not believe Jake has a guardian angel assigned to his disability to protect him from harm. I do believe, however, that he has a guardian Father who sits on His throne in heaven surrounded by an army of angels intently watching the face of their Commander and Chief.

And with one nod of the Almighty’s head, a legion of angels could be dispatched to preserve and protect my son. Night and day they wait and watch the Father’s face as His eyes watch over Jake.

Our house has always been like a fortress, locked down with alarm systems and dead bolts keeping Jake from escaping into an outside world where danger lurks and disaster waits. But locks and alarms are a false sense of security from unpredictable circumstances and sovereign providence.

When Jake was three years old he nearly drowned in a creek outside our home. The Father nodded and the angels were dispatched. My wife found him face down in the water, lips blue and skin cold. She administered CPR until he began breathing again.

When Jake was five he wandered out into traffic on a busy street. The Father nodded and the angels were dispatched. The speeding car screeched to a halt just inches from my son.

A couple years ago, when Jake escaped the house and wondered deep into our neighborhood at the vulnerability of traffic, strangers and vicious dogs—the Father nodded, the angels were dispatched and Jake was brought home.

Only days after Jake moved to the center and school, another mentally disabled resident took a pillow and put in over Jakes face as he slept. The Father nodded, the angels were dispatched, and the care worker decided to check the rooms of the sleeping residents. He walked in as the other child was trying to smother Jake to death, “because he was being too loud.” The other child was removed from the building and Jake never even knew what happened.

Will God always protect my son from danger and harm? No, because it is always dangerous to be His child. And sometimes pain, suffering and even death are ways that God is most glorified in our lives.

But God will forever be present, care for and love my Jake with a Father’s compassion that outshines my best abilities and most hopeful intentions as an earthly father—a compassion that is always diligent, always attentive and always caring for his most intimate needs.

And so as I sit and listen to the creek flowing hard against its banks tonight, I have time to think. It is a bitter-sweet time. I miss my son. But I am reminded that God is on His throne at this very moment. He has His eyes on my boy, and an army of angels have their eyes on the face of my Father.

Jake is in good hands.

 
 

Sep

13

2006

Justin Taylor|7:33 am CT

Mohler on the Time Magazine Cover Story

Al Mohler takes a look at the cover story for Time Magazine on the topic of prosperity theology.

“Theological confusion takes many forms, but with this cover story, TIME directs us to one of the most pervasive perversions of the Christian Gospel in our times — prosperity theology. The article, written by David Van Biema and Jeff Chu, is fair, balanced, and devastating. . . . TIME‘s cover story is a wake-up call. The fact that prosperity theology has TIME‘s attention should demand our attention.”

What can we do about this? Very few, if any of us, will be able to have personal contact with someone like T.D. Jakes or Joel Osteen. And most boycotts don’t work. But why not write a letter or try to meet with the manager of your local Christian bookstore if they sell books like this, seeking to persuade them that selling books like this is a disservice to the body of Christ? It would be a good way to practice being an ambassador of Christ, it would seek to serve the church, and it’s something that might actually make a difference.