The Gospel Coalition

Controversy customarily generates its share of purple prose. It is very easy to read everything an opponent says as negatively as possible---in malam partem, as the Latins say, "in a bad sense," while taking what our friends say in bonam partem, "in a good sense." 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.

1. Persons and Manifestations

What is at stake in the distinction? Toward the end of the second century and right through the third century, a number of thinkers defended a modal Trinity: the one God disclosed in three modes or manifestations. These people were variously called Unitarians, Patripassians (because they believed the Father suffered), or Sabellians (after Sabellius, a presbyter in Ptolemais, c. AD 250). They defended the deity of Christ (and on this one point aligned with historic Christian belief), but they denied personal distinctions in the Godhead. In their view, the one and the same person is simultaneously Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These labels express the different relations that God sustains with the world and the church, just as do other labels (e.g., Creator, King, Sustainer). But one cannot say that God the Creator addresses God the King: there is only one person. So on this view, the one person, God, has revealed himself in various manifestations or modes (hence this view is sometimes called modalism); we are not dealing with one God who has disclosed himself to be three persons, each of whom can and does address the other. It was not long before the church roundly condemned modalism, not least because Scripture is replete with passages in which, for instance, the Father addresses the Son, and the Son the Father.

When orthodox believers sought language to summarize the idea that each person of the Godhead is a self-conscious agent (the Latin category is suppositum intelligens), in the Greek part of the ancient world they first settled on prosōpon ("face"). But the Sabellians understood the same word to mean something like "aspect," and they defended the view that God revealed himself under a threefold aspect. Eventually the orthodox settled on hypostasis. Among the Latin speakers, Christians settled on substantia or persona---and hence our English word "person." (See chart below.) Christian thinkers have argued for centuries exactly how we should understand persona in Latin and "person" in English, but the very least that had to be affirmed was the deeply entrenched biblical reality that the "persons" of the Godhead interact with one another, address one another, love one another, in a "personal" way.

Terms Expressing God's Oneness and Threeness

(This chart is from John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, A Theology of Lordship [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002], 697; see pp. 696-705.) Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity is much richer than these few lines suggest. As Christians in the third and fourth century studied the biblical evidence, they insisted that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit express necessary, internal, and eternal relations in the Godhead. Today, of course, we sometimes quickly summarize the doctrine of the Trinity: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there is but one God. That is true as far as it goes, but it does not guard very well against modalism. The early church taught "that the Father eternally, necessarily, and incomprehensibly communicates the divine essence to the Son without division or change so that the Son shares an equality of nature with the Father yet is also distinct from the Father" (this is the careful summary of Keith E. Johnson, "Augustine, Eternal Generation, and Evangelical Trinitarianism," TrinJ 32 [2011]: 141-163). The language of "communication" was judged crucial: the essence is absolute and communicable, and the early church fathers spoke of this communication in terms of the eternal generation of the Son, while the person is incommunicable, i.e., it cannot be shared. So while one joyfully confesses that the Son is God and the Father is God, the church throughout its history has equally insisted that the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. The church needs a robust Trinitarianism to avoid modalism on the one hand and tritheism on the other.

Had we the space and time, it would be delightful to justify this synthesis by providing the exegesis of many passages, and then extend the discussion from Father and Son to the Spirit. Someone might ask, "But what does it matter?" The answer is twofold: (1) If this summary accurately captures at least some of the glorious truth of the nature of the Godhead, to abandon it is to abandon a true understanding of God. If we are to worship God aright, we must worship him as he is, as he has disclosed himself to us. The only alternative is to worship a god who is progressively false as our understanding skews away from the truth. (2) Various truths connected with the gospel itself become incoherent if one abandons robust Trinitarianism. The Father sends the Son; the Son demonstrates his love for the Father by obeying him all the way to the cross; the Son addresses his Father in the anguished cry, "My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?"; the Father gives the elect to the Son; in the plan of God, the Son propitiates the wrath of God and expiates sin; in the wake of his ascension and session at the Father's right hand, the Son reigns as the Father's mediatorial king until he has crushed all opponents, when he will turn the entire scope over to his Father; indeed, when the Son "offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death . . . he was heard because of his reverent submission" (Heb 5:7). None of these relational displays---and there are many others in the drama of redemption---is coherent under modalism. These relations are tied up with the nature of the Godhead. It is not surprising that those who adopt modalism habitually slide toward a diminished gospel.

In his Institutes, John Calvin sums it up: "Say that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of persons: you will say in one word what Scripture says, and cut short empty talkativeness." He then adds that, in his experience, those who "persistently quarrel" over these words "nurse a secret poison" (I.13.5).

2. Biblicism One and Biblicism Two

In the recent Elephant Room (hereafter ER2), T. D. Jakes says that he affirms that God is three persons, but he prefers to speak of three manifestations---and then he provides a text to justify this conclusion: "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16 KJV). As Pastor Jakes points out, that is what Paul says, and surely we do not want to write Paul off as a modalist, do we? Isn't Pastor Jakes making a biblical argument? Don't Christians want to defend such committed biblicism?

It is important to untangle this argument in two steps.

First, Pastor Jakes says that he affirms that God is three persons. In ER2, he affirms it again, somewhat laconically, when asked the question directly. We are delighted to hear it. Moreover, he states that some Oneness Pentecostals now think him a heretic because of it. Of course, the Oneness Pentecostal movement has various strands. Some think of him as a heretic, while others in the movement think he is acceptable, even heroic, because at the same time he says he prefers to speak of three manifestations. That must be very reassuring to "soft" Oneness Pentecostals. But the response is deeply disturbing. What does Pastor Jakes mean?

He might mean one of several things. We'll mention three. (a) He may mean, "Words don't matter very much; I can go with 'persons' or 'manifestations,' and I prefer the latter." As one commentator has put it, "It's just semantics." But words do matter, because they are used to express truth and falsehood. In our first pairing, we tried to show that our very understanding of God is bound up with these words, and with it the gospel. Historically, the expressions have not meant the same thing. If Pastor Jakes can use either expression, which one does he mean? (b) He might mean that he is a Trinitarian, but that he prefers the language of manifestations. But why does he prefer the latter terminology? Because he is unaware of the historic debates and their doctrinal significance? Because he wants to appeal to the "soft" Oneness folk? And if the latter, how is he weaning them away from false doctrine if he continues to use the terminology that is associated in their minds with Oneness theology? (c) Or is he really a modalist who concedes "person" language now and then, even though he prefers "manifestations," in order to be acceptable in a wider circle?

The short answer is, we don't know.

In a much-quoted statement deriving from 2000, Pastor Jakes says he believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have "distinct and separate functions. . . . [E]ach has individual attributes." Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a moment. It would be good to ask him some other questions, such as, "Do you think the Son existed, as the Son, before he was sent by his Father into the world [John 3:17]?" Just when our sense of charity hopes that Pastor Jakes really is Trinitarian in his thought but sadly untaught, he adds (in that same 2000 interview) that the discussion is guilty of "splitting hairs" and "semantics": no one is dying for lack of theology---they die for lack of love. Suddenly all our questions surface again. Of course people can die for lack of love; but they can also die for lack of theology. If our theology of God is very wide of the mark, we are believing in a false god. And Paul knows that a "gospel" that is no gospel at all is dangerous, and even dares to pronounce an anathema on those who preach a false gospel (Gal 1:8-9). We no more dare excuse bad or slippery theology in the name of love than we dare excuse brittle lovelessness in the name of orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, we remain uncertain if Pastor Jakes holds to a robust Trinitarianism or not. Sometimes he seems to, as when he observes, quite rightly, that the Father addresses the Son at his baptism. But then again, he prefers to speak of manifestations.

That brings us to the second step: his appeal to 1 Timothy 3:16. "God was manifest in the flesh" (KJV): apparently Pastor Jakes, not to mention some of his post-ER2 supporters, thinks this line supports his preference for three manifestations rather than three persons. It does no such thing; this is scandalously bad exegesis. Note: (a) For this verse to support the preference for manifestations terminology, it would have to support the proposition that God was manifest in the Father, God was manifest in the Son, and God was manifest in the Spirit---for that is what the "manifestations" terminology, applied to the Godhead, is all about. (b) In other words, the "manifest" verb in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not a technical expression justifying three "manifestations," but common language that means God displayed himself in the flesh or expressed himself in the flesh or appeared in the flesh. That is why the NIV renders the passage, "He appeared in the flesh." Should we conclude that this rendering, perfectly accurate, justifies a theory of three appearances?

Now we are getting to the nub of the issue in this second pairing. There is a kind of appeal to Scripture, a kind of biblicism---let's call it Biblicism One---that seems to bow to what Scripture says but does not listen to the text very closely and is almost entirely uninformed by how thoughtful Christians have wrestled with these same texts for centuries. There is another kind of biblicism---let's call it Biblicism Two---that understands the final authority in divine revelation to lie in Scripture traceable to the God who has given it, but understands also that accurate understanding of that Scripture is never supported by bad exegesis and always enriched by the work of Christian thinkers who have gone before.

Here is where the distinction becomes interesting. Neither the terminology of "manifestations" preferred by Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists nor the terminology of "persons" supported by historic creeds is directly used in Scripture. Where does it come from? It comes from thinkers two or three centuries after the New Testament was written who were doing their best to summarize large tracks of biblical themes and texts in faithful, accurate summaries, even if the terminology was not directly dependent on the terminology of a specific verse or two. History has shown, for the reasons briefly set forth in our first pairing, that the terminology of "manifestations" was soundly trounced and declared heretical: it simply could not be squared with what the Bible says. The "persons" terminology prevailed (along with words like "subsistence") not because it derived directly from usage in the biblical documents themselves, but because it could be shown that this terminology did a great job of summarizing what the Bible actually says.

If you don't like this example, it is easy to find others. The doctrine of justification, for example, was not invented in Reformation times. Tom Oden (The Justification Reader [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002]) has amply demonstrated how justification was discussed in the patristic period. Nevertheless, in God's providence the disputes of sixteenth-century Europe provided much more intense study of these matters than what was undertaken in previous centuries. The result was much more exegetical rigor and theological synthesis. Just as the Christological and Trinitarian disputes of the third and fourth centuries generated syntheses that were actually grounded in the Bible and designed to reject false teaching, so the justification debates did something analogous in the sixteenth century. Just as the Christological debates generated theological terms like "essence" and "person," belonging to the domain of systematic theology yet actually reflecting faithful biblical synthesis, so the justification debates generated theological terms that analyzed "faith" under rubrics like notitia (the content of faith), assensus (confidence that this faith-content is true), and fiducia (trust in the true content of faith such that it changes how you live).

To attempt theological interpretation without reference to such developments is part and parcel of Biblicism One; to attempt theological interpretation that is self-consciously aware of such developments and takes them into account is part and parcel of Biblicism Two. We hasten to add that both Biblicism One and Biblicism Two insist that final authority rests with the Bible. All the theological syntheses are in principle revisible. Yet the best of these creeds and confessions have been grounded in such widespread study, discussion, debate, and testing against Scripture that to ignore them tends to cut oneself off from the entire history of Christian confessionalism. The Bible remains theoretically authoritative (Biblicism One), but in fact it is being manipulated and pummeled by private interpretations cut off from the common heritage of all Christians.

Some months ago, James MacDonald wrote:

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 [sic] 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, of course, is Biblicism One. As a statement about the location of final authority, it is as admirable as Biblicism Two. The thing to note is that it uses the language of "three manifestations," which is not found in Scripture, so while claiming the authority of Biblicism One it is nevertheless sanctioning post-biblical categories. We simply cannot escape the fact that our linguistic labels are shaped by prior discussion. But if the statement had taken into account the detailed discussions about "manifestations" that have informed Christian reflection since the fourth century, the author would have insisted that "manifestations" is not an acceptable way to talk about the Godhead, and that there are detailed reasons for preferring "persons"---reasons that are grounded not in arbitrary or personal semantic preference, but in words that have been used to summarize large swaths of Christian teaching about God and which are faithful to this synthesis.

Several Christians challenged James on these matters, and James accepted the correction with humility and grace, and soon came down off that ledge. We want to give him full credit for that. Not all Christian leaders could have accepted the correction as well, and we are only bringing it up as an instructive example. Yet that is the ledge on which T. D. Jakes seems currently to be perched. His commitment to Biblicism One does not mean that he is, in the best sense, "biblical," and his handling of 1 Timothy 3:16 on a topic of this importance is not reassuring.

3. Prosperity Gospel and Empowerment

ER2 addressed many pastorally interesting and useful topics. Quite a number of commentators, however, have expressed disappointment that no one pushed T. D. Jakes on his apparent support for the prosperity gospel.

Pastor Jakes prefers to think that what he is preaching is a kind of empowerment to oppressed people rather than a prosperity gospel. The distinction is an important one. The Bible supports a certain kind of empowerment; indeed, one and the same gospel tends to build up the oppressed and slap down the haughty. On the one hand, James 1:9 says, "Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position." Believers who are dirt poor, ill, dismissed as nothing in society, are nevertheless already children of the King of kings, and will, with Lazarus, one day lie on Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:19-37). On the other hand, James 1:10-11 says, "But the rich should take pride in their humiliation [Isn't that a delightful phrase, worthy of much reflection?]---since they will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business." At least some applications of the gospel will be a little different where there is a congregation of broken, indigent people as compared with where there is a congregation of wealthy, successful people.

Yet it is easy to hide a prosperity gospel under the much more acceptable banner of merely empowering the broken. There are two ways to tell. First, discover whether the eternal and universal realities of the gospel "once for all entrusted to God's holy people" (Jude 3)---not just some of them---lie at the center of what is being preached. Second, find out how much of the "empowerment" focuses on material health and prosperity in this life. Since his breakthrough book, Woman, Thou Art Loosed, Pastor Jakes has left an impressive trail of books and downloads to enable you to assess such matters for yourself. Moreover, the 9Marks website offers penetrating and careful reviews of most the books that Pastor Jakes has written. As far as the evidence goes, we do not see how it is unfair to characterize the burden of much of his ministry as a combination of prosperity gospel and moralizing personal improvement.

4. Love and Truth

A fair bit has been posted on the lovelessness of TGC in general and of some of its members in particular. We cannot help but notice that there are two categories of charges that contradict each other somewhat. On the one hand, we love issues more than people; we should be reconcilers, not haters; we are called to love one another, and we are failing in this regard. On the other hand, quite a few bloggers have criticized TGC for being too silent: in a word, we are cowards instead of standing up for the truth, caving in to megachurch pastors instead of speaking the truth.

We are not above reproach in either direction. All of us will answer to God on the last day; on a much shorter scale, the Council of the Coalition will certainly weigh very carefully at our May meeting what we have and have not done. What we are quite certain of, however, is that the apostle who so movingly writes 1 Corinthians 13 also writes many things about the non-negotiability of the truth of the gospel. He can be surprisingly patient with preachers with bad motives provided that what they preach is the gospel (Phil 1), but when the Jesus who is being preached is "a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached," Paul can label the preachers "false apostles" who are "masquerading as apostles of Christ" (2 Cor 11) and insist that the Corinthians expel them.

What that means, of course, is that Christian leaders are charged with discerning when and how the tough line must be taken. Even when discipline is demanded, it should never be vituperative. But to appeal to the many passages that exhort us to love without simultaneously thinking through the many passages that bind us to uphold the truth is not only one-sided, it is in danger of being manipulative: if you do not agree with me, you are unloving. Of course, the manipulation can run the other way: if you do not reject this person or this position, you do not care for the truth.

The most recent biography Iain Murray has written is the life of Archibald Brown, one of the successors of Charles Spurgeon. Murray gives us a thumb-nail sketch of the Downgrade controversy (something he filled out in more detail in his earlier volume, The Forgotten Spurgeon). Spurgeon, Brown, and others were increasingly concerned by the effect of German rationalism on Baptist churches in England. What is so striking is how often their opponents charged Spurgeon and his friends with lovelessness, arrogance, old-fashioned small-mindedness---often in a singularly unloving way---without ever engaging the matters of substance. Here, for example, is the Nonconformist and Independent for 17 November, 1887: "Mr Spurgeon and those who follow him seem to be intent upon accentuating the differences of Nonconformists, instead of seeking to draw nearer to each other by unity with their Lord." So the issue Spurgeon thought important is not taken up, but Spurgeon himself is divisive. It is easy to multiply historical examples of this sort.

Those who take up important theological issues must do so in love, examining their own hearts, avoiding snarkiness and oneupmanship; those who appeal to love and unity need to actually engage with the issues, refusing to duck them.

5. Racism and Playing the Race Card

Doubtless this is the most delicate, sensitive, and complicated of the issues that have arisen, and we do not want to add to the confusion by saying too much or too little, or by writing with the wrong tone. But it would be irresponsible if we said nothing.

About three weeks ago the majority of the African American Council members of TGC made it clear that they felt the white members, not least the leadership, were more sensitive to white theological issues than to black theological issues. After all, TGC had mounted an informed, careful, and bold response to Rob Bell when the incipient universalism of his latest book started to receive national attention and threaten the truth of Scripture and the nature of the gospel. Our African American brothers pointed out, however, that Rob Bell is not perceived to be a great threat in African American circles. But these brothers felt pretty strongly that T. D. Jakes is a huge issue in their circles. On this issue, they thought, TGC was insensitive to what they thought of as a much greater threat.

There were about ten of us involved in those discussions. As soon as matters were articulated like that, the white men among us could not help but see that the charge was justified. Insensitivity on matters of race can be such a subtle thing. By and large, white Christian leaders tend to think that racism is no longer a huge issue, while black Christian leaders tend to think it remains a huge issue: even our perceptions of the significance of the problem are not on the same page. But in this case we caught a glimpse of something that we knew theoretically, but were now seeing up front: there is still a lot of hidden culpable insensitivity around until we are no less eager to engage the "other's" concerns than our own.

Of course, the issue was complicated by at least two other factors. First, not all African American members saw things the same way. But why should that surprise us? Not all white Christians see things the same way, either. Still, the clear majority of our African American brothers on the Council let us know, rightly, that they were upset. And we judged we had clearly been in the wrong. Second, in one way, of course, this issue was different from Rob Bell's book, in that there had been no member of the Council who was committed to exploring how acceptable Rob Bell's theology might be within historic confessionalism, but there were some members of the Council who were committed to exploring T. D. Jakes in this way. But that meant, of course, that the racial insensitivity issue that the majority of our African American brothers on the Council brought up was linked with Jakes's modalist heritage and his prosperity gospel, which in the words of a couple of them, was "ravaging" the black churches. From their perspective, some of them had paid considerable cost for publicly standing against Pastor Jakes. They had done so precisely because their minds and hearts had been captured by the glorious gospel of the blessed God---and when they needed the most support, the white brothers were letting them down. Suddenly all the theological "pairings" we have articulated in this blogpost were linked together.

Subtleties and ironies surfaced everywhere in the subsequent developments. Some wanted to give T. D. Jakes a pass on the ground that African American churches are more interested in redemption than creeds. That's a bit like giving Jonathan Edwards a pass on slavery because he was a man of his own time and class. All of us must hold one another to the standard of God's most holy Word. In fact, it is a kind of insult to Pastor Jakes to give him a pass because of his ethnicity.

It will serve no good purpose to provide a detailed step-by-step account of all that unfolded from that point on. But we must insist in the strongest terms that the white Council members acted not only out of doctrinal and pastoral concerns, but newly aware that we had flubbed the racism test and were trying to make things right. Equally, the African American Council members, far from kowtowing to white concerns, were themselves acting out of their deepest doctrinal and pastoral commitments---commitments for which some of them had already paid a considerable price. It does them---not to say historic Christian confessionalism---an enormous disservice to charge them with betraying their ethnicity. Historic Christian confessionalism is not the private playground of middle-aged white guys. Have we forgotten that the most brilliant and influential thinker in the fourth century when many of the Trinitarian controversies came to resolution was a North African by the name of Augustine?

6. Private and Public

For our purposes, this topic has at least three dimensions.

First, talking with T. D. Jakes in ER2 has been cast as listening to someone first before we say anything critical of him. Relationships precede evaluation. Anyone who ventures a critical evaluation of Pastor Jakes before ER2 is simply being judgmental. With respect, this argument does not hold up to either Scripture or reason. Pastor Jakes is not a private individual about whom some people might have heard a few negative things. If that were the case, it would be imperative to uncover the truth before passing on what would in that case be nothing more than gossip. Pastor Jakes, however, is a public individual. He himself publishes his views in various media; they circulate widely. He is read and heard around the world. Not long ago in a Christian bookshop in South Africa, one of the writers of this article discovered that the author with the greatest number of books on the shelf was T. D. Jakes. It is the responsibility of Christian pastors to become aware of such a preacher and teacher if his works are significantly influencing their own flocks. To imagine that no fair evaluation is possible before an ER2-type public event does not square with apostolic practice. When in 2 Corinthians 10-13 Paul learns of interlopers who are preaching another Jesus, he does not begin by arranging a fireside chat. The content and direction of the interlopers' ministry is already public, and Paul confronts it.

Second, one might well ask, "But isn't it different when someone seems to be leaving the camp of a demonstrably false theology, and becoming more orthodox? Isn't this sort of public discussion in that case very helpful?" Perhaps. In our view, however, there is a better way. A quarter of a century ago, one of us was involved, with other Christian leaders, in several intense, probing discussions with leaders of a major cult. Neither side wanted these discussions to be public; they took place behind closed doors, without cameras or reporters. The cultists were wanting serious discussions with us because their own reading of Scripture was gradually bringing them around to historic confessional orthodoxy. In due course they went public on their own terms, and brought out many of their followers into evangelicalism. That development would not have taken place had the discussions been held in the open.

It is surely a wise and strategic thing to engage in probing conversations with many people with views very dissimilar to our own---not only Christians, but non-Christians, too. And many of our Council members are involved in such discussions, partly in function of normal human friendships, partly in function of Christian witness. Sometimes discussions take place with gifted orators whose theology is still a bit wonky: there is always a place for a Priscilla and an Aquila to teach an Apollos to understand the way of God a little better than he has understood it so far, and there is always a place for a Paul to reason with pagan philosophers in the Areopagus. Many of us are so involved. But that is a bit different from trying to reform another's theology in a public setting where the trappings and attitudes largely suggest everyone is already on the same side.

Third, as useful as it is on so many fronts, the internet is not notable for fostering discretion in this arena. Bloggers who have no idea of how many hours have been spent in private conversation to win someone to a better way often write with instantaneous public appraisals and unfettered language. They invariably think they write with prophetic insight; sometimes, at least, the contempt displayed is simply sinful. A colleague recently reminded one of us how Calvin set up four organizations in Geneva: the Company of Preachers, the Congregation, the Ordinary Censure, and the Consistory, each with its own responsibilities and assignments. It is the third that is of interest here: the Ordinary Censure brought together the area pastors four times a year, behind closed doors, where they addressed one another with their perceptions of another's false teaching, dealt with personality conflicts, and the like. The aim was to work things out, hold one another accountable, and bring correction and healing. Each of those four meetings was scheduled one week before the quarterly celebration of the Lord's Table. The accountability was remarkable---and it was possible, at least in part, because of the regularity and privacy of the Ordinary Censure. This was not designed to skirt the biblical instruction that where there is public accusation against an elder that is found to be justified, the elder is to be reproved before everyone (1 Tim 5:19-20), but it was designed to be a mutually correcting and restorative venue before matters had progressed that far.

We conclude by reiterating what we said in the opening lines. 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.

The Story: In a video that has gone viral on the Internet, Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta was crowned a "king" by guest speaker Rabbi Ralph Messer.

"He is a king, God's blessed him. He is a humble man. But in him is kingship. In him is royalty," said Messer during the "ceremony."

The Background: Long, pastor of a 25,000 member megachurch in Georgia, has history of emphasizing "chain of command" between certain superiors and subordinates characterized by "respect, submission and obedience, which makes his "kingship" consistent with his peculiar (and unscriptural) teaching.

In 2006, Long was chosen by the family of Martin Luther King, Jr. to host and officiate the funeral of Coretta Scott King, an event attended by four Presidents (George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter). More recently, Long has been the subject of controversy because of Senate investigations concerning whether he has personally profited from his church's tax exempt status and lawsuits alleging sexual relations with underage male members of his parish. (Long has denied wrong doing through his attorneys and has settled the lawsuits out of court.)

Why It Matters: As The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates notes, "This video basically was made to offend every conceivable stratum of this country--blacks, Jews, Christians, atheists--basically everyone."

But the reason it matters---or at least should matter to evangelicals---is that it creates the impression in the public's mind that this is the sort of bizarre behavior that goes on in our churches (even if coronations are infrequent). On the positive side, the video could provide an opportunity to invite people into our churches to see what really goes on (e.g., we don't wrap our pastors in Hebrew scrolls) and let them know why we have no king but King Jesus.

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

The Story: A study conducted by the financial service company Investopedia found that the sum value of different homemaking duties annually amounts to almost six figures. If a homemaker's job were salaried, it would draw, on average, $96,291 per year. Tasks accounted for in the study included private chef, house cleaner, child care provider, driver, and laundry service provider.

The Background: There's no escaping the fact that contemporary society often scoffs at stay-at-home moms. "This isn't the 1950s anymore," the thinking goes. "Why in the world would someone want to be imprisoned in her own home?" The common idea, of course, is that many responsibilities on the home front should be outsourced, thus releasing moms from domestic shackles to realize their vocational dreams. While such a mindset isn't automatically wrongheaded in every case, it can frequently betray a prioritization that is biblically questionable.

Why It Matters: Proverbs 14:1 states: "The wise woman builds her house." While the monetary value and practical feasibility of full-time homemaking may vary from home to home, what remains constant is the irreplaceable significance of a homemaker's contributions. The Investopedia article concludes, "The daily work of a homemaker can sometimes be taken for granted....However, these services could earn a homemaker a considerable wage if he or she took those skills to the marketplace. Homemakers, in general, contribute a lot more to the home in addition to these tasks and no amount of money can fill those needs."

Indeed, no study could ever fully quantify the service of a mother who "looks well to the ways of her household" (Prov. 31:27). At the very least, this research should prompt us to express fresh appreciation to those stay-at-home moms whom we love and who, though receiving little recognition in the eyes of the world, are faithful and treasured in the eyes of their King.

The Story: At least four separate human trafficking cases are now making their way through state and U.S. District Court, notes the Detroit Free Press. But for every case that is prosecuted, thousands go unreported because the victims are afraid or don't know who to turn to for help. The National Human Trafficking Resource Center hot line gets 1,000 calls a month about suspected trafficking victims.

"I don't think that people realize that slavery is alive and well in the U.S.," says Amy Allen, a victim witness specialist who works with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents investigating human trafficking. "And that's what this is. You can nuance it in different terms, but it's slavery."

The Background: As the Free Press notes, in recent years, the number of cases has increased from 300 in 2008 to 2,515 in 2010.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, human trafficking has become the second-fastest-growing criminal industry---just behind drug trafficking---with children accounting for roughly half of all victims. Of the 2,515 cases under investigation in the U.S. in 2010, more than 1,000 involved children.

The United Nations estimates it's a $32-billion industry, with half of the money coming from industrialized countries.

Why It Matters: There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Human trafficking is occurring in every nation on earth---including the U.S.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, British and American Christians were the leaders of the abolition movement. It's time that modern-day Christians once again take our place in the struggle against slavery.

In order to do that we must become better informed. We must act. We must do our duty to help our neighbor. Our God has set us free. It's time we do the same for his children.

(Via: MercatorNet.com)

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed (Genesis 2:8).

Ever since the events of Genesis 3, we've hungered to return home. It's the impulse that sent explorers out to the ends of the earth. It's what Ponce de Leon looked for in Florida, what Cortez searched for amongst the Aztecs, and what sent Cheng Ho out from China into the Indian Ocean. It was promised to Israel as a land of milk and honey, and promised again to the church as the city of God.

Paradise.

It's a resonant idea in pop culture. Lost's island was like a character unto itself, haunting the castaway's minds with a sense of mystery and hope. "We have to go back," Jack cried when he realized what he'd lost. We all want to go back. We want paradise.

Paradise is the backdrop for the Oscar-nominated movie The Descendants, a drama starring George Clooney that recently won the Golden Globe for best picture. It's a strangely gentle and beautiful story of tragedy, set amidst the dreamy backdrop of Hawaii.

(Two warnings are in order: First, the movie is rated "R" for realistically rough language, and second, there are what some may consider "spoilers" ahead.)

Clooney plays Matt King, a hard-working lawyer, husband, and father of two. His wife, Elizabeth, suffers a traumatic brain injury after a boating accident. A doctor tells Matt that she'll never revive from the resulting coma, and a living will specifies that they can't keep her on life support indefinitely, leaving Matt to break the news to his children, family, and friends. He takes his youngest daughter, Scotty, to pick up his oldest daughter, Alex (Shailene Woodley), from a boarding school on a neighboring island, wrestling internally with how to break the news.

Alex is a classic "troubled teen" with a history of bitter feuding with her mother and a penchant for wild behavior. As the movie progresses, Matt tells Alex, and asks her to help him tell the others, including Scotty, who is only 9 or 10 years old.

Ordinary People, Terrible Trauma

As he breaks the news to Alex, the plot thickens. Why did they fight so bitterly? What was the rift between them? "Dad, she was cheating on you." Alex had witnessed her with her lover, and when Alex confronted her, the war between them erupted.

Clooney and Woodley are both at the top of their game in the film, with heartbreaking and subtle performances as ordinary people in the midst of a horrible trauma. They find a kind of solace together, even as Alex introduces to the family drama her dumpy boyfriend, a spaced-out surfer kid whose presence only makes sense late in the story, during a midnight talk with Matt. Their humanity shines through---in all of its beautiful brokenness.

In the film's opening sequence, Matt talks about how most people view life in Hawaii, imagining it to be life in paradise. Juxtaposed with images of Hawaii's gorgeous green landscapes and sapphire seas are faces of the homeless, tumbledown shacks, and glimpses of poverty and suffering. "Do they think we're immune to suffering?"

It's that juxtaposition that makes The Descendants a powerful story. The beauty of the islands is otherworldly, something once pure and undefiled, now littered with tourist traps and resorts, broken homes and broken lives.

Hanging Like Ghosts

Parallel to Matt's own crisis is the journey of the King family. They're descendants of an American settler and an indigenous Hawaiian princess, and the family owns land all over the islands, including a massive beachside acreage that is still undeveloped. Matt is one of the only descendants who remains wealthy, having never spent his inheritance, and is the only trustee living who has decision-making authority over the land they co-own. The others want him to sell the undeveloped property, knowing that they'll all stand to become incredibly wealthy in the process.

As Matt's family unravels, his reservations about the sale grow. Photos of his long-dead relatives hang like ghosts around his home, hearkening back to a misty and idyllic past---a paradise lost to the sprawling commerce on the island and the creeping shadow of betrayal, failure, and death. He never loved his wife well. He wasn't present with his children. He isn't what he thought he was. Nothing is what he thought.

The only place he sees hope is the land. He refuses to sell, infuriating his relatives, but settling something in himself. It seems, perhaps, his clawing attempt to stop the plaguing spread of sin and death.

Palpable Emotion

In one of the closing scenes of the film, Matt is in the hospital room with his wife when Julie Speer walks in. She is the wife of Elizabeth's lover. She knows that there had been an affair, and she comes to offer her condolences and forgiveness. It's a painful and awkward scene, brilliantly acted by Judy Greer. The emotion is palpable as she offers forgiveness to the nearly lifeless body, alternatively weeping, wailing, and shouting through gritted teeth.

Confused and convoluted as all that emotion may be, Julie knows that the only thing that can heal the trauma to her family, to Matt's, and perhaps to all of us is grace. It's cathartic for her, and catalytic to Matt, who only afterward can extend grace to Elizabeth, offering loving words to her dying frame while saying a heartfelt and pain-filled goodbye.

The Descendents is a rare movie. Though it fails to see the ultimate hope for paradise lost in Jesus, who prepares a paradise for his people even now, it sees the loss and hints at the solution. It's beautifully acted by Clooney, Woodley, and Greer, opening the door on a troubled family in the midst of crisis. The soundtrack---elegant and understated excerpts of Hawaiian slack-key guitar and traditional music---works with the stunning backdrop of the islands to show that beauty and tragedy are held together in our gorgeous and broken world.

There is no paradise on Earth, no corner where the curse's cruel tentacles haven't spread. But in Christ, there is hope for such a place. In him, we can all go back.

The Story: Political scientist Charles Murray's new book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 marshals mountains of data to argue that the United States is fragmenting along class lines, threatening to undermine the values that have long held together a diverse society. While the wealthiest 20 percent of white Americans enjoy relatively stable if sheltered lives surrounded by like-minded peers, the poorest 30 percent endure fractured family lives in downtrodden communities. Formerly these groups lived in close proximity. Earnings for white collar and blue collar employment did not dramatically diverge. But now their problems seem worlds apart.

The Background: The New York Times columnist David Brooks frequently comments on the cultural and political implications of these long-term trends. Based on American political discourse, where "real America" is often identified with the white lower class that predominates in rural and exurban locales, it might come as a shock to learn that the upper class is now responsible for perpetuating the bourgeois values associated with the 1950s: hard work, stable families, and disciplined children. Brooks writes:

Republicans claim that America is threatened by a decadent cultural elite that corrupts regular Americans, who love God, country, and traditional values. That story is false. The cultural elites live more conservative, traditionalist lives than the cultural masses.

Of course, not everyone seems pleased with Brooks's plan for a National Service Program that would force the classes to mix.

Why It Matters: If you've ever wondered why church planters tend to target upper-middle-class suburban and urban territory, now you know why. This is where they're most likely to find willing churchgoers, whether new converts or established Christians looking for a place to worship and raise up their children. We've long assumed that areas of the country where many reject traditional Christian teaching on sexual morality, for example, pose the strongest challenge to church growth. But consider where you find many of the most vibrant, influential churches with predominantly white or Asian members. You'll find them today in the hipster districts, the city centers, the wealthy suburbs---places that tend to vote Democratic in presidential elections in part due to their mistrust of the Religious Right. Meanwhile, the areas we regard as bastions of religious conservatism struggle with high incidents of family breakup and economic distress. Brooks explains:

People in the lower tribe are much less likely to get married, less likely to go to church, less likely to be active in their communities, more likely to watch TV excessively, more likely to be obese.

Consider your own church. Is it a place where the classes mix? Have you considered planting a church or even starting a small group somewhere the lower classes predominate? Especially for those of us who may not encounter them in our regular routines, the poor must not be neglected in our prayers or our evangelistic efforts. That process starts with overcoming the misconceptions about the spiritual needs and practices of our neighbors. Don't be fooled by the political rhetoric. They might vote Republican, but they need Jesus.

"I love you, but you need to obey."

Every English-speaking parent has said that phrase at some point or another. It's our attempt as parents to express commitment to our children even as we require them to obey: "I love you despite anything you do, but you also need to obey what I tell you." I'd like to take issue, however, with using the conjunction but between these phrases. Using but may be communicating something we don't want to say---namely, that there is some kind of conceptual opposition between "I love you" and "You need to obey."

You may be dismissing me as a sharp-nosed grammarian at this point, but let me explain why this is important. I grow concerned when I see well-meaning parents who, in an attempt to practice gospel-centered parenting, do not readily insist on obedience because they want to display that their love for the child does not depend on obedience. Unfortunately, parents take on an apologetic air when wills begin to collide. They hesitate to subdue disobedience out of fear of transgressing the unconditional part of love. Insisting on obedience from children feels legalistic or repressive. They fear that they'd slowly stiffen into the hawk-eyed disciplinarians of a bygone era with timorous children arranged silently around the dinner table.

God is not an unreasonable parent. But he is not a permissive one, either. He demands obedience from his children not in order to love them but because he loves them. Consider the relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus' sonship and God's insistence on obedience were not contrary facts. Jesus proved his obedience in suffering (Hebrews 5:1-8) so that "being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (5:9). Jesus' obedience secures God's love for us, and (notice I didn't say but) enables our obedience. Being called to obey is a sign of our adoption. "It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?" (Hebrews 12:7) Discipline for the purpose of obedience is a privilege of being a son or daughter of God. Obedience and sonship are complementary, not oppositional.

The but has to go. Try so instead. "I love you, so you need to obey."

This conjunction more effectively communicates the logical relationship between the two concepts. It's not a relationship of opposition, but of grounding. The reason you are to obey me is because I already love you. This is how parents can be grace-based while insisting on obedience. We should never communicate even a hint of opposition between parental love and children's obedience.

Thinking Practically

A necessary part of loving a child is discipline.  

You'll often hear the parental advice, "Just make sure your kids know you love them." Okay. The only ones who would disagree with this are ogres, and they don't exist. But this universally held principle can mean extremely different things. It often means merely making clear to the child your affection for him as you watch him determine his own way in life. This falls short of the complex parental love we're called to.

Rather, we show parental affection in hugs and affirming words as well as discipline and words of warning. Proverbial wisdom equates discipline of children with love for them (Prov. 13:24), hope for their future good (Prov. 19:18), and delight in the parent-child relationship (Prov. 29:17).

So we should also avoid saying things like, "I love you, but I need to discipline you." We've all said that a thousand times. It's much clearer theologically to say, "I'm disciplining you because I love you."

Punishing disobedience is not anti-gospel; in fact, it prepares children to understand the gospel.

No one enjoys disciplining a child. Well, no one in his right mind does. Not only does it require us to get up from the recliner, it also makes us sad. We feel like ogres ourselves when we hear the desperate wails of a child undergoing the various sanctions we just placed on them. But think about it this way: Parents are preparing children to know how high-stakes the Day of Judgment will be by giving them low-stakes days of judgment now. You prepare them to understand experientially just how much they should desire mercy from one's judge. It is a part of teaching children that they should obey a Father who judges impartially (1 Peter 1:14-17) but provides a ransom through Christ (1 Peter 1:18-21).

Children should know that disobedience will be confronted quickly and patiently. 

My mother always said to her six children: "To delay is to disobey." And she was right. She knew that God is not an annoyed parent excising obedience from his children with sharp words of disapproval. But he is undaunted in his patient insistence that they submit to his design for human flourishing.

He will not be annoyed, nor will he be ignored. We should be the same. No children should feel the freedom to ignore a parent's direction, nor should they feel like the parent's quickness is motivated by personal annoyance. That may be hard to compute for those raised by angry parents whose rebukes proceeded largely from personal exasperation. But it is possible. Parents must ask for grace to deal patiently with sin, as well as to distinguish the varying degrees of culpability as the child develops. But deal with it they must.

We cannot attain perfect obedience from our children, nor should we want to.

Our children will fail to obey. Our goal is not to produce perfect obedience, but to provide regular demonstration that sin has consequences. The point of discipline is to show need for the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to hone children to the point of not needing it. Not only is that goal of perfection impossible, it also makes for a rigid and performance-based relationship between parent and child. Knowing the frailty of the human heart will allow parents to shepherd patiently with realistic expectations.

Discipline is concerned with behavior as a display of the heart. 

We do not wish merely that our children would obey, but that they would want to obey from within. The desire to obey comes from being redeemed by the love of God (1 John 4:17-5:5). So in every confrontation of disobedience and commendation of obedience, a child should be reminded that behavior merely points to the greater issue of the personal need for God's redemptive love.

I've learned from wise parents who reinforce this in two kinds of situations. When punishing their children, they say, "Even though your disobedience makes me sad, I love you just as much now as when you obey me." And, perhaps more brilliantly, when commending their children for pleasing them, they point out, "Even though your obedience makes me glad, I don't love you more because of it." What a picture of God's unflappable love for his children.

Maybe along the way we'll learn a thing or two ourselves about responding to the unfaltering love of our own Father with, "I know you love me, so I will obey."

The Story: Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow is canceling an appearance at a revival organized by prosperity gospel preacher Rod Parsley.

The Background: The year's most talked about Christian athlete was scheduled to speak at a three-day Columbus event in March led by televangelist Parsley. In a phone interview with the Associated Press, Tebow's brother Robbie said his brother's speakers' bureau hadn't researched the event before saying yes to the invitation.

"I know for a fact that Tim is not going to be a part of it," Robbie Tebow said. "That's being resolved."

Parsley pastors World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, and heads up World Harvest Ministerial Alliance (WHMA). His church services and personal appearances are telecasted over TBN-TV and Daystar-TV in a program called Breakthrough. Along with his confusion about doctrines like the Trinity ('The Holy Ghost is no different than Jesus and Jesus is no different than the Holy Ghost. . ."), Parsley teaches that God wants believers to be wealthy. As the AP notes, last year Parsley asked followers to donate more than $1 million to ward off satanic attacks.

Why It Matters: The young quarterback understands that by speaking at the event he would be lending his credibility to men who preach a false gospel. By refusing to speak at the event, he may be able to signal to people unfamiliar with the prosperity gospel that those who believe in the true gospel should avoid publicly associating with these false teachers.

The Story: Christian leaders are teaming with animal protection advocates to fight against cockfighting, calling the practice of watching and betting on roosters who fight to the death antithetical to biblical values, notes the Washington Post.

The Background: The Palmetto Family Council and the Southern Baptist Convention are joining forces in South Carolina to strengthen the state laws against the brutal practice. Although cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states, it remains only a misdemeanor in 11 states, including South Carolina.

The groups recently released a new video which cites scripture and Biblical principles to expose both the cruelty of cockfighting as well as the larger societal effects of the illegal blood sport.

Content warning: The video contains disturbing images of animal cruelty.

Why It Matters: As Dr. Oran Smith, the executive director of Palmetto Family, notes in the video, "Wanton cruelty toward animals is frankly unbiblical and un-Christian."

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, adds that "humans are called to "respect every living thing . . . Cockfighting is a pornography of violence. People who watch it are going to be brutalized by it."

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]

The Story: A federal appeals court recently ruled that a counseling student who declined to advise a homosexual client might have been expelled from her university because of her faith. The court found that, "a reasonable jury could conclude that Ward's professors ejected her from the counseling program because of hostility toward her speech and faith."

The Background: Julea Ward was enrolled in Eastern Michigan University's graduate counseling program when she was assigned a client who sought counseling on a same-sex relationship. Because her faith as an evangelical Christian precluded her from condoning the relationship, Ward asked to have the client referred to another counselor.

According to Jeremy Tedesco, the civil rights lawyer who represented Ward: "Consistent with the American Counseling Association's (ACA) code of ethics (which twice authorizes client referrals) and what EMU taught Ward about referrals (e.g., highlighting a study finding that forty percent of professional counselors have referred clients due to values conflicts over sexual practices) the professor told her to have the client reassigned. This reassignment occurred before Julea had even met the client."

EMU charged Ward with violating two provisions of the ACA Code and sent her through a disciplinary process. As Tedsco says, "EMU professors offered Julea a 'remediation' program aimed at changing her 'belief system' took Julea on a self-styled 'theological bout in which her understanding and interpretation of biblical scripture was attacked, and questioned Julea about whether she viewed her "brand of Christianity as superior" to other Christians."

EMU then expelled Ward from the counseling program.

A lower court upheld the expulsion but the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision.

Why It Matters: As Tedsco notes:

In the end, the court struck at the very heart of what Julea's lawsuit is all about: that the First Amendment prohibits public universities from demanding that students change or violate their beliefs as a condition to getting a degree. As the court said: "A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems . . . as the price for obtaining a degree."

The Sixth Circuit is right, "Tolerance is a two-way street." A fact that is often lost on public universities when it comes to Christian expression and belief, as Julea's case so clearly shows.

[Note: If you find a story our community should know about, please send the link to joe.carter *at* thegospelcoalition.org.]