This was originally posted at Modern March
Bishop Jakes,
Let me first commend you on your acceptance to join the furnace that is the Elephant Room. You have taken a lot of heat over the years from pastors and theologians of all ilks, and you have handled it rather gracefully just as you did today. Perhaps the greatest compliment that one can give you is that humility does not seem to be something that 
you struggle with.
At 22, I felt the Damascus Road calling to ministry and dropped everything that I was doing to pursue ministry. This led me to start school over and begin a Biblical Studies degree at Dallas Baptist University. Interestingly, the school at which I studied and lived is no farther than a few football fields from your church, The Potter’s House.
Being the young angry Calvinist that I was, my first inclination that was that you were a heretic and probably hated Jesus more than I hated the traffic your church creates outside of the campus gates every Sunday morning and evening. I often had thoughts of attending one of your services and later blogging from my dorm room in my underwear about what a shame to God’s cause you really were. When I heard that people were getting saved at your church from Potter’s House members that I had class with, I was praying for REAL salvation to come upon those who bought into your heresies. Want to know the funny part? I hadn’t so much as listened to a single sermon of yours.
So, I listened to a few of your messages and tried to convince myself that I didn’t like what you were saying (though I did much of the time) and was determined to believe that you were a snake oil salesman which a fancy suit that cost too much money. Of course, I was too busy arguing with Calminians at DBU to consider whether or not I was wrong about anything, much less whether or not you were the Antichrist.
Needless to say, the onus was on me – not you – to repent.
As the past few years have come and gone, I have begged the Lord with great fear to humble me and allow me to love my brothers in Christ, regardless of differences, so long as they are not denying the foundational tenets of our faith. When hearing about your inclusion in the Elephant Room, I was greatly excited to hear that you would be cross-examined about your theological beliefs. People were all over the Internet already accusing Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald of associating with a heretic who denied the Trinity, when in reality they were doing what they should: allowing a brother to defend himself in his own words. I was a little disappointed in your responses in Christianity Today regarding the Trinity, but leading up to the Elephant Room I re-read it and had to remember that the interview was 12 YEARS AGO. Chances are, you have developed and grown quite a lot since then.
At the Elephant Room, you answered the question everyone had been asking: Do you affirm the Trinity? Is there one God in three manifestations (a Oneness Pentecostal theology that you’d affirmed so long ago), or is there one God in three persons (the orthodox view)?
Your response: ” I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons.”
You went on to explain that you’re not afraid of the word “manifestation” because Paul used it, which in context I agree with.
You were then asked the follow-up question by Driscoll: “Do you believe the Bible is the perfect, infallible Word of God? Do you believe God is Three Persons? Jesus is fully God and fully Man? He died on the cross for our sins? He rose from the dead? He is coming again? Apart from Jesus is no salvation?”
You response: Absolutely.
This letter is getting long and you are a busy man, so let me say this: I love and affirm you as a brother in Christ. There will be many people who parse your words from today and still doubt you. Sadly, people believe that you a) owe them an explanation satisfactory only to them, and b) that you’re probably still a heretic even though they can’t name a theological reason why. I don’t agree hardly at all with your methodology or even sometimes your exegesis, but I know this – you are the real deal and I can learn a lot about loving Jesus and loving others from you.
Praying for you,
Brandon Smith
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 119 comments… read them below or add one }
If only T.D. Jakes was a well-known figure with book, television, radio and web resources, capable of releasing to the public a coherent, plain-spoken view of the Trinity before he was able to appear on Christian Pay-per-view to do so!
I understand he has clarified his position today at an event requiring tickets to view and see. I think it is great that he has moved away from the oneness heresy in his views and has embraced Trinitarianism. I really do. I appreciate the confessional intent of Brandon’s open letter here. It is too easy to be predisposed to doctrinally reject certain figures and judge their ministries without knowledge.
What I don’t get is that now his previous failures to utilize his vast resources to clarify his position prior to today are the fault of all those who questioned his prior position. I gathered from some on Twitter that since Jakes clarified his position today, all those who asked him to do so previously are terrible people. Let’s celebrate his move to Trinitarianism but pray it bears more fruit that will reach all those his ministry has taught a fuzzy view in previous years. The man publishes like 20 books a year; maybe he can boldly teach on the Trinity in one of them!
“I gathered from some on Twitter that since Jakes clarified his position today, all those who asked him to do so previously are terrible people.”
Josh, I’d really like to know (genuinely, not being a smart aleck) where you saw anyone asking him to clarify his position. I saw a lot of people dismissing him, calling him a heretic, etc, but no one who asked him for anything. And these are the folks that I saw criticized on Twitter. And these ALSO are the folks who are now saying “OK, so he *says* he’s Trinitarian. But he’s still XYZ, ABC, PDQ, etc, etc, ad nauseum”.
From their track record, I’d never expect them to admit that they were wrong. And it doesn’t surprise me that they’d ignore that factor and try to distract us from their error by focusing on all the other problems they have with him (about which they had previously been silent). And it doesn’t even surprise me that they wouldn’t show one second’s happiness that Jakes believes rightly (or as you put it, “celebrate his move to Trinitarianism”). But couldn’t they have at least waited til Jakes turned off his mic before they hit their keyboards?
First of all, no one needs to admit they were wrong. He, up til the Elephant Room, had been more than a little cagey about what he believed. He had NEVER explicitly affirmed that he was Trinitarian. Also, what he said is not NEARLY as important as what he didn’t say–specifically that modalism is heresy and that modalists are heretics and therefore not Christians.
So if a writer/blogger/whatever says something explicitly and definitively based on incomplete evidence provided by the accused, the writer has no culpability as to the veracity of his statement?
So by that logic, I can say that you hate peanut butter, because you have not said otherwise. But if it is later revealed that you love peanut butter, I still was not wrong.
What I’m saying is that if someone said T.D. Jakes was a modalist, and he came out the other day and said “I’m a Trinitarian”, I don’t think they owe him an apology. He, in my opinion intentionally, was unclear about his theology. If his “fee-wings” were hurt, he could have clarified his position earlier.
It’s not like people picked a heresy out of the grab bag–”Oh, heck, I don’t know, what do you think might stick? Um, let’s call him a modalist!!! Yeah, that’s the ticket!!!” He came out of a modalist church so people did not know if he had repented of that heresy. Duh.
Oh, and again, he did not refute modalism as heresy and modalists as heretics, so, it’s not like he’s fit for gospel cooperation.
I never said anyone owed him an apology. Let me spell it out.
* I say “A”, explicitly and definitively.
* Now “A” can be based on solid circumstantial evidence, not out of something that I pulled out of my left nostril. So I can’t be blamed for assuming “A”.
* Then it is revealed that “A” is not true, that my assumptions (while quite possibly valid) were incorrect.
If I have *any* intellectual honesty whatsoever, I will note that fact.
Thank you for proving my original point.
Who isn’t “noting that fact” that Jakes is not a modalist? Please, enlighten me. What I’m not going to say, and no one has any responsibility to say, is that I was WRONG to call Jakes a modalist. You said you didn’t expect anyone to admit they were wrong.
I said he was a modalist. He has demonstrated that he is not. Congratulations.To.Him.
Gentlemen, we’ve kinda hammered this do death. I get a little nervous when we keep on rehashing the same points – it often doesn’t end well.
Dave
My point was that it was not wrong to call Jakes a modalist or to hold McDonald’s feet to the fire for having the gall to ask him to the Elephant room without a clear affirmation by Jakes that he was a Trinitarian. I was just aghast that someone would actually suggest that Jakes had been defamed or slandered in any way.
My only point, Joe, is that both of you have made your points repeatedly.
I didn’t really follow the whole thing. Frankly, stuck all the way up here in Iowa, I didn’t know much about MacDonald or the Elephant room.
Dave, I’ll shut up now. I’m apparently failing at making my point clear.
I wasn’t trying to assign blame or make anyone feel bad. It’s just that when we keep going around and around, usually, the emotion starts to rise.
Dave, I didn’t think you were trying to assign blame. Joe and I seem to be missing each other in some kind of fundamental way, and I’m willing to assume that it’s my fault. If anyone is assigning blame, it’s me against myself.
To paraphrase Motley Crue, I’m not going away angry; I’m just going away.
Excellent article, Brandon. However, the mental image of you blogging in your underwear – I could have lived happily without that for the rest of my life.
Good thing my wife appreciates it!
Oh, wow, now I’m really nauseous.
Dave, you’re the editor. For the sake of all decency, edit that part!!
Brandon,
Well said.
I now wonder will all those who falsely labeled Bishop Jakes a heretic and placed pressure on a musician from his church to withdraw from participation in the Phoenix SBC Pastor’s Conference, now acknowledge that they were wrong and affirm Bishop Jakes as a Christian brother as you have? It would appear to me that integrity, honesty and consistency would demand a statement, acknowledgement or apology similar to yours. You are to be commended for doing so( Psalm 133:1).
I saw this and thought of you. I knew you would like it.
I knew this all along. The misinterpretation by others was caused by the fact they simply would not accept his statement that his use of the word “manifestation” was bases on Scripture as opposed to some allegiance to modalist language or theology. Perhaps now the SBC will allow his musician to serve at the pastors conference.
Dave, you are to be commended for providing such a forum; the only fair and balanced forum in the SBC blogosphere.
“bases” should have been based.
Voices is the Fox News of Baptist blogs according to Dwight McKissic.
I guess that makes Dave Miller the Baptist Rupert Murdoch.
wow
I did speak to Vance Pitman in Las Vegas, told him how much the Pastor’s Conference blessed me and apologized to him for the ruckus that caused (Jamar Jones ?) to withdraw.
Dwight McKissic,
I think it about time for the two of us to begin debating the validity of the presidential candidates and their views on Christianity again. What do you say?
Let’s see if we can get Tim Guthrie, Wade Burleson, and Bart Barber in it with us. That was a fun time in ’08, remember?
CB,
I’ll lay my cards on the table:Can’t vote for Romney because of the Mormon view that Blacks are cursed and other heretical Mormon doctrines. Can’t vote for New’t because of his bombastic temperament and his racially insensitive views. I really like Santorum and will vote for him if he makes to the Texas primary and the general election. If it boils down to President Obama and New’t, I’m voting for the better family man and a first lady who will be a much better role model than New’ts wife. If it boils down to President Obama and Romney, I’ll either not vote or vote for the one who expresses views of the faith more compatible with mine.
Now, John Wayne of the Baptist blogging world will you lay your cards on the table?
Dwight
Pastor McKissic,
thank you for sharing that.
Well Dr. McKissic,
Now that you have called me by name, I reckon I’ll just have to do that pilgrim.
I really want Rick Santorum to be the candidate. Yet, I know the odds are slim to nothing.
My problems with Newt Gingrich, as you would know since you know me personally, is/are this/these issue/issues of his lack of commitment/commitments to his wife/wives and children. There are other moral issues, but they pale in comparison to the issues with his family.
There are problems with Romney that go even beyond his LDS background, although, I must confess, that is a pretty big issue with me.
Yet, for me, as again you already know, the biggest issue is the issue of abortion. Therefore, if it comes down to the incumbent verses either Gingrich or Romney, I will have to vote for the one who has the strongest platform against abortion on demand. And, as you know, I believe that President Obama’s administration and advisors are the greatest political enemies to the unborn since the Nixon era. I believe that if he gets a second term in office, his administration will declare open season on the unborn of the whole world beyond what we already have. In addition, I believe that his administration will also declare war on the Second Amendment and also radically reduce the capabilities of the American Armed Forces.
Therefore, I cannot vote for him. So, since I will vote and not abstain, for I believe it is my duty as citizen to vote, I will cast a vote against him by voting for his opposition.
All-in-all, I consider it to be a sad situation.
I’m not sure he was so “falsely labeled.” He could have been clear. He chose to be elusive. Now, he’s been clear. I don’t think there was any plot because of who he is. I think there was genuine concern that is cleared up a little better now.
However, has he made a “clean break” from his Oneness roots? If not, is this intentional? Sadly, some preachers just cannot seem to make themselves clear–or, choose not to.
In addition to offering a clarification, Jakes made the argument that “many people within…denominations labeled Oneness” are actually not modalists at all. I guess the question begs, if many people in so-called “Oneness” denominations aren’t modalists then what is this “Oneness” stuff really mean?
A serious consideration of that question might lead to increased understanding and more charitable attitudes and relations from white evangelicals with some of their black Pentecostal brothers and sisters.
Where Jakes clearly differs with the Southern Baptists many who have weighed in here and elsewhere is that he doesn’t consider those within Oneness groups to be heretics. Jakes’ orthodoxy is definitely more “generous.”
Interestingly, the most criticism that Jakes has received over the years deals not with his Oneness ties but with the prosperity gospel (rightly condemned as dangerous by just about every major Black Baptist body) and relationships with prosperity gospel preachers.
There’s a fine line between preaching economic empowerment and preaching a prosperity gospel. Jakes has crossed that line more than a few times over the years, in my opinion.
I used to listen to Jakes all the time on late night TV. A dynamic preacher. And not a bad producer either. Enjoyed his films more than the Sherwood films.
Let me rephrase, there CAN be a fine line between preaching economic empowerment and a prosperity gospel. I’ve heard alot of pastors, especially Black Baptist pastors, do an excellent job of preaching the former without crossing over into the prosperity waters.
Well stated Big Daddy. Excellent observation.
Jakes did state that his is Trinitarian.
What he DIDN’T state is that modalism is heresy. In fact, he mentioned several times in the stuff I read “Many modalists would agree with you”. Affirming correct doctrine is not sufficient. If he doesn’t reject modalism as heresy and modalists as heretics, then while he is a Christian and not a heretic, he’s certainly not someone to partner with in any gospel endevor.
Bulls-eye Joe.
Yes, Joe. That struck me also. If modalism is a heresy (and it is), and if heresy is a sin (and it is), has TD Jakes repented of that sin, pronounced it heresy, and renounced his former associates who still hold to that heresy?
It is my assessment that he has not done this.
Squirrel
Good thought, Joe. I think the conversation can safely move from “is he a heretic?” to “would I work with him?”
I don’t like the conversation, because I don’t think they’re separable, but it’s at least a more legit point now.
According to Steve Camp: dude is a heretic.
This is incredible
http://www.letterofmarque.us/
Bintang,
I’m a bit confused (nothing new for me) regarding your post. I read your link and it appears that it was Chris Rosebrough from Pirate Christian Radio who was treated so shamefully. Could you explain to me where Steve Camp comes in here?
I listen to PRC often and I haven’t heard anything about Steve Camp recently. Perhaps I missed it.
God Bless
Chief Katie,
My apologies for not being clear.
Dude equals T.D Jakes
That conclusion was based on numerous tweets by Mr Camp.
I was agreeing with you on Chris Rosebrough…..incredible in a bad way!
Bintang,
Thanks, I figured it out. I listened to the entire program today of Chris being ‘escorted away from the church’. Sad. He also has a review of Code Orange Revival. Chris can be harsh, but I thought his comments here were on target. He went over about 40 minutes of TD Jakes’ sermon. Jakes is as charismatic as ever, but his sermon sounded like blasphemy to me. Well worth the listen at Fighting for the Faith.
Steve Camp also had a great article at his website.
God Bless…….
Bintang,
Steve Camp thinks all non-5-pointers are heretics… haha.
Only kidding… kind of.
Brandon, I’m curious, why do you address Jakes as “Bishop”? Would you call a pastor who came out of Mormonism “pastor”?
Why wouldn’t he refer to Jakes as Bishop? That’s the name he is known by – Bishop T.D. Jakes. To quote Aretha, R-E-S-P-E-C-T
If you met the Pope, would you say Hello Ratzinger! I’d hope not!
I don’t know what Mormonism has to do with anything here. Jakes is being affirmed here at a fellow Christian. But, if I were in contact with a Mormon, I’d call them the name and title that they go by.
Kinda like in the academic world. There are folks out there with certain lower-tier degrees that get them the “Dr.” title. Some with a PhD and PhD-track get a little snooty about calling someone like that “Dr.” But only the jerk will refuse to refer to the person as “Dr.”
Since I don’t believe in a Pope I probably would not address him as such nor would I kiss his ring. Respect? How about a little biblical respect for the title Bishop?
I doubt Paul would have sat in an ecumenical setting and referred to Hymenaeus and Alexander as Bishop, Pastor or Elder.
I guess I just prefer to try to live life in a way that shows respect to others, Golden Rule. I just don’t see the need to go out of my way to offend someone.
Addressing Jakes as Bishop Jakes is certainly no theological affirmation of anything.
Non-Christians don’t drop the Rev. or Pastor title when addressing a Christian minister. Their approach is more Christlike in my opinion than yours which is really unnecessary and looking to “start something” so to speak.
Yeah, I get your point, BDW. I also appreciate your first comments on this thread.
That’s a tough call. For instance, if you interact with “Pastor Sally” from another church in town, but you are opposed to women in ministry, do you respect her and the church even if you disagree?
I remember when Reagan (a president back before most of you were born, you young whippersnappers) meeting the Queen of England and refusing to bow. He was cordial, but he also reminded folks that we are not under the authority of the Queen.
Would you call Ratzinger ‘Vicar of Christ’ as his other title states. I hope not.
What about all of the guys calling themselves ‘Apostle’ nowadays?
So respect only goes so far.
That’s simple. For “pastor” Sally, I call her Ms. Whateverherlastnameis and ma’mm. For “bishop” T.D. Jakes, I’d call him Mr. Jakes or sir.
I think bowing to the Pope or Queen is different than addressing someone by their title.
Reagan still addressed Elizabeth as Queen. Rejecting the office of Queen or King is a rather central idea of our nation. But Elizabeth is the Queen of England. So we address her as such. Similarly, Sally IS pastor of her church.
Does anyone know if TD Jakes took the Bishop title for himself or was given the title?
There was a conversation a while back in the Washington Post and Slate about how you can be Baptist and a Bishop in the case of Eddie Long. Many commentators assumed that he took the title for himself. However, Long actually was consecrated as a Bishop by his Full Gospel Baptist group (which has an episcopal structure) then he later left that group but kept the Bishop title. Curious to know if Jakes did something similar. Some small Pentecostal groups do have episcopal structures.
For what it is worth, if I was in a conversation with TD Jakes, I would probably call him by his preferred title – Bishop.
It is one translation of a biblical term. Overseer, Bishop.
I see no problem in using his preferred term. If he wanted to be called “Father” or some other term that Jesus spoke against, I might react differently.
This is a dangerous comment, but I observed something in interacting with some predominantly black churches back in Cedar Rapids. Many, perhaps most, of the people in the church had some sort of honorific title.
I asked my good friend (a pastor of one of those churches) if this was a reaction to the systemic disrespect shown by whites over the years of slavery, segregation and discrimination. He believed that to be the case.
Because blacks were so often treated with disrespect or as non-persons in the society, they were careful to maintain titles of honor and respect in the church.
That doesn’t really answer your question, BDW, but your question made me think of that.
It is proper to call heads of state by their titles according to protocol.
‘Bowing’ or ‘curtsying’ or ‘kissing rings’ is NOT required . . .
What is expected to the head of state is a basic civility that we would show any person upon meeting them or being presented to them.
Also, the church has historically been at the center of the African-American community. No other institution has played a greater role in that community than the church.
For many many years, African-Americans were not entitled to the same rights and privileges from governments (local, state and national) as whites. So the “Black Church” took on multiple roles and provided for the physical needs of its community to a much greater extent than white churches.
Pastors are the leaders of the central institution of the African-American community. With that comes titles and other perks – a way of showing respect and honor.
The practical downside to such big titles is the authoritarianism that sometimes follows. Although, one certainly need not be called a Bishop to rule a church in a dictatorial way!
I think that is what I was trying to say, Aaron. The church was the center of lives and was the place that provided a respite and personal respect for people who gained little in their daily lives.
I would bow before the Queen of England. I would call T.D. Jakes Bishop.
In the halls of academia I would call Dave Miller or Aaron Weaver: Dr. Miller or Dr. Weaver, but on a blog thread Aaron is “Big Daddy” and Dave is “Huggy Bear Dave.”
BDW,
Your understanding of these matters and corresponding attitude and practices helps me to understand why minorities tend to vote Democratic/liberal even though their belief systems are usually conservative. At the end of the day, respect for who you are and how you are addressed in your world-when it comes to voting-trumps for many minorities voting for a person or party that share your political views. Your answer to this question demonstrates respect, understanding and appreciation. The question certainly demonstrates a lack of understanding and perhaps demonstrates disrespect.
Dwight
Mark,
What BDW said.
Humm. This is all interesting, and T.D.Jakes position is clearly stated in the above. Seems like my prayer for a third great awakening might be coming to fruition. It will be 40 years in the fall of 2013, since I began to pray for such a visitation. As to politics, you folks need a whole lot more knowledge. You all should read Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope (NY: Macmillian, 1964/65? and his The Anglo American Establishment (circa 1980). The first volume, some 1400 pages of the dullest history you ever read without sources (though the author spent two years at Oxford checking the sources) until you come across the part that tells you there is a conspiracy and that it does run things and it is really opposed to calvinism/determinism, and supports the pluralistic approach. There is more, but I cease least I bore you with a reality that is exceedingly hard to grasp, namely, that the public candidates by a considerable depth are charades of deception. O the last volume re; the establishment is the one that gives you Cecil Rhodes’ last will and testament for the Rhode scholarships. And there are schools of math and science in at least two states for bright kids in grade school and high school who are being groomed for the conspiracy’s one world government that is now in effect and has been for some years….Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! O and the name of the game is control, control, control. Wait until you read that the international treaty plans, etc. were made back around 1906 and the plans specified the 1990s. Sort of like reading about the polaroid camera 4 years before it was patented in 1947. Cf. A.E. Van Vogt in a short story in 1943 describing the same. There is more but I defer.
just a thought . . . your ‘average’ (there is really no ‘average’) person cannot, unless they have memorized a catechism, answer detailed questions on the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And much is left to ‘mystery’, as a lot of the Doctrine was developed as a unified voice of the Church against the heresies of the day.
And then, people don’t realize understand all that they ‘know’.
’
Even among Southern Baptists, there are some definite disagreements about certain detailed points of Trinitarian theology.
I would not judge the Bishop Jakes harshly because his journey into understanding more about the Doctrine has ‘evolved’ over time.
Coming from someone who says that mormons are Christians, your analysis of Jakes and your suggestions are, well, let’s just say they’re somewhat unimportant.
Umm, not to over-simplify this but what exactly is so difficult about Matthew 3:16-17?
I believe any child would understand this to be representing three distinct Persons – not three ‘manifestations’ of the same.
Furthermore, no one owes Jakes any sort of apology for having called him a heretic or refusing to allow his music guy to serve at the SBC function. Until yesterday, he had never clearly stated that he was Trinitarian. In fact, he had used language that would obscure what he believed. Finally, even in his admission yesterday, it’s not what he said that’s the problem. It’s what he DIDN’T say. He did say he was a Trinitarian. He DIDN’T refute modalism as a heresy.
Under the conviction that spirits are to be tested and that this testing is over time, I can only say – we will see.
I am more interested in the letter its self. I get the feeling that this open letter was only written because of the Elephant Room and the assocation with Mark Driscoll. You reference those two things heavily. So, my question is, why did you write this letter? And would you have cared had it not been for Driscoll?
I am also curious in what way Jakes is the “real deal”? You’ve elimanted methodology and exegesis. What is left?
In closing, I hope you don’t feel like I’m coming at you. I’m only asking the questions that are on my mind and have no ill feelings. Not all calvinists are angry.
I stand by my initial comment. Shouldn’t those who have been for years calling for Jakes to publicly clarify his position on the Trinity be applauded and thanked for helping bring about the affirmation of yesterday? I understand castigating those who from this point on would question Jakes’ trinitarianism, but how are those who previously questioned it at fault?
Regarding the pastor’s conference hub-bub last year, if Jakes had only released a statement telling us he was going to affirm Trinitarianism at Elephant Room 2 and to be sure to buy our tickets, maybe it wouldn’t have been a big deal. I think Jakes should be blamed for not releasing a letter or statement of support for his music guy clarifying the modalist controversy. Jakes is a smart man, a public teacher with a very large audience base, and is quite capable of making himself clear on an issue when he wants to.
Josh: Yes, they should. Some have and for that I am grateful.
BTW, here is a post showing more of Jakes’ problematic teaching as well as dealing with what was said at ER2: Elephant Room 2: may we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and orthodox?.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–what he said was not nearly as important as what he DIDN’T say. If he will not reject modalism as heresy and modalists as Christians, then while he may be orthydox, he certainly isn’t someone that should be considered for gospel partnership.
Absolutely!!!
I’m reminded of something James White said after the whole Harold Camping fiasco last year. A lot of people in that movement came to a rude awakening. Many would leave the church for good. Some might just come back. So what do we do when they do? Do we open the door wide open and just welcome them back as brothers? In one sense yes, if they have repented and seen the error of their ways. But do we just plug them back into ministry? No, they were deceived by a false prophet, and have shown a lack of discernment and biblical understanding. If Jake’s comments really are pointing to him changing his mind on essential theology, that is great. But to all of a sudden give him the right hand of fellowship and welcome him without seeing repentance for his modal AND word-faith theology, is very dangerous. We’ll have to thread carefully.
My only comment: I, for one, welcome our new ecumenical overlords.
**SNORT**
**CHUCKLE**
Brandon,
Apparently we did not see the same “conversation.” The issue of Jake’s modalistic views were skirted and what was discussed was such a softball that anyone (to include JW’s and Mormon’s) could have knocked it out of the park.
There are some ‘clarifying questions’ that circle around the early heresies . . . when asked and answered, this helps to find out the ‘understanding’ of a Christian person about complex doctrine such as the ‘Doctrine of the Trinity’ (as formulated by the early Church in Councils).
These clarifying questions don’t require a person to parrot back something. They are intended to explore the person’s view of:
What God Is.
Who God Is.
The Person of Christ.
Who Christ Is.
An example of one such clarifying question is:
‘Who died on the Cross ?’
This explores whether a person comprehends the Personhood of Christ and His Natures, Divine and Human.
What ‘clarifying questions’ could people ask of Bishop Jakes in order to explore his ‘comprehension’ of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,
rather than just ask him to parrot back some lines from a catechism that is considered ‘orthodox’ ?
No questions are needed. He has affirmed that he is Trinitarian. No one here is questioning whether he believes the Trinity. People correctly pointed out that he had not explicitly said so before and deserves no apology whatsoever for how he has been treated. People have also correctly pointed out that he didn’t say enough, particularly that he didn’t state that modalism is a heresy and that modalists are not Christians.
Bart Barber had a good perspective on this. You can (currently) link above on the blog roll, or here’s the link:
http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2012/01/quick-thoughts-about-td-jakes-and.html
I think Bart’s thoughts largely summed up my own.
BDW, the title “Bishop” was given to him by Oneness folks. I’m not sure if those are the same Oneness people from Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies of which he is vice-prelate or not.
So, he is currently vice prelate of a modalist group? Hmmm…
Yes, and he will be present at their upcoming conference this year. http://www.highergroundaaa.com/higher-ground-2012-hgaaa-national-convention
Carl Trueman has an insightful view of the ER discussion:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/01/do-you-beat-your-wife.php
Putting the his whole modalism heresy aside, what about Jakes’ preaching?
You really have no problem with it?
Did you hear his ‘sermon’ at Furtick’s code orange thing?
Taking half a verse so completely out of context and ignoring what it actually says? Then making a ‘sermon’ out of something the verse does not even ‘touch’ upon? (I know, bad pun).
And what about his word-faith & prosperity ‘gospel’ teachings, which have no biblical basis whatsoever?
Frankly, I am saddened by such lack of discernment by so many people who should know better. These are heart breaking times.
Admittedly, I have not followed Jakes that closely, and it would be important to note what he did not repudiate. In fact, he seems to be leaving the door open for the modalists to be accepted to some degree. However, he has come a good deal of the way in admitting that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. Trinity and Unity are together, a mind-boggling doctrine which cannot be reconciled, and was never meant to be reconciled. Both sides provide the tension in the human mind which enables us to reflective, to thinking through, to think synthetically which is considerably more than to think analytically.
Somebody has hacked into Dr. Willingham’s account! No mention of 2000000 years of church history and a third great awakening… somebody let him know to change his password!
Oh… we dont need one here. Yikes!
><>”
You know, Bob, I think that disagreeing with James is perfectly acceptable. But I’ve never seen him be anything but kind in his discussions. I do not see humor in your ridicule of him and his comments.
Yeah, I’ll ditto that.
I know. Of course, it’s not like Bob is only saying that because he’s anti-Calvinist.
In regard to the title “Bishop”: that title as it is used by T.D. Jakes perpetuates the distinction between clergy and laity that is found nowhere in the Bible.
I see no reason to “share in evil deeds” (2John 11). It would not be disrespectful to call him Mr., in my opinion. If that did offend him, it would prove my point even further.
Well, Brother Hadley has run into a problem. He doesn’t want a Third Great Awakening. Amazing, when one considers how the First and Second Great Awakenings transformed the Protestant Reformation from a contentious, combative, conflicted Gospel recovery effort into an out-going, we will win you with persuasion. Perhaps, Brother Hadley would like to use the intimidating methods of the Roman Catholics Inquisition to win over the Reformed. One of my friends father was subjected to one of the instruments developed by that organization, namely, the iron maiden. Brother Hadley reminds me of the hose on the farm that got the bit between his teeth and took off. Eventually, however, the bit got back to the tender jaw area and reality was reasserted with that cayuse. Total depravity, total inability (Jn.6:44,65; I Cors.2:14; Isa. 1:5,6; Eccles.9:3), really, soon becomes evident in man without the Gospel and even especially when the Gospel comes to him. Only his transformation by the message can relieve him of his awful condition.
On what basis is the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity accepted by Southern Baptists? Is the acceptance based on sacred Scripture solely? Or is it also based on tradition?
L’s
Can a muslim or mormon go to heaven without personally, consciously trusting Christ to save them and repenting from their sins? Will God save anyone from another religion through Jesus Christ without them realizing He saved them through Jesus Christ?
Christiane,
Why are you asking this question? Protestants believe in SOLA SCRIPTURA. While some denominations do have traditions, we don’t base our doctrines on anything other than scripture.
You know this already.
Hi KATIE,
I’m looking at the full ‘development’ of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as it was developed in my own Church. It took time. And there was much disagreement which was resolved at the Councils. Even after Nicene, further ‘clarification’ of the Doctrine continued.
Do Southern Baptists accept the Doctrine as it was developed over time in my Church?
Or is the acceptance of this doctrine based solely on sacred Scripture without further clarification found in Church history and tradition ?
I ask because I want to know . . . no need to respond, but I will not assume anything without inquiring.
Katie, if a question of mine upsets you, just ignore it.
I’ll find out sooner or later somewhere . . . I just like the idea of having Southern Baptists answer for themselves . . . a courtesy on my part, with the intent of hearing it from the horse’s mouth.
I remember asking the same sort of question to do with the selection of the Canon of sacred Scripture . . . never got an answer directly, still intend to find out.
Christiane,
I didn’t mean to sound harsh, but looking back at my comment, it does come off that way. I’ll admit that the word ‘tradition’ as it is used by your church sets my teeth on edge. So… if you are asking if Baptists rely on tradition, you have your answer as you know we don’t.
I have read a great deal about how the CathIolic Church developed the Doctrine of the Trinity. But that is not important to me when all is said and done. Scripture tells us what we need to know. I get that for unbelievers the entire idea is schizophrenic, but not for believers who hold to the sacred scriptures.
I do hold to the idea that doctrine can develop over time. But I’d not go any further.
I think it’s not quite so simple.
Theological reflection in the Episcopal and Lutheran denominations relies heavily on tradition. Those denominations that put great weight on historic creeds are certainly going to put a much greater emphasis on Tradition than any Spirit-filled pentecostalized church.
Wesleyan Quadrilateral?
I’ve spent some time reading various blogs and evaluating Jake’s own words from ER2.
There are many conclusions any of us could come to, but I’m not buying that Jakes is a Trinitarian under any orthodox definition. I see much equivocation, dancing around the issue and excuse making. If you remain the VP of an organization that promotes the oneness teachings, then you aren’t a Trinitarian. Not at least under any concept that I can justify.
I understand that we all have a threshold of tolerance for separating from people who promote heresy. I have people I love who are not even Christians. But I couldn’t attend Catholic mass one week and a reformed church the next without having a serious credibility/spiritual problem.
Nope, it ain’t fittin’ it just ain’t fittin.
Good post Brandon,
I happen to think that T.D. Jakes is very wise in not renouncing his modalist connections. Bear with me.
I’ve had several conversations with United Pentecostals over the years. I’ve come to the conclusion that, despite what their doctrinal statement reads, most of them are not true modalists. They (UPCs, that is) affirm one God. They affirm the deity of the Father, Son, and Spirit. They also affirm distinctions among the persons. They are hesitant to make the distinctions we self-labelled trinitarians do because they genuinely fear that it would cause them to worship three gods, rather than one. Their understanding of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is also a caricature. If the Trinity were what UPCs think it is, I wouldn’t want to be a trinitarian either.
Maybe, just maybe, Jakes sees this mass of oneness pentecostals as separated brethren. They are orthodox in their hearts, but their articulation of correct doctrine is not as strong. Maybe he sees them not as heretics, but as true Christians who lack (because of various factors, not the least of which is church cultural climate and the presence of a few real modalists) the ability to articulate and embrace the truth as the rest of us see it. Maybe if he thinks that if he cuts ties with his past, he will lose the opportunity to influence them into right thinking.
There is historical precedent for such a move. In the 56 years between Nicea and Constantinople, Athanasius, the champion of trinitarian orthodoxy did exactly the same thing. Instead of denouncing the vast majority of Arian-leaning (not full-blown, but leaning) Christians as heretics, he wrote one persuasive letter after another begging for reconciliation and a return to the fold. His efforts were largely successful, for by Constantinople the Arian threat had largely passed. He built bridges rather than burned them, and he had a huge hand in helping these folks back into orthodoxy. Maybe this is the reason that this former oneness preacher hasn’t cut the cord. If he denounces them publicly, he loses their ear. They respect him. From the ER, he sounds orthodox to me. So let him do his work. Maybe he knows what he is doing.
Jim G.
Jim,
Thanks for that input. I think Jakes was right in not “blasting” them. He DID in fact say that he has moved away from their theology. He seems to have a more open orthodoxy perhaps than some, but I’m closer to his view of these things than many others.
At times, I think we freak out if something isn’t articulated like we want because we are always assuming people are heretics. Jakes affirmed the Apostle’s Creed at ER2, and talked about sin and redemption… I’m good with him.
Hi Brandon,
If we can, let us view the spectrum of trinitarian thinking as a road with a center line, two lanes, and a ditch on each side. The left ditch is the heresy of real modalism and the right ditch is the heresy of tri-theism.
I would say that contemporary oneness pentecostals are at the left white line. They are not in the ditch, but they are close. But, if the truth be told, all of western theology is on the left side of the road. All of us, Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, start with the one essence of God and proceed to the three persons, which puts us (more or less) left of center. Eastern orthodox, with their idea of the monarchia of the Father, are a little right of center. So I don’t think we are as “centrally orthodox” as we wish we were.
Jim G.
Contemporary oneness pentacostals have completely shipwrecked their faith. They are not Christians because they reject the Trinity.
David: I really think Jim G has given a measured answer to the issue that we have all been chasing. I would note how some groups have changed over the years…as they came to see the light and to realize the error of their ways. We have got to have a better way of dealing with differences than this slam them up against the side of the head with a billy club, if we are going to make any progress toward wholeness. Christian agape love rejoices with the truth; it does not use truth to whack somebody. In the light of Jakes and of the comment by Jim G. let us go as far as we can, remembering that courtesy is a part of the Christian Faith and Love. When the time comes for a strong stand, it will be done with confidence that it is pleasing to God. Like Dr. John A. Broadus in a debate with William Rainey Harper (name ?), He walked out saying as loudly as possibile, “But Jesus said, Moses wrote of me.” And Dr. Broadus said it three times so the whole audience could hear.
What most people don’t know is that the most open theology, the most liberal, the most broad theology, is really Biblical Orthodoxy, and it has to do with how the theology is constructed. Now I will tell a fact I came across in Baptist Church History: John Gano, who reportedly baptized George Washington in the presence of 60 witnesses (acording to Moderate writer, Dr. Garland Hendricks, Prof. of Field Ed. at SEBTS) and who was the last man to speak to the Continental Army before it disbanded at the end of the civil war that we call the American Revolution (that was aided and abetted and supported with firearms by the Baptists, laymen and ministers), anyway, Gano, went to communion with the great Ev. George Whitefield!!! He also preached in the presence of that August Evangelist. Now the theology of biblical orthodoxy was able to win General Baptists over to believing in particular redemption, unite Separate and Regular Baptists, call other Protestant “our pedobaptist brethren” and that when them same brothers might get you whipped by law for preaching as an unlicensed minister (by the state). And I should add that theology enabled educated and uneducated men to work together in advancing the cause of Christ. And that theology transformed Protestantism from a persecutorial likeness to the Catholics into an outgoing persuasive gospel mission effort. There is more, much more, but, if you all knew what I know about that theology and how it works, you would be bombed out of your minds with the dazzling brilliance of it all. I repeat what I have said elsewhere and at other times, the theology will make a believer balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic. In short, a walking subliminal seductive advertisement of the Gospel’s power to transform a sinner into a Christ like saint. I still pray and expect to win the whole earth to Christ, hopefully, beginning with this generation and continue for a total of at least 1000 generations and reaching millions of planets, should mankind reach the stars (if he has not already done so).
Brandon, I’ve never read your blog before. But as it is labeled as SBC voices, then I assume you’re trying to speak for the masses?
There’s a severely missing piece to all of this that may have been mentioned above, but: what about his prosperity gospel preaching? Are you ready to throw out an open letter to Benny Hinn? Should Paul have been kinder to the judaizers since they were “close” instead of targeting them in several of his letters?
A) In no way were Pastor Jakes’ comments clear about a doctrinal position.
B) In no way did MacDonald or Driscoll want to actually challenge him in a way he wasn’t prepared to answer.
C) No one asked about his repeated prosperity gospel preaching. Is there another TBN regular that you really admire?
D) How does a PASTOR need an alternate platform other than his pulpit to clarify doctrine?
Now, I don’t know you, and want to be careful here, but if you listen to much of his teaching and don’t find errors then I would question how Southern Baptist you are. That’s just coming from a pastor in the trenches.
Jay,
Interestingly, I’m a “pastor in the trenches” as well, so we’re on the same page.
I posted this on my site and the editor here at Voices suggested that I post it on this site as well. I do not claim to speak for the masses, nor do I care much for Jakes’ exegesis most times (as I clearly stated in the letter).
This is about more than Southern Baptist life, because there are non-SBCers that love Jesus and are very different from us. My goal here is to be equally discerning, loving, and optimistic toward Jakes because he is clearly moving in the right direction and I’m confident that I’ll see him in Heaven one day.
I was so glad to hear Voddie speak very eloquently to this issue. But let me guess, he’s racist, too, right?
http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/elephant-room-2012-01/
Joe,
And then, there is this which I found extremely disappointing.
http://5ptsalt.com/2012/01/30/voddie-baucham-plays-the-race-card/
It only adds fuel to the fire.
I am guessing that Dwight McKissic thinks Voddie Baucham should apologize to TD Jakes as well…seeing how Dwight is an expert on all thinks TD Jakes and he knew it all along. I am glad we have someone with superior intelligence among us….
Sam,
You sound like you’re doing the same thing that you’re insulting Dwight for. Just sayin’.
Of course, he has not repented of being a proponent of the Word Faith movement and heresy. He also has not repented of teaching a Prosperity Gospel, which is clearly “another Gospel” from that revealed in Scripture.
I am glad that he is moving away from modalism (though the softball questions at the ER did not hit on all pertinent issues)…but let’s not get too quick to affirm him before he addresses these other issues.
Ok, I read what parts of the transcript is outthere, and I do not see him repudating the oneness doctrine…he actually fumbled up what could have been a change in his past stance…seems he left himself a large hole to go through…. However, we still have one great big hurdle…WORD OF FAITH heritcal movement he is very big in….come on guys, this is heresy at it’s best, it is not the true gosple…that is what he preaches, prosperity gospel…if you accept what this man preaches as the gospel do all us a favor and run join this crowd and quit mucking the waters of Baptist life… Jakes is health wealth preacher, i have heard several of his sermons…he does not preach the true gospel… gosh I wish men who say they are called by God would get some guts and just stand for the truth and quit falling all over themselves when the book writers and silk suit guys come to town…
“The furnace that is The Elephant Room” ?
LOL!
It is circus – a bunch of mega-church showmen patting themselves on the back asking each other softball questions and charging $99 to over $300 a seat. Furnace? Give us a break. It is theater of the absurd.
Whether or not Jakes could explain the mystery of the Trinity almost is beside the point. He makes a laughing stock of the gospel and should be derided as a charlatan for this sort of disgraceful behavior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aEn8cAZ9K0
Is there any evidence anywhere that he has repented?
Speaking of T.D. Jakes, Voddie Baucham will be a guest on a special Dividing Line today
Voddie Baucham has had the best response to the whole situation, IMHO.
His article was gracious, thoughtful, and he made very valid points.
Smith,
I only heard a clip, but really? Did he really changed his view on the nature of God? Did he publicly repent of his false teaching on the matter and/or have written/preached a Trinitarian sermon rejecting Modelism? What about his heresy on the “Word of faith”? Has he repented of that as well? I have not read anything to that effect. I would really like to know how you know that he is not a “heretic” still but rather are a “Brother in Christ”. I sure hope it is not just a matter of celebrity-itis Evangelicals seam all to often catch.
Pete,
What is the cure for this evangelical disease you identified as “celebrity-itis”?