The Elephant Room

[Jeff Burns]

I think that Thabiti's question here really highlights why this conference and the speakers have created such a firestorm. It's making people rethink associations... He says:

"For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation. I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines. But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance. Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing? I don’t think so. That decision is easy for me. More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform? Painful. Sobering."

It's easy to decry the event itself, but what do we do with the folks putting it on? That's, as Thabiti says, painful and sobering. (And don't think this isn't one degree of separation away from happening in your circles and mine. It is. Might as well learn from this now while we can.)

And some more from Carl Trueman:

"To be blunt: why so much noise about Jakes when Furtick and Noble have already apparently been established in this Elephant Room circle for some time? Frankly, they hardly seem any closer to Paul's description of what an elder or overseer should be than the Bishop....Surely it is the same horse, just a different jockey, as one former colleague of mine used to say? Are people really surprised that someone comfortable with Furtick has no problem with Jakes? If they are, they should give me a call: I could do them a really good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge."

That's the real humdinger here. Why is everyone suddenly coming out of the woodwork to denounce the invitation of Jakes but not Furtick and Noble. Both men are clowns, goat-herders, sheep beaters, etc. etc. etc. And yet they get a pass from broader evangelicalism and are defended by MacDonald and invited to speak in his church. Shameful.

 

[Pilgrim]

One wonders how long the basically confessional Dever/IX Marks guys will go along with the McDonald/Driscoll megachurch pragmatic guys with these kinds of events and associations. And Thabiti (a Dever protege If I recall correctly) points out an even more troubling aspect with the potential fallout with the black Reformed guys, with them being virtually slapped in the face and disregarded with this invite.

If, as it appears, some in TGC don't really seem to take the gospel all that seriously with regard to drawing boundary lines, then what's the point? If some of the big name guys don't hold up the stop sign soon, (including separation/withdrawal, if need be) then this movement risks going downhill even faster than the "New Evangelicalism" of the mid 20th Century.

As others have noted, if Jakes does actually show up and is called on the carpet about Oneness theology and does not repent, to many it will just look like 4 white guys attacking a black guy. (His music leader withdrew after a furor erupted over his being invited to lead worship at the SBC Pastor's Conference this year.) From Jakes' point of view, I don't know what he would really have to gain by the appearance unless the idea were to perhaps gain a measure of credibility with a different audience.

One might argue that this kind of thing is inevitable with interdenominational non-confessional movements. I'm sure some are already making that argument. But it hasn't derailed the Banner of Truth Trust after 50 years. But then again, I don't think Banner is open to the charge of pragmatism. They've always retained something of the flavor of Lloyd-Jones evangelical separatism and would be squarely in Driscoll's "Old Calvinist" category--largely rural, cessationist, irrelevant, no street cred, etc.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

I never really knew much about MacDonald before his trip to Haiti with Driscoll 2 years ago (that sounds strange coming from a Chicagoan) and didn't pay any real attention to that. I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that. And then this? You don't even have to subscribe to the LBCF/WCF to know that Jakes is one of the last people to invite. If you really want a "black preacher" then why not Anyabwile or Eric Mason. Both of them are within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy.

 

[py3ak]

For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation. I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines. But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance. Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing? I don’t think so. That decision is easy for me. More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform? Painful. Sobering.

I'm glad this has happened: hopefully people will realize that not being Fundamentalist is no excuse for not having a clearly thought-out position with regard to ecclesiastical separation. We need to be clear that there are lines whether of doctrine or association that cannot be crossed; and we need to be ready to be graciously firm about not crossing them.

 

[AThornquist]

If you really want a "black preacher" then why not Anyabwile or Eric Mason. Both of them are within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy.

Their point isn't about getting a "black preacher," it's about loving confrontation. They wouldn't have anything to confront Anyabwile or Mason with.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

If you really want a "black preacher" then why not Anyabwile or Eric Mason. Both of them are within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy.

Their point isn't about getting a "black preacher," it's about loving confrontation. They wouldn't have anything to confront Anyabwile or Mason with.

I thought I had read somewhere that this was a hand to the black church community and since Jakes is such a big name there he was chosen. Thanks for the correction

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.

Yeah, that whole episode was wrong from the word go. I thought Dever deserved an apology especially from the people who planed it. It was a shake down, plain and simple. That and now this have shaken my confidence in the Gospel Coalition. Some of the wiser more reasonable men in that organization need to put a stop to this stuff.

If McDonald wants to do something like this then fine. But I wouldn't allow the GC's credibility to be attached to it.

 

[Andres]

I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.

But what about Driscoll? Are you only going to single out MacDonald for his pragmatism over scripture or isn't Driscoll just as guilty?

 

[Jeff Burns]

I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.

But what about Driscoll? Are you only going to single out MacDonald for his pragmatism over scripture or isn't Driscoll just as guilty?

It'll be a long time before I forget Driscoll shouting down ("ACCORDING TO WHO?! ACCORDING TO WHO?!") Mark Dever during that interview when Dever was trying to bring the discussion back to Scripture and in particular the meaning of ekklesia.... So I think he's just as guilty for pragmatism as MacDonald.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.

But what about Driscoll? Are you only going to single out MacDonald for his pragmatism over scripture or isn't Driscoll just as guilty?

Certainly not, however, this discussion is about MacDonald. I can give my views on that video elsewhere but this didn't seem relevant. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Jeff Burns]

Thabiti Anyabwile has written another helpful post regarding the underlying issues of both things like the Gospel Coaltion multi-site video that was recently brought up and all of the nonsense surrounding the ER2. You can read the whole thing here. I think he really hits the nail on the head. The root cause of the current downgrade in evangelicalism is pragmatism.

These bits are particularly good:

His thesis- "Not asking the why question and delving for a rock solid answer, leaves us open to pragmatism."

On multi-site churches- "That’s what I fear I see in the discussion about multi-site churches. They’re not from the devil, but they’re not clearly from the Bible either. And it seems to me, their adoption reflects the pragmatic concerns of 'how to handle growth' in some cases, or 'how to plant churches.' A really big 'how' squeezes out careful reflections on 'why.'"

On ER2- "Now, the other way pragmatism rears the ugly side of its head is by prematurely asking “Who?” That’s what I fear I see in the Elephant Room invitation of Jakes and others. In the course of last week’s events, the stated purpose of the Elephant Room morphed...."

Here's the kicker- "But what’s the real problem? It wasn’t their earlier purpose statement. The real problem was asking the “who” question before really taking heed to their original “why”–to foster unity among Christian leaders who differ methodologically. Had the organizers of the event stuck firmly to that why, rooted in a careful articulation of biblical command and precept, the “who” would have been dictated by the “why.” Jakes would never have appeared on the short list because a historically orthodox definition of “Christian” would have required clear adherence to the Trinity. But the pragmatic “who” superseded the foundational “why” with the resulting controversy that followed. We might also argue, as others have (here, here, here, and here), that a robust biblical answer to the why’s of pastoral ministry might have pre-empted the invitation of Noble and Furtick, whose ministry philosophies appear to depart significantly from biblical pastoral practice."

Finally, the question that really needs to be answered- "Why invite a man to share your platform who could not be an elder at a biblical church?"

Exactly!!! Noble, Furtick, and Jakes are disqualified from pastoral ministry (for various reasons) at any biblical church. Carl Trueman, Phil Johnson, and now Anyabwile have all pointed this out. And yet these men consistently (at least the former two) get a pass from broader evangelicalism because they have a large following.

 

[Jeff Burns]

Has Mark Dever Withdrawn?

Anyone know if Mark Dever has withdrawn from participating in the ER2?

He is no longer listed on their main page as a participant.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Mark Dever is a key figure in T4G and their statement of faith reads thus:

Article VI

We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of the same substance and perfections.

We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.

That, I think, makes it abundantly clear where Dr. Dever stands on the issue. And if he has withdrawn his participation from ER2, I am truly thankful for his faithfulness.